This article was downloaded by: On: 14 April 2011 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher

Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Sex Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713445425

Listening to the Boys: English boys' views on the desirable characteristics of teachers of sex education
Gillian L. S. Hiltona a Middlesex University, London, UK

Online publication date: 25 August 2010

To cite this Article Hilton, Gillian L. S.(2003) 'Listening to the Boys: English boys' views on the desirable characteristics of

teachers of sex education', Sex Education, 3: 1, 33 45 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/1468181032000052144 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1468181032000052144

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Sex Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003

Listening to the Boys: English boys views on the desirable characteristics of teachers of sex education

GILLIAN L. S. HILTON, Middlesex University, London, UK

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the preferences of boys regarding the characteristics of teachers of sex education. Sex education in English schools is delivered as a compulsory part of National Curriculum Science and in most schools is further explored in time given over to personal, social and health education. Research was carried out in a variety of schools from both the state and private sectors, by the use of focus group interviews and questionnaires. Due to the existing law in England and Wales regarding parents right of withdrawal from classes, only boys of 16 or over were used in this research. Boys want teachers to be empathetic, non-judgemental and able to create a safe environment in order to facilitate the discussion of difcult subjects. Most boys believed that the age and sex of the teacher had little bearing on whether they could deliver the subject well; more important was their ability to generate trust, keep control of classes and use relaxed and informal methods of delivery. Unanimously the boys believed that history and English teachers were more able to full these requirements whereas science and mathematics teachers were considered to be unable to adapt to the relaxed styles required. There was a general belief that teachers should be specially trained in this area of the curriculum. Disagreement was found in areas such as the use of outsiders to deliver sex education. The implications of this research for teacher educators, teachers in training and schools are considerable. Unless boys work with teachers they respect and trust they will continue to have little time for this area of the curriculum, to the detriment of their future relationships. Introduction Sex education in English state schools, is part of the statutory National Curriculum Science, which includes the biology, or plumbing as it is sometimes known, and in many schools is also delivered in the Personal and Social and Health Education (PSHE) curriculum. Changes in the curriculum in recent years have resulted in a decline in the importance of PSHE (Best, 1999). Sex education suffers with all PSHE topics from not being assessed and so too often not taken seriously by many pupils or teachers. The Guidelines for Sex and Relationships Education (DfEE, 2000b) address areas such as

ISSN 1468-1811 (print)/ISSN 1472-0825 (online)/03/01003313 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd DOI: 10.1080/1468181032000052144

34

G. L. S. Hilton

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

relationships, attitudes and behaviour. Inuential too, in the last decade, has been the 1988 Local Government Act Section 28, which prohibits the promotion of homosexuality. The relationship between this Act and school sex education was not specic and, according to the Sex Education Forum (1994) and the British Medical Association (BMA, 1997), is at the least tenuous and possibly legally challengeable. The 1988 Local Government Act is directed towards Local Authorities, not to schools. However, the effect has been to stie teachers and to produce a climate of fear and suspicion in schools, many of which have, as a result, avoided addressing the subject in their sex education provision. This omission has, in many schools, resulted in homophobic bullying going unchallenged (Chaudhary, 1998; Douglas et al., 1999) and students not receiving the information they need. This fact, and the irrelevance of Section 28 to schools, were nally acknowledged in the new draft guidelines for sex education issued for consultation in the spring of 2000 by the Secretary of State. Schools are specically encouraged to address bullying of this kind, though the whole was presented in somewhat obscure language (DfEE, 2000a) and was originally refused by the House of Lords, where a majority of peers wished to retain Section 28. Finally however, the new guidelines, with some revisions, were accepted though the controversial Section 28 problem remains at present unresolved. These guidelines on Sex and Relationship Education (DfEE, 2000b) are now the structure under which schools and teachers plan and deliver sex education to their pupils, though they are still not statutory and parental right of withdrawal from the non-statutory elements of sex education remains. Issues Relating to the Sex Education of Boys (a) The Quality of Sex Education in Schools Within this somewhat confused climate the delivery of these aforementioned nonstatutory parts of sex education and the compulsory AIDS and HIV education has been patchy and varied in quality (Kingston, 1998; Johnston, 1998). Recent concern over the rising numbers of teenage pregnancies and the social and nancial costs of early motherhood has led to the production of the Social Exclusion Unit Report (1999) Teenage Pregnancy Report. This rise, coupled with the increase in sexually transmitted infections (STIs), in particular AIDS and HIV, from heterosexual sex, and teenagers apparent lack of knowledge of other STIs (Thomas, 1996), has led to calls for action (Magowan, 1999) and the inclusion of guidance for teaching about STIs in the guidelines for sex education (DfEE, 2000b). However, despite these intentions, a survey carried out for the Aids Education and Research Trust (Avert) (Lawrence et al., 2000) warned that thousands of young people risk unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections because of poor sex education. The survey quotes the Balding Health Related Behaviour Questionnaire carried out by Exeter University researchers in 1987 and further updated in 1994. This shows that for boys the main source of information about sexual matters is friends, with teachers coming third after parents (Lawrence et al., 2000, p. 26). Goldman and Goldman (1982), in their international research, noted the inaccuracies to which children are exposed when they rely on friends for sexual information. Such a confused educational climate, where policies are left to individual school governing bodies and boys are obtaining their information on sex mostly from friends, does not provide a suitable environment in which to deliver sex education. This is particularly so for boys, as what is being offered is not providing them with the necessary skills of negotiating relationships and talking openly about sexual matters. It is also problematic for their teachers who are left to cope with this uncertain agenda.

