when female leaders outnumber men: the decline of male
TRANSCRIPT
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjgs20
Journal of Gender Studies
ISSN: 0958-9236 (Print) 1465-3869 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjgs20
When female leaders outnumber men: the declineof male school principals in Australia
Kevin F. McGrath
To cite this article: Kevin F. McGrath (2019): When female leaders outnumber men:the decline of male school principals in Australia, Journal of Gender Studies, DOI:10.1080/09589236.2019.1642739
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1642739
Published online: 16 Jul 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 137
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
FORUM
When female leaders outnumber men: the decline of maleschool principals in AustraliaKevin F. McGrath
Department of Educational Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACTWhile the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions hasbeen an important marker of gender inequality internationally, organisa-tions may be unprepared for the possibility that such representation maybe reversed. Focusing specifically on the education labour market in NewSouth Wales, Australia, in this paper I examine the gender composition ofschool leadership positions over time. Drawing on workplace data fromGovernment schools, I find that the representation of female primaryschool principals has increased from 33.8% in 1998 to 66.4% in 2018.Female secondary school principals have similarly increased from 22.0%in 1998 to 48.4% in 2018. Although an overall decline of male teachershas been observed in this context, and despite advantageous promotionrates for male staff, the data indicate that declining male participation issharper in leadership positions than in classroom teaching positions.These findings raise important questions about organisational responsesto shifting markers of gender inequality.
ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 7 July 2019Accepted 9 July 2019
KEYWORDSFemale principals; maleteachers; gender equality;workforce diversity; schoolleaders
Introduction
The Australian workforce is highly segregated by gender and female-dominated industries have been histori-cally undervalued (Broderick, Goldie, & Rosenman, 2010, p. 13).
Whilst The Global Gender Gap Report 2006 (Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2006) recognized Australiaas an international leader in ‘closing the gender gap’, subsequent analyses of disaggregated datashowed gains in female employment participation were typically located in part-time and casualpositions, where quality of work tends to receive higher scrutiny and career advancement oppor-tunities are limited (Barns & Preston, 2010). Notably, and despite an increase in gender equalitystrategies across industries, the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions remains anarea of concern and a significant marker of gender inequality in the workplace (CommonwealthGovernment of Australia, 2018). To address the low representation of women in decision makingpositions in New South Wales (NSW) – Australia’s most populated State – in 2015 the NSW Premiercommitted to increasing the representation of women in leadership positions from 33.0% to 50.0%by 2025 (Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2018; see also NSW Government, 2019). Littleconsideration, however, appears to have been given to how such pursuits might play out in‘female-dominated’ professions. In the Australian teaching profession, for example, recent researchtracking a decline in male participation over 50 years has predicted that male school personnel(teachers and principals) may reach a nation-wide ‘extinction point’ in Government primary schoolsin the year 2054 (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2017). In response to this research, in 2018 the NSW
CONTACT Kevin F. McGrath [email protected] Department of Educational Studies, Macquarie University,Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIEShttps://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2019.1642739
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
Department of Education launched the Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2018–2022; the firstGovernment education workforce diversity strategy in Australia to include both male teachersand women in leadership positions as key focus areas (NSW Department of Education, 2018). Theinclusion of male teachers as a key focus area, however, was publicly opposed by the NSWTeachers Federation because ‘ . . . there is a higher percentage of men in promotions [sic] positionswhen compared to the cohort for women’ (2018). This position is consistent with observationsmade 15 years ago that ‘ . . . despite the declining percentage of male primary teachers, themajority of Australian primary school principals remain male’ (Smith, 2004, p. 8). The presentpaper seeks to test these assertions by providing current information on trends in gender dispa-rities in the NSW education workforce, but does not attempt to analyse whether or not anychanges identified are beneficial to society.
