Boys: Getting it Right - The ‘New’ Disadvantaged or ‘Disadvantage’ Redefined?

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Elsa

Over recent years, masculinity and boys’ education in Australia have driven intense public and policy concern, including a federal parliamentary inquiry and subsequent government responses. This paper examines how “Getting it Right” constructs disadvantage within a broader gendered power order, and argues that two policy approaches—a selective comparative approach and a “mere difference” approach—produce a fundamental misdiagnosis affecting both boys and girls. The analysis situates these claims in wider media and academic debate.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time50 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Policy context and inquiry actions

Approaches to constructing disadvantage

Related reports and theoretical contrasts

Boys: Getting it Right: The ‘New’Disadvantaged or ‘Disadvantage’Redefined? Zoë Gill University of Adelaide Abstract Over recent years there has been widespread concern for masculinity and the education of boys in Australia. In the policy arena, this has involved a federal parliamentary inquiry into the education of boys (Boys: Getting it Right: Report on the inquiry into the education of boys, October 2002) and a federal government response to this inquiry (June 2003) . This was followed by a review of the current education policy directed at gender, the Gender Equity Framework, and the development of strategies to increase the number of men going into teacher training. The way in which Getting it Right and the federal government talk about boys and disadvantage is important. This paper argues that there is a particular understanding of disadvantage at work in this policy arena . It is an understanding of disadvantage extracted from a wider gendered power order. The paper argues that Getting it Right’s particular understanding of disadvantage as outside of power differentials is achieved by two policy approaches. First, the Report compares some indicators of both girls’ and boys’ situations, but in a selective way. I call this a ‘selective comparative approach’. Second, the Report emphasises the importance of focusing on the separate needs of boys and girls, just when the indicators of girls’position in society cannot be ignored. I call this a ‘mere difference approach’. These policy approaches assume particular understandings of boys, girls and gender which, I argue, underpins a fundamental misdiagnosis of the problem with deleterious results for boys and girls. Introduction Boys’ educational disadvantage has received much media, academic and some policy attention in most westernised countries (Bouchard et al 2003, Collins et al 2000, p. 20, The Australian Educational Researcher, Volume 32, Number 2, August 2005 •105 Mahoney 2003, Smith 2003, p. 283, Titus 2004, p. 145, Weaver-Hightower 2003, pp. 471- 472, 475) . Many authors have identified the ‘moral panic’ status this area has achieved over the last decade, particularly in the media (Lingard 2003, p. 50, Smith 2003, p. 283, Titus 2004, p. 145) . Weaver-Hightower (2003, p. 475) notes that there has been a spectrum of responses to this attention, noting Australia for its federal government policy action in the area. As such, lessons can be learnt from the Australian experience thus far. Since March 2000 when the federal government set up a parliamentary inquiry into the education of boys, there has been a significant amount of federal government action in this area with around $8 million being directed into boys and education (Nelson 10 June 2004) . The inquiry produced the Report, Boys: Getting it Right: Report on the inquiry into the education of boys (Standing Committee on Education and Training October 2002) and a federal government response (Minister for Science, Education and Training 2003) . Since then, many of its recommendations have been taken up. Most notably, its call for providing male role models has been followed with the government seeking amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act so as to enable measures to encourage men into teaching. Further, the Report’s recommendation that there be a rewriting of the current policy, the Gender Equity Framework (MCEETYA 1997), has been taken up. As such it is important to understand the way in which Getting it Right addresses the boys in education area. Of particular concern in this paper is the way in which the Report constructs disadvantage. There have been other notable Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) funded reports on the area of boys (and girls) and education such as Factors influencing educational performance of males and females in school and their initial destinations after leaving school (Collins et al 2000) and Addressing the Educational Needs of Boys (Lingard et al 2002

FAQs

What is the core argument about how the report defines disadvantage?

The paper argues that “Getting it Right” extracts “disadvantage” from a wider gendered power order and treats disadvantage as outside power differentials, which leads to a misdiagnosis.

Which two policy approaches does the paper identify in “Getting it Right”?

It identifies a “selective comparative approach” and a “mere difference approach,” first comparing indicators selectively and then emphasizing separate needs even when girls’ social position cannot be ignored.

How does the paper place the report within Australia’s policy and media environment?

It links the inquiry and government response to broader federal actions, media “moral panic” patterns, and the media’s de facto role during the national “evacuation” of gender equity policies.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Elsa