Listening to the Boys (b) The Teachers

35

The characteristics of a good teacher are dened in a variety of ways, depending on the perspectives and agenda of those sitting in judgement over them. Parents, pupils, governing bodies, and, in England and Wales, OFSTED and the Department of Education and Skills all have their own opinions, which are not necessarily fully compatible. If sex education is to be successful it is essential that the opinions of the receivers of that education are considered and, if possible, acted upon. Head (1999, p. 86) raises the question of teachers approaches to sex education. He believes that many still employ a scientic objective approach to the subject, which does not, he believes, support the needs of boys who are not at ease with their own bodies (Head, 1999, p. 89). Many writers (Biddulph, 1997; Moir & Moir, 1998) point to the need for more male role models in schools, as boys, they believe, will relate better to male teachers. However, other writers such as Epstein and Johnson (1998) disagree, believing that male teachers often merely exacerbate the competitive, macho behaviour of boys by practising what Kenway et al. (1997, p.32) describe as old style masculinity. Certainly it has always been accepted that good teachers inspire and motivate their students. However, it is difcult to nd an agreed description of what constitutes a good teacher, either in general terms or in relation to sex education. Biddle and Forrest (1997) suggest that teachers of sex education for boys must be well trained in order to cope with the needs of boys, and that they should be familiar with the current research into masculinity as well as media portrayals of what it is to be male. They suggest that teachers should be knowledgeable about the subject area, not embarrassed, have a sense of humour, keep control and not use sarcasm or ridicule to put down and embarrass students. There does appear, however, to be a lack of research in this area from the point of view of the boys themselves. The sex of the teacher has also been suggested (Bleach, 1998) as a cause of boys negative responses, with boys preferring males. This is coupled with the way the teacher responds to boys needs, together with the teachers age and knowledge base. If boys are to be helped to take sex education seriously it is important that the right teacher is involved, and whether girls and boys need the same teacher is questionable. Who then is this right teacher for sex education? Considerations regarding gender, age, subject knowledge, ease in discussing intimate topics and the ability to both motivate and control pupils come into play. Boys, it appears, prefer active learning methods such as role-play, quizzes and competitions. The questions this raises are to do with how teachers are trained and with what teaching methodologies they feel comfortable. Not all teachers are happy with this active type of delivery and are more conversant with the recent concentration in the UK on whole class didactic teaching, as promoted by the National Numeracy and Literacy Strategies. This has led teacher education to focus, particularly in preparation for primary schools, on this method to satisfy the needs of those strategies (DfEE, 1998, 1999).

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

(c) Boys Responses to Education Running parallel to these issues has been the further concern regarding the lack of achievement by boys in the education system. Results and performances by girls have shown a steady rise at all levels throughout the last decade, but boys academic performance has either stood still or improved at a slower rate (OFSTED, 1996; Arnot et al., 1998). Boys therefore have begun to be perceived as a problem within the