Women in leadership positions in NSW schools
Despite teaching being widely regarded as a female-dominated industry, historically, leadershippositions in Australia’s schools have been male-dominated. Such structural gender representationsare likely to perpetuate divisive perceptions of male dominance and female subordination(Bourdieu, 2001; Connell, 2005); with children’s schooling experiences involving female teachersworking under and reporting to male leadership. Attention to this structural inequality in theteaching profession was highlighted in Australia in 1975, the United Nations International Year ofWomen. At this time the Australian Whitlam Government committed funding to initiate a ‘Women’sProgram’ as part of the NSW Teachers Federation. The Women’s Program continues to supportwomen in the teaching profession through, for example, the annual Women’s Conference, theAnna Stewart Program, trade union training, and the Rosemary Richards Scholarship for women(funded by the Australian Education Union) (NSW Teachers Federation, n.d.). In addition to theseinitiatives, the NSW Department of Education supports women in leadership positions through theWomen in Educational Leadership Network, the Springboard Women’s Development Program,encouraging women to participate in the NSW Leadership Academy program, and by supportingflexible work arrangements for women in leadership positions (NSW Department of Education,2018, 2019a). It is unclear, however, how these initiatives and the declining representation of maleteachers have shaped the gender composition of school leadership positions.
The present study
In this paper, I seek to better understand the notion that more men than women are promoted inNSW Government schools, and consider whether or not the decline in male teachers has impactedthe gender composition of school leadership positions. It may be, for example, that a decline inmale teachers has amplified positive discrimination for men in gaining promotions, perhaps asa means of retention or due to status expectations, resulting in male presence becoming concen-trated in managerial roles. Alternatively, it may be that the decline in male teachers has resulted inan increase in the representation of women in leadership positions, perhaps due to reducedcompetition with men in gaining promotions. To investigate these possibilities, I focus on tworelated questions:
(1) Has the promotion rate of male and female school staff in NSW Government schoolschanged over time?
(2) Has the gender composition of school leadership in NSW Government schools changed overtime?
The present paper represents a preliminary and descriptive investigation of the gender composi-tion of leadership positions in NSW Government schools. Further research is needed to compare
2 K. F. MCGRATH
and track the gender composition of leadership positions and promotion rates for men and womenacross school systems and Australia’s States and Territories. Nevertheless, this initial investigationmay help to stimulate further discussion and guide policy development and future research ingender studies, both in the education sector and more broadly.
Method
NSW Government schools represent the largest school system in Australia; with 798,777 students,and 48,423 teachers in 2,206 public schools (NSW Department of Education, 2019a). To investigatethe gender composition of leadership positions in these schools, data was derived from NSWDepartment of Education annual reports, published publicly online (NSW Department of Education,2019b). Reports for the period 1998–2018 were downloaded and data entered for the gendercomposition of school principals. Between 2004 and 2007 (around the time of the NSWGovernment Action Plan for Women 2003–2005) data was missing and estimations were calculatedusing data from 2003 and 2008. For the period 2012–2018, data was separated by leadershippositions (assistant principals and head teachers, deputy principals, and principals). Data showingthe number of male and female staff promoted in primary and secondary schools was alsopublished in reports between 2012–2018. Results are presented graphically and descriptively toexamine (i) the promotion rate of male and female school staff over time and (ii) the gendercomposition of school leadership positions over time.
Results
Promotion rate of male and female school staff over time
The percentage of male school staff receiving promotions indicates a gradual decrease in theproportion of male personnel being promoted (see Figure 1). Whilst this decrease may simply bereflective of the overall decline of male school staff, the percentage of male staff receivingpromotions appears slightly higher than the overall representation of men in the workforce. Forexample, in 2018, while male staff made up 17.3% of the primary school workforce, 22.9% of
Total men
promoted
(primary), 22.9
Total men
promoted
(secondary), 43.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20
18
20
17
20
16
20
15
20
14
20
13
20
12
Figure 1. Percentage of all promotions going to male school personnel in primary and secondary schools (2012–2018).
JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 3
promotions went to male school staff. Similarly, in secondary schools in 2018, while men made up39.8% of the workforce, 43.1% of promotions went to male school staff.
When considering male and female, primary and secondary school staff as distinct groups,further differences in promotion rates are observed. The group with the lowest representation inNSW Government schools emerge as the most likely to be promoted, with 30.1% of male primaryschool staff receiving promotions in 2018 (see Figure 2) compared to 21.3% of female primaryschool staff. Male secondary school staff are also slightly more likely to receive a promotion thanfemale secondary school staff, with 24.5% of male secondary staff being promoted in 2018compared to 21.3% of female secondary staff. These gender disparities are shrinking over time,however.
Gender composition of leadership positions over time
Comparing the representation of male classroom teachers and school leaders (assistant principalsand head teachers, deputy principals, and principals) indicates a sharper decline in the representa-tion of male staff in leadership positions than in classroom teaching positions in both primary andsecondary schools (see Figure 3) as well as a decrease in the absolute numbers of male staff inleadership positions (see Table 1). Whilst male representation is proportionately higher in leader-ship positions than in classroom teaching positions, this disparity is shrinking over time.Additionally, the representation of male staff in leadership positions is lower than the representa-tion of female staff in leadership positions in both primary and secondary schools. The representa-tion of male school staff by type of leadership position further indicates that proportionately, in2018 the representation of men in deputy principal positions was lower than the representation ofmen in classroom teaching positions in NSW Government primary schools (see Table 1). Whilst thenumber of male deputy principals in primary schools appears stable, the percentage of maledeputy principals in the workforce more than halved over the past seven years, indicating an
0
10
20
30
40
50
2018201720162015201420132012
% women promoted (primary) % men promoted (primary)
% women promoted (secondary) % men promoted (secondary)
Figure 2. Percentage of women and men receiving promotions in primary and secondary schools.Note: Percentage promoted includes all executive level positions (principal, deputy principal, and assistant principal). Principal positions includesix levels. From 2018, however, principals were excluded and assigned to a ‘corporate unit’.
4 K. F. MCGRATH
overall increase in the number of primary school deputy principal positions and of women in thosepositions over time.
Finally, when looking at the representation of male staff at the highest level of school promotionpositions, the data indicates a rapid decline in the representation of male principals in NSWGovernment schools over the past 20 years (see Figure 4). The representation of male primaryschool principals has decreased from 66.2% in 1998 to 33.6% in 2018. In secondary schools, therepresentation of male principals has decreased from 78.0% in 1998 to 51.6% in 2018.
Discussion
The present paper sought to investigate the notion that more men than women are promoted inNSW Government schools, and to consider whether or not a decline in male teachers has impactedthe gender composition of school leadership positions. The results indicate that differentialpromotion rates which appear to advantage male staff, particularly in primary education, havenot translated into more male personnel in leadership positions. While differences in promotion
Classroom
teachers
(primary), 15.7
Leadership
positions
(primary), 22.9
Classroom
teachers
(secondary), 38.8
Leadership
positions
(secondary), 40.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
20
18
20
17
20
16
20
15
20
14
20
13
20
12
Figure 3. Percentage of male school personnel in leadership positions and classroom teacher positions in primary andsecondary schools (2012–2018).
Table 1. Male school personnel by school position in 2012 and 2018.
2012 2018
Position n male % male n male % male
Primary schoolClassroom teacher 3,023 16.4 3,200 15.7Assistant principal 805 22.1 708 19.6Deputy principal 106 31.2 105 14.6Principal 802 44.4 567 33.6
Secondary schoolClassroom teacher 7,340 41.2 6,614 38.8Assistant principal/Head teacher 1,902 49.4 1,576 41.5Deputy principal 457 58.4 343 46.5Principal 261 62.0 224 51.6
JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 5
rates for male and female staff are shrinking over time, female staff increasingly hold a greatershare of promotion positions in both the primary and secondary education workforce – reflectiveof greater representation overall. Although proportionately, male staff have higher representationin leadership positions than in classroom teaching positions, surprisingly, the data indicatesa sharper decline of male representation in leadership positions than in classroom teachingpositions. In the last 20 years the representation of male secondary school principals dropped by26.4% and the representation of male primary school principals dropped by 32.6%.
There are two potential explanations for the proportionately higher representation of men inleadership positions than in classroom teaching positions. These explanations are nonexclusive andmay occur simultaneously. First, noting research indicating that men who choose to work asteachers face criticism and even suspicion for choosing a career regarded as stereotypicallyfeminine (Davis & Hay, 2017; Foster & Newman, 2005), leadership positions may be pursued bymale teachers to offer a sense of identity protection; suggesting that men who choose to work withyoung children are less likely to be perceived negatively if in a managerial position. Second, maleschool staff may receive positive discrimination in gaining promotion (Smith, 2004) because ofboth lower representation and status expectations (see Roth, 2004; Yoder, 1991) or as a mechanismfor retention. In other words, where male representation is particularly low, male school staff maybe advantaged in gaining promotion because they receive a disproportionate awareness share (seeKanter, 1977), are perceived to bring something unique to the workplace, or are perceived to havethe stereotypically masculine characteristics required for managerial work. Such possibilities arereflective of the differential treatment of male versus female ‘token’ groups in female-dominatedversus male-dominated workforces (Yoder, 1991). Notwithstanding these possibilities, the afore-mentioned results suggest there may be unidentified issues regarding the retention of male schoolstaff after they are promoted, highlighting a potential avenue for future research.