36

G. L. S. Hilton

education system as far as both academic achievement and behaviour is concerned (OLeary & Charter, 1996; ACE, 1997). Many reasons have been suggested to explain this growing divide between the educational achievements of the two sexes, from brain structure (Moir & Moir, 1998; Head, 1998) to socialisation (Mac an Ghaill, 1996; Connell, 1989). Head (1998) describes the culture of competition and the prevalence of ghting in boys groups, coupled with the need to establish a hierarchy. This competition he perceives as having the negative effect of producing not only winners but also losers, boys who fail, and that this culture encourages boys to rush at work rather than attempt to understand what they are doing. It has long been recognised that boys generally demand more teacher time than do girls (Clarricoates, 1980) but recently other arguments have been added to the debate such as the supposed girl friendly typical nature of both teaching and the assessment system (Judd, 1996) and the feminisation of the teaching profession (Moir & Moir, 1998). However, others, such as Reed (1998), point to the masculinisation of the education process and the conspiracy of male hegemony in schools, which in most cases goes unchallenged. It is clear that though females outnumber males in the teaching profession, schools are still a male power base as it is more often men who rise to senior positions. Women make up the majority of the profession, but control and power at management levels is still predominantly in the hands of men. Certainly teachers appear to behave differently towards boys, who have a higher prole in school (Epstein et al., 1998) and who demonstrate a range of more troublesome behaviours than do the majority of girls (Nobel & Bradford, 2000). Bleach (1998) believes that boys may misinterpret a softer approach to class control as an indication of an inability to cope. Cohen (1998) believes that boys appear to suffer from peer pressure, in particular the masculine myth of achievement without effort, and it appears that teachers tend to chastise them more harshly than they do girls (Salisbury & Jackson, 1996). Many researchers have pointed to the anti-swot culture prevalent amongst boys (Nobel & Bradford, 2000), school is uncool (Smithers, 1999) being signicant as a reason for boys failures. Rapid changes in society, which have resulted in boys seeing the collapse of their role as family bread winner (Jackson, 1998; Bleach, 1998), appear to have added to the pressures. This, coupled as it is with the decline of male role models in school (the aforementioned feminisation of the teaching profession) and the absence of fathers at home (Moir & Moir, 1998; Bleach, 1998; Nobel & Bradford, 2000), has led, it appears, to many boys not perceiving education as having any relevance to their lives. In some cases this has resulted in educators, particularly those who are attempting to deliver sex education, suggesting that an expectation of boys behaving badly in the classroom is generally fullled and that all educators must learn to work with this (Wood, 1998). Martin (1999) warns that a failure to tackle the male hegemonies that dominate the education system will not aid those boys who are failing, nor help girls continue their upward climb. He believes that the seemingly simple solutions, such as providing factual material for reading, as recommended by the Report Boys and English (OFSTED, 1996), rather than tackling the male is the norm culture will result in failure. (d) Sex Education Delivery The recent directives to schools on the delivery of sex education (DfEE, 2000b), have acknowledged that boys have possibly, in the past, seen sex education as being the province of girls. The guidelines urge schools to pay particular attention to the needs of

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

Listening to the Boys

37

boys (DfEE, 2000b, Section 1.22 & 1.23). In the climate in which much sex education is delivered this is not particularly easy. In many schools the form tutor is the teacher of sex education, though initiatives such as A PAUSE and the Newham Teenage Health Project both successfully use outsiders to support schools in delivering this part of the curriculum to good effect (Evans et al., 1998). There is little evidence of the training of teachers in this area, even though it is seen as essential by most researchers (Biddle & Forrest, 1997; BMA, 1997). Indeed the Social Exclusion Report of 1999 urged the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) to examine whether the Initial Teacher Training (ITT) curriculum should be changed to include this area of education. The reality is therefore that much sex education is delivered in National Curriculum science lessons, with most schools adding to this in PSHE by using a variety of methods and personnel. These include form tutors, heads of year, outside agencies or anyone who happens to be in the staff room at the time (authors own research). Revell (2000) describes the form tutor approach as where PSHE is often squeezed into the tutor period where harassed tutors attempt to deal with notes from parents and disciplinary violations. This lack of consistency in delivery allows little consideration to be given to what boys would prefer in terms of their teacher, though most school staff would acknowledge that this is a difcult area to teach and one with which many would prefer not to be involved.
Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

Research Issues and Methods It appears therefore that if we desire sex education to be relevant to the lives and needs of boys, the right teacher needs to be employed. The question then arises, what is this person like? The aims of the research were to discover the characteristics of sex education teachers that were deemed favourable by boys, what characteristics they considered important and whether a consensus of opinion or differences of opinion were to be found. The hypothesis here was that boys themselves have clear preferences for teachers of sex education with certain characteristics and that these characteristics are not be possessed by many of those of teachers currently employed in the eld. In an attempt to discover whom boys want to deliver sex education in schools, a focus group method was employed. Sixth-form (Year 12) boys from three schools, chosen from a group of eight used for earlier questionnaire research, were asked to volunteer to join focus groups to discuss sex education. The schools were a mixed comprehensive in an outer London Borough (A), a boys-only private (fee-paying) boarding school in the country (F) and a boys-only grammar (selective) school in another London Borough (D). This age group (16 and 17-year-olds) was chosen, as permission from parents did not have to be sought. All the boys were from schools where the researcher had previously issued questionnaires to sixth-formers about their sex education and the focus groups were a follow-up piece of research. In all 24 boys explored issues around sex education. Morgan (1988, p. 12) states that the hallmark of a focus group is the explicit use of the groups interaction to produce data and insights that would be less accessible without the interaction found in the group. In order to ascertain the feelings of boys regarding their sexual education it was necessary to collect qualitative data. Thomas (1996, p. 91), in her research, advocates using focus groups as this research method is particularly valuable in the search for adolescent opinion about sex as it was likely to be a potentially embarrassing subject to discuss. Anderson (1998, p. 203) states that the group composition is fundamental to good focus group technique and that the groups must have some common characteristics related to what is being focussed upon. All the

38

G. L. S. Hilton

boys in this research had undergone sex education in the school they attended and knew each other well. Anderson (1998) sees this as a drawback, as it may inhibit discussion and not allow members of the groups to benet fully. In this particular scenario, the choice of subjects familiar to each other was unavoidable and appeared to add to the groups responses, as they had a shared history to discuss and recall. This familiarity also appeared valuable when dealing with boys of this age group who were being asked to discuss fairly intimate subjects in front of a stranger. No scribe was present as it was felt that another adult could inhibit discussion. Thomas (1996) in her research with adolescents points to ndings by R. and J. Goldman in 1982 which showed that children perceive that adults have problems with discussing sexual matters with them and that adult embarrassment creates a problem with childrens reactions. The focus groups were conducted in the schools during general studies lessons or after school, as was appropriate. The same general questions were asked, but the boys were given freedom to discuss what they thought important and the researcher merely used questions as prompts to encourage discussion. The questions began with an explanation of the research and discussed the boys general opinion of their sex education: how it was delivered and what they had been taught. Following this they were asked to detail the type of person they wanted to teach them about sex and relationship matters, including areas such as the abilities of the teacher to cope with the subject material, their age, sex, personality type, subjects taught, class management ability, training and ability to create a safe environment for discussion. The groups all gave permission for the discussions to be audio-taped and notes were also taken by the researcher regarding who responded, body language and behaviour. The tapes and notes were then transcribed and the ndings collated. Initially the general question headings were used to collate information, then responses were coded so as to reect the general trends of the feelings expressed. This process also took account of any strong disagreement within the groups. The notes taken allowed the researcher to see where responses had been easy for the boys to make and where more difcult and when the boys had appeared comfortable or otherwise with the process. The results from the focus groups were further enhanced by the addition of information gleaned from questionnaire responses received from 386 young people in eight schools in the south of England. The responses of 307 boys (aged 16 and 17 years) to the nal qualitative question on how the sex education they had received could have been improved, along with questions about preferences for teacher characteristics, including age and sex, enhanced the focus group ndings. The questionnaire respondents were also asked to rank in order of preference the following characteristics of teachers: The ability to be easy, relaxed and not embarrassed when giving information. Possessing a wide knowledge of the subject. Ability to make the students feel at ease and able to ask any questions they wish. Ability to keep control of the class. Use of many different methods to deliver the material. Listens to what the students have to say and valuing their opinions

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

The ve other schools used for the questionnaires were a private (fee-paying) boys-only boarding school (C) and four mixed comprehensives in outer (H) and inner (B & G) London boroughs and the country (E). After initial awkwardness, in one case caused by the room used for the discussion being generally used as the detention room (F), the boys in the focus groups relaxed and responded well. There was not complete agreement on the qualities of the right teacher

Listening to the Boys

39

but there was general consensus on many points. On some matter agreement was unanimous.