Principals
(primary),
33.6
Principals
(secondary),
51.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20
18
20
17
20
16
20
15
20
14
20
13
20
12
20
11
20
10
20
09
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
20
01
20
00
19
99
19
98
Figure 4. Percentage of male school principals in primary and secondary schools (1998–2018).
6 K. F. MCGRATH
These findings require careful consideration by policy makers and those with political power.Australian education systems have a history of falling into rhetoric of competing victims;arguing whether girls or boys, women or men, are disadvantaged by the education system(Mills, 2003). For example, establishing test score gaps as a marker of inequality for girlsprovoked a ‘backlash’ from boy advocates when test score results began to show disadvantagefor boys (Weaver-Hightower, 2003). The magnitude of this backlash is exemplified by theAustralian parliamentary inquiry into boy’s education, Boys: Getting It Right (House ofRepresentatives Standing Committee on Education and Training, 2002). Hence, the identificationof numeric representation in leadership positions as a marker of inequality for women mayunintentionally have established the foundation for a similar backlash should male representa-tion in leadership positions fall. The potential for this reaction is somewhat predictable fromthose wishing to perpetuate discourse of ‘male disadvantage’, that men are in ‘crisis’, or thateducation systems are becoming ‘feminized’. Such divisive arguments place blame on femaleschool staff and function to further reduce the occupational prestige of work performedpredominantly by women – promoting workforce inequalities rather than addressing them.Given the predictability of these arguments from some, well-planned responses from educationauthorities are critically important. While the rapid decline of men in leadership positions inNSW Government schools may contribute to mounting pressure to develop initiatives thatcounter a decline of men in the teaching profession, such initiatives need not ‘threaten’ therepresentation of women in leadership positions. Indeed, workforce diversity of gender, age,ethnicity, language background, culture, and religion is often pursued to promote an inclusiveworkplace that reflects the broader community and to ensure the representation of variousgroups at decision making levels; with important implications for employee satisfaction andretention (McCuiston, Ross Wooldridge, & Pierce, 2004). Hence, it is important that considerationis given to the numerous dimensions of social identity that the teaching workforce comprise ofat both the classroom level and in leadership positions.
The findings presented herein may help to guide organisational responses to shifting markersof gender inequality. Although men once dominated school leadership positions in NSWGovernment schools, this is no longer the case. Given that women are underrepresented inleadership positions across numerous other industries, however, any attempt to redress thedeclining representation of male school staff, particularly in leadership positions, is perhapslikely to face criticism. Indeed, gains in female leadership in NSW Government schools maycontribute to the overall goal of increasing the representation of women in leadership roles inthe broader NSW Government sector (NSW Government, 2019). Although the NSW Departmentof Education’s Diversity and Inclusion Strategy 2018–2022 includes both male teachers andwomen in leadership positions as key foci (NSW Department of Education, 2018), as long aspromotion rates indicate male advantage – and despite the possibility that differential promo-tion rates are in part a symptom of lower representation for male token groups – it is perhapsunlikely that the rapidly declining representation of male school principals will be consideredworthy of intervention. In fact, the results presented herein might suggest that an effectivestrategy for increasing the representation of women in leadership positions is to decrease theoverall representation of male staff. Whilst the presentation of this data suggests the presence ofseveral unresolved gender issues in the teaching profession, I note that the data employedreflects a dimorphic view of gender and may not accurately represent all gender identities withinthe teaching profession. Though this paper presents a preliminary and descriptive investigationof the gender composition of leadership positions in NSW Government schools, further investi-gation is needed to determine why the representation of men in leadership positions is decliningso rapidly in this workforce and whether or not this decline requires remedy.
JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 7
Acknowledgments
I acknowledge that all data employed in this paper is derived from NSW Department of Education annual reports. I amgrateful to the Sight For Life Foundation, my anonymous donor, and their family – I completed this paper during myrecovery and I am forever grateful.
Disclosure statement
No conflicting interests or activities (financial or otherwise) have influenced the creation of this manuscript.
Notes on contributor
Dr Kevin F. McGrath is a Tertiary Supervisor in the Department of Educational Studies at Macquarie University. Hisresearch focuses on the importance of student-teacher relationships and how these relationships are shaped bygender and behaviour, with an emphasis on the experiences of typically underrepresented groups of both teachersand students.
ORCID
Kevin F. McGrath http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4412-0616
References
Barns, A., & Preston, A. (2010). Is Australia really a world leader in closing the gender gap? Feminist Economics, 16,81–103.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Masculine domination. California: Stanford University Press.Broderick, E., Goldie, C., & Rosenman, E. (2010). 2010 gender equality blueprint. Sydney: Australian Human Rights
Commission. Retrieved from www.humanrights.gov.au/our-work/sex-discrimination/publications/gender-equality-blueprint-2010
Commonwealth Government of Australia. (2018).Women in leadership: Lessons from Australian companies leading the way.Retrieved from: www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Women-in-Leadership%20report-BCA.pdf
Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Davis, I., & Hay, S. (2017). Primary masculinities: How male teachers are regarded as employees within primary
education – A global systematic literature review. Sex Education, 18, 280–292.Department of Premier and Cabinet. (2018). Driving public sector diversity. Retrieved from: www.nsw.gov.au/improv
ing-nsw/premiers-priorities-2015-2019/driving-public-sector-diversity/Foster, T., & Newman, E. (2005). Just a knock back? Identity bruising on the route to becoming a male primary school
teacher. Teachers and Teaching, 11, 341–358.Hausmann, R., Tyson, L. D., & Zahidi, S. (2006). The Global Gender Gap Report 2006. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Retrieved from: www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2006.pdfHouse of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Training. (2002). Boys: Getting it right: Report on the
inquiry into the education of boys. Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from: www.aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/committees/house_of_representatives_committees?url=edt/eofb/report.htm
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.
McCuiston, V. E., Ross Wooldridge, B., & Pierce, C. K. (2004). Leading the diverse workforce: Profit, prospects andprogress. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 25, 73–92.
McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P. (2017). Are male teachers headed for extinction? The 50-year decline of male teachersin Australia. Economics of Education Review, 60, 159–167.
Mills, M. (2003). Shaping the boys’ agenda: The backlash blockbusters. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7, 57–73.NSW Department of Education. (2018). Diversity and inclusion strategy 2018-2022. Retrieved from education.nsw.gov.
au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/our-strategic-plan/corporate-plans-and-strategies/diversity-And-inclusion-strategy-2018-2022
NSW Department of Education. (2019a). Annual Report 2018. Retrieved from: education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/media/documents/Annual-Report-2018_Online.pdf
NSW Department of Education. (2019b). Annual reports. Retrieved from education.nsw.gov.au/about-us/strategies-and-reports/annual-reports
8 K. F. MCGRATH
NSW Government. (2019). NSW women’s strategy 2018-2022: Year one action plan. Retrieved from: www.women.nsw.gov.au/strategies-and-resources/nsw-womens-strategy
NSW Teachers Federation. (2018). Response to the release of the department’s diversity and inclusion strategy 2018-2022.Retrieved from news.nswtf.org.au/blog/news/2018/12/response-release-departments-diversity-inclusion-strategy-2018-2022
NSW Teachers Federation. (n.d.) Women’s program. Retrieved from: www.nswtf.org.au/my-interests/womens-program/index.html
Roth, L. M. (2004). The social psychology of tokenism: Status and homophily processes on Wall Street. SociologicalPerspectives, 47, 189−214.
Smith, J. (2004). Male primary teachers: Disadvantaged or advantaged? Paper presented at the Australian Associationfor Research in Education Conference. Melbourne. Retrieved from: www.aare.edu.au/data/publications/2004/smi04051.pdf
Weaver-Hightower, M. (2003). The “boy turn” in research on gender and education. Review of Educational Research, 73,471–498.
Yoder, J. D. (1991). Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender & Society, 5, 178–192.
JOURNAL OF GENDER STUDIES 9