Results The results are presented here from the focus groups with added information gleaned from the questionnaire responses noted above. The most important quality that a teacher must possess, according to the boys, is the ability to encourage trust in the pupils. This need to trust the teacher came very high on the list of wants. It was most important to believe that the teacher would keep condentiality, and be sufciently approachable to allow the boys to relax and discuss personal and difcult subjects. There was an expressed need for a teacher who could produce a safe environment within which to deal with sensitive subjects and answer questions in a relaxed manner. This was the unanimous belief of all the focus group boys. One boy (F) was doubtful if such a person could ever be found, as whatever happens they gossip about us in the staff room and preferred the idea of outsiders coming into the school, but many believed they had met teachers with that important quality. It was immensely important to the boys that a teacher dealing with sex education did not appear embarrassed by any topic discussed or comment made, as if this happened the teacher would immediately lose credibility with the class. They told tales of teachers who used sarcasm to cope with embarrassing questions and made individuals look foolish in front of their peers, something the boys perceived as unforgivable. This theme was echoed by the responses from the questionnaires where 25% of the boys mentioned this in their responses to the question on how to improve their sex education. All the focus groups agreed that a teacher of sex education should not come from the senior staff who were in charge of discipline, such as deputy heads or year heads. This was interesting, as in many schools the heads of year are those who deal with personal and social education topics such as sex education, believing it unfair to hand it over to an inexperienced teacher. Also the boys wanted someone who can keep control of the class as they had all experienced difculties with teachers who had poor discipline control and believed that this would allow certain elements within a class to be stupid and spoil it for everyone (E). When questioned as to how this desire for class control equated with their request for non-senior teachers the boys became to some extent confused and this led to discussions over the importance of teachers being well informed about the material they had to deliver. The feeling that sex is in your face (D) and needs someone who really knows their stuff (D and F) was very important. One group pointed to the fact that history teachers could manage with reading up on unfamiliar subjects, but that this was not acceptable for sex education (A). Boys from school F particularly insisted that their teacher should not be boring or wafe on for ages and not give us a chance to talk. All the boys agreed that the ideal teacher would include them in the lessons, not just tell and by so doing help them make decisions for themselves. On the subject of the teachers age there was disagreement. At rst most wanted a teacher between 25 and 30 who would be more in tune, they believed, with them and their feelings. As one boy expressed it not someone pushing sixty who lies back and thinks of England sort of stuff (F). Several expressed the wish for a male teacher as they could talk more easily about man sort of stuff (F). When asked why, if this were the case, they were happily talking to an older female researcher, they began to reconsider.

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

40

G. L. S. Hilton

They started to express the opinion that empathy was more important than sex and age and that the ability to talk about anything without being shocked (A), to have experience in working with this material (D and F) and to be trustworthy (F) were more desirable. They felt that the teacher should not be easily fazed by anything they asked and one boy expressed the opinion that knowing the teacher (D) was important. In this he included the researcher, appearing to feel that, as she had visited the school and spoken to the whole sixth form on one occasion, they knew her. Approachability was therefore deemed essential and some boys thought that often adults from outside the school were easier to talk to than teachers they knew well. There was much disagreement over the insider/outsider debate, but when asked if a combination of the two would be useful, most agreed. They came to a general agreement that outsiders would be better for the discussion of attitudes, beliefs, feelings, relationships and sexual behaviour, with the insider better at giving the basic facts. This probably reected their experience of teachers of sex education, as in one particular school sex education was only dealt with in biology and religious studies, which the boys considered biased. They insisted they wanted someone who could give a more balanced view, as one boy put it not just what God thinks (F). After much discussion, all the groups decided that a combination of male and female teachers sharing the delivery of the curriculum would be helpful as they could give male and female points of view. This, for the boys in the single sex schools (D and F) was preferable in most boys opinions to bringing girls into the classroom. There was a feeling expressed by many of the boys from single-sex schools that they would nd the inclusion of girls too difcult to cope with, though they acknowledged that including girls in lessons would be better practice when teaching sex education. The boys in the mixed school, however, were happy to have mixed classes. Some of the boys in the single-sex schools, both in the focus groups (4 boys) and in the questionnaire responses (11%), particularly wished for a female teacher as women are better at this relationships stuff (D). The ability of the teacher to cope with the subject matter and deliver it in a way which involved and engaged the boys led them to believe that teachers of certain subjects would do better than others. Teachers of history and English were popular as it was perceived that they could deal with active teaching methods, such as role-play and discussion. Overwhelmingly, the boys believed that in mathematics teachers should not be allowed to teach sex education as they cant cope (A) and are generally dreadful (F). These comments came from the boys personal experiences, having being made to work individually, heads down in mathematics in what they saw as a competitive manner, which they believed, whilst acknowledging its frequent presence, has no place in sex education classes. The matter of teacher training was also raised. In England there is no requirement in teacher education to prepare students for the delivery of this part of the curriculum and many teachers therefore have to approach sex education with no training. There was a difference of opinion amongst the boys in the focus groups, in that some believed that all teachers should be prepared for this work whilst others thought that some teachers should specialise in this area alone. However, there was concern that such teachers would become isolated within the school and that personal and social education had no particular standing within school communities. This, they believed, would lead to difculties for that specialist teacher in establishing relationships with pupils. It was suggested that dual subject training was the answer. Within this training should be a strong element of classroom management skills. Many of the boys spoke of lessons spoiled by other students mucking about and that the teacher couldnt control them.

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

Listening to the Boys

41

They acknowledged that this type of behaviour was closely aligned with the need to be macho and hard and that peer pressure on adolescent boys to project this image is very strong. Teachers needed, they believed, to understand this and be prepared to cope. The questionnaire results, on the whole, echoed the focus group ndings, though when asked to rank a group of teacher characteristics in order of importance, the class control issue seemed to be considered less important by the questionnaire respondents than by the focus groups. voted rst and most desirable was the ability to be easy, relaxed and not embarrassed when giving information. second came the need for wide knowledge of the subject. third, a teacher who makes the students feel at ease and able to ask any questions they wish. fourth, someone who listens to what the students have to say and values their opinions. fth, someone who can keep control of the class. sixth, a teacher who uses many different methods to deliver the material. This was to an extent a pointer to the students lack of experience of a wide variety of possible teaching methods, which was also mentioned by the focus groups. However, it did contrast with the focus groups request not to be talked at and their desire for a more participatory structure.
Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

Thirty percent of the boys who responded to the questionnaire believed that the age of the teacher was important, whilst 55% thought it unimportant and 15% were undecided. When asked if they preferred a young teacher or one who was empathetic, 62% preferred the latter to the former. Sixty-eight percent had no preference as to the sex of the teacher, whilst 15% wanted the same sex teacher and slightly more preferred a teacher of the other sex. This response, if anything, echoed the focus group boys belief that women were often better at teaching this subject than men. This is in contrast to the claims of Forrest (1998), Sex Education Forum (1996) and Salisbury and Jackson (1996) who believe that boys prefer male teachers. The questionnaire replies on respondents opinions of how sex education could be improved elicited several comments about non-boring teachers, more active teaching methods and teachers who had a good knowledge of the subject area. Again the respondents turned to the question of embarrassment with 23 boys requesting teachers who were not embarrassed by teaching sex education. Conclusions What then are the implications for teacher educators from these opinions? With an ever-lowering age of puberty and sexual experimentation, teachers need to be prepared to work in this area of the curriculum. In general the boys requests were similar to the suggestions, provided by Biddle and Forrest (1997), of the desired characteristics of sex educators for boys. In England and Wales, with the greatly overcrowded and pressured training schedule, it is difcult to see where the time to prepare student teachers for such subject matter and suitable methods of delivery can be found if the present regime continues. With the overwhelming emphasis on raising standards of literacy and numeracy and the pressure of league table results, unassessed and non-statutory personal and social education is not likely to be prioritised by headteachers. There is a great need for young peoples requests to be acknowledged and acted upon. In this research the boys expressed clear and strong needs for this area of the curriculum to be extended, and

42

G. L. S. Hilton

wanted highly trained teachers who could cope with their questions and were relaxed, unembarrassed and in control. Goldman and Goldman (1982) elicited similar responses in their research, with students requesting specialist teachers whom they would feel more able to trust. Goldman and Goldman raised similar concerns in that students found it difcult to ask questions, with some subject teachers more able to respond than others. In their research, science, hygiene and physical education teachers were deemed better at answering questions about sex. In the research reported here, however, the boys particularly objected to the use of mathematics and science teachers, preferring those trained in English or history instead. Would it be preferable to restrict the teaching of sex education to experienced teachers and not expect the newly qualied to work in this area? This is a fairly frequent strategy in many schools. However, such a strategy would not meet the request of the boys in these focus groups for non-senior staff who were not involved in the discipline hierarchy of the school. The question can be asked: are senior staff, though experienced, necessarily the right people to work in this area, or are personal qualities such as empathy and the ability to use active teaching methods more important? In the opinion of the boys involved such personal qualities and the use of appropriate teaching methods are more important than years of teaching experience. Goldman and Goldman (1982) found that English students preferred younger teachers who were easier to talk to. However, the ndings from both the focus groups and the questionnaire responses reported here put empathy, ease of delivery and knowledge far above the importance of youth. The possibility of leaving this area of the curriculum to outsiders could be considered, but this may not be necessarily desirable or successful (Hilton, 2001). Possibly a way forward would be compulsory professional development for teachers wishing to work in the area, with courses leading to a postgraduate qualication. However, this assumes that sex education is only addressed in specic timetabled slots, whereas in reality questions and concerns may arise at any time. Better, therefore, would be for some teachers to be trained in PSHE as a specialism and all trainee teachers to receive good and comprehensive input during initial training courses, with further updates during subsequent service. This is an important area of the curriculum and if time cannot be found in the present model of teacher training in England and Wales then the initial teacher training curriculum needs to be re-examined, compared to the preparation teachers receive in other countries, and replanned and extended. It is certainly true from the responses of the boys, supported by comments on the questionnaires, that the training of teachers in suitable methodologies to use in sex education classes is essential and that both teachers and outsiders must be able to control classes. This is a particular issue when using visitors who, though experts in subject knowledge, were often found by the boys to be unable to keep discipline. Schools also need funding to be provided if they are to bring in outside specialists such as theatre in education groups and specialists in areas such as peer tutoring. Sex education has long been a neglected area of the curriculum, highly unpopular with many teachers, but the boys who took part in this research clearly demonstrated the requirement for urgent action and a better response to their needs. Sex education for them needs to be discussed from a male perspective, though not necessarily with a male teacher. The requirement for a teacher who can be deemed trustworthy is a further challenge. Teachers do, as the boys claimed, gossip about the pupils in the staffroom. There is agreement here with the ndings of Goldman and Goldman (1982) in their research carried out in Australia, England, North America and Sweden where the respondents clearly showed their mistrust of teachers and their belief that their questions and comments would not be

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

Listening to the Boys

43

treated condentially. The problems of condentiality and trustworthiness might be thought to sit oddly with the requirement on the professional teacher to disclose any concerns they have about possible sexual abuse. Once again teachers are left in a vulnerable position and some young people feel that they cannot rely on teachers to discuss their personal problems in condence. However, the position of a teacher here could be questioned in that they may be seen as usurping the parental role or becoming pseudo social workers. All these difcult areas could tend to make teachers reluctant to become involved and afraid to give pupils the support they need. Meanwhile, boys in schools are not receiving the help they require. Possibly counsellors in every school would help, but such counsellors would only reach those boys who ask for guidance and to many boys such a relationship would be unthinkable. What is required here is: Better training for all teachers in this area, with specialists in all schools. All teachers to be trained in interpersonal skills, particularly in the skills of negotiation required to deal with the tendency of boys to settle arguments by physical means. An emphasis on enabling teachers to develop empathy with pupils, whilst not becoming one of the boys. A higher prole for PSHE in the school curriculum. More support and resources for teachers in this area of the curriculum. Clearer guidelines which are statutory and applied to all students in all schools state and private. A better partnership between parents and teachers in order to help boys become men. This is by no means a simple or easy task, but one that is highly worthwhile. With the UK government drive to reduce teenage pregnancy and the expressed need of the boys here for better and more comprehensive sex education taught by teachers who want to be involved, the implications for initial teacher training are enormous. Recent revised guidelines from the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE, 2000b) have specically targeted the needs of boys, but as yet the Teacher Training Agency is silent. For the boys here it is too late but for the sake of future generations change is essential. Correspondence: Gillian L. S. Hilton, Middlesex University, Trent Park, Bramley Road, Oakwood, London N14 4YZ, UK; e-mail: g.hilton@mdx.ac.uk REFERENCES
ACE (1997) Boys are bad news ACE Bulletin 79, October. ANDERSON, W. (1998) Sexual Health in Cyberspace National HIV Prevention Information Service; http://www.hea.org.uk/nhips/index.html ARNOT, M., GRAY, J., JAMES, M., RUDDUCK, J. with DUVEEN, G. (1998) Recent Research on Gender and Educational Performance (London, OFSTED). BEST, R. (1999) The impact of a decade of change on pastoral care and PSE: a survey of teachers perceptions, Pastoral Care, 17(2), June. BIDDLE, G. & FORREST, S. (1997) Supporting sex and relationships education for boys in secondary school in: G. LENDERYOU & C. RAY (Eds) Lets Hear it for the Boys! (London, National Childrens Bureau). BIDDULPH, S. (1997) Raising Boys (Berkeley, CA, Celestial Arts). BLEACH, K. (Ed.) (1998) Raising Boys Achievement in Schools (Staffordshire, Trentham Books). BRITISH MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (1997) School Sex Education: good practice and policy (London, BMA). CHAUDHARY, V. (1998) Bullying of gays rife in schools, The Guardian, 13 March.

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

44

G. L. S. Hilton

CLARRICOATES, K. (1980) The importance of being Ernest Emma Tom Jane. The perceptions and categorisations of gender conformity and gender in primary schools, in: R. DEEM (Ed.) Schooling for Womens Work (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul). COHEN, M. (1998) A habit of healthy idleness: boys underachievement in historical perspective, in: D. EPSTEIN, J. ELWOOD, V. HEY & J. MAW (Eds) Failing Boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement (Buckingham, Open University Press). CONNELL, R. W. (1989) Cool guys, swots and wimps: the interplay of masculinity and education, Oxford Review of Education, 15(3), pp. 291302. DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1998) National Literacy Strategy (London, DfEE). DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1999) National Literacy Strategy (London, DfEE). DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (2000a) Sex and Relationship Education, Draft for consultation; www.dfee.org.uk DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (2000b) Sex and Relationship Education Guidance (London, DfEE). DOUGLAS, N., WARWICK, I., KEMP, S., WHITTY, G. & AGGLETON, P. (1999) Homophobic bullying in secondary schools in England and Walesteachers experiences Health Education, 99(2), pp. 5360. EPSTEIN, D., ELWOOD, J., HEY, V. & MAW, J. (1998) (Eds) Failing boys? Issues in Gender and Underachievement (Buckingham, Open University Press). EPSTEIN, D. & JOHNSON, R. (1998) Schooling Sexualities (Buckingham, Open University Press). EVANS, D., REES, J., OKAGBUE, O. & TRIPP, J. (1998) Negotiating sexual intimacy: A PAUSE develops an approach using a peer-led, theatre-for-development model in the classroom, Health Education, 6, pp. 220229. FORREST, S. (1998) Giants and Cuteys Boyhood and Learning to be a man, Unpublished conference paper, National Childrens Bureau Conference Lets hear it for the boys, Abbey Community Centre, 3 April. GOLDMAN, R. & GOLDMAN, J. (1982) Childrens Sexual Thinking (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul). HEAD, J. (1998) Understanding the Boys (London, Falmer). HILTON, G. L. S. (2001) Sex Educationthe issues when working with boys, Sex Education Journal, 1(1), pp. 3141. JACKSON, D. (1998) Breaking out of the binary trap: boys underachievement schooling and gender relations, in: D. EPSTEIN, J. ELWOOD, V. HEY, & J. MAW, (Eds) Failing boys? Issues in Gender and Achievement (Buckingham, Open University Press). JOHNSTON, C. (1998) Urged to get real on relationships, TES, 7 July. JUDD, J. (1996) Girls sweep past boys in the exam race, The Independent, 22 April. KENWAY, J., WILLIS, S., BLACKMORE, J. & RENNIE, I. (1997) Masculinity, violence and schooling, challenging poisonous pedagogies, Gender and Education, 9(1), pp. 119133. KINGSTON, P. (1998) Boys left in the dark over sex, The Guardian, 25 Nov. LAWRENCE, J., KANABUS, A. & REGIS, D. (2000) A Survey of Sex Education Provision in Secondary Schools (Horsham, Avert). MAC AN GHAILL, M. (1996) Understanding Masculinities (Buckingham, Open University Press). MAGOWAN, C. (1999) Pill wards off sexual diseases say pupils, TES; www.tes.co.uk8484/tp/9000000/ edition/editionhtml March 12th MARTIN, J. (1999) Gender in education, in: D. MATHERSON, & I. GROSVENOR (Eds) An Introduction to the Study of Education (London, David Fulton). MOIR, A. & MOIR, B. (1998) Why Men Dont Iron; the Real Science of Gender Studies (London, Harper Collins). MORGAN, D. I. (1988) Focus Groups for Applied Research (London, Sage Publications). NOBEL, C. & BRADFORD, W. (2000) Getting it Right for Boys and Girls (London, Routledge). OFSTED (1996) Boys and English (London, HMSO). OLEARY, J. & CHARTER, D. (1996) Anti-school bias blights boys for life, The Times, 6 March. REED, L. R. (1998) Zero tolerance gender performance and school failure in: D. EPSTEIN, J. ELWOOD, V. HEY & J. MAW (Eds) Failing Boys? Issues in Gender and Underachievement (Buckingham, Open University Press). REVELL, P. (2000) The moral in the tale, education@guardian, 21 March, p. 16. SALISBURY, J. & JACKSON, D. (1996) Challenging Macho Values: Practical Ways of Working with Adolescent Boys (London, Falmer Press). Sex Education Forum (1994) Developing and Reviewing a School Sex Education Policy: a positive strategy (London, National Childrens Bureau).

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

Listening to the Boys

45

Sex Education Forum (1996) Supporting the needs of boys and young men in sex and relationships education, Forum Factsheet 11. SMITHERS, R. (1999) Self-esteem the key for macho boys who scorn uncool school, The Guardian, 16 March. Social Exclusion Unit (1999) Teenage Parenthood Report (London, HMSO). THOMAS, B. G. (1996) Teenage sexual health promotion, Journal of the Institute of Health Education, 34(3), pp. 8994. THORNE, B. (1993) Gender Play: Girls and Boys and School (Buckingham, Open University Press). WOOD, A. (1998) Sex education for boys, Health Education 3 pp. 9598.

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011

Downloaded At: 11:31 14 April 2011