AVANCE EN PROCESO DE CONVERGENCIA A NIIF

Within the interviews and focus group, the men used the term ‘safeguarding’ rather than child protection. Safeguarding is a relatively new term and encompasses protecting children in a wider sense as in the Department of Education’s definition (DFE 2108). It is a broader term than the previously used one of child protection which is the activity that is undertaken to protect children. Safeguarding is the term that trainees were introduced to within their training and so they used this rather than that of child protection. Child protection is a term that has been used for many years and this was used in the literature review. Child protection is part of the larger definition of safeguarding, so is incorporated within it. As the men talked about safeguarding, this is the term that I have chosen to use.

118

The literature review had identified that the issue of safeguarding and physical contact with children was a significant barrier that male trainees had to overcome (Pollitt and Oldfield 2017). This was not mentioned by Mac or Peter, the two trainees who had withdrawn. However, in interviews with those men who had completed the course and the focus group, safeguarding was mentioned unprompted at some point by all of the participants.

One of the issues in relation to safeguarding that arose from the literature review was that the men thought that they were under greater scrutiny than women (Pollitt and Oldfield 2017, Foster and Newman 2005). In relation to centre-based training on safeguarding, during their interviews, Jack said that he felt under more pressure to listen during the training, “I felt that I had to,” and Will felt that men were the explicit subjects of teaching about safeguarding and that females were never characterised as being capable of putting children at risk; “A lot of the safeguarding

issues were aimed at us, issues that arose were about men.”

The safeguarding training was for all trainees but these two men are stating that they felt that they were under more scrutiny to pay attention to it than their female peers. In the focus group Will also commented that things were slightly different for men during the safeguarding training as “a lot of things were aimed at

the bad man.” This is similar to one of those interviewed by Sargent (2000 p. 418)

who said that, although all teachers attend, “the emphasis is always on us as men”. This awareness is evident in my study. In Sargent’s (2000) study, during focus group discussions participants revealed some resentment in relation to the extra scrutiny. The men in my study did not actually voice any real resentment although their comments demonstrate that there were some feelings of injustice. When looking at the content of safeguarding training in our provision, although the male trainees

119

commented that they felt the training was aimed specifically at them, there were incidents within the session that were recounted by the tutor which involved women, as well as men, as potential dangers to children. So, although the men may have perceived that the training was aimed at them, this was not necessarily so. This seems to be an area in which men feel that, as a minority, they are being targeted even though there is no apparent discrimination against men in the content of the training. This may have been due to the way in which the media often portray men as discussed by Jack in his interview, “the media….the way they portray abuse

cases…….males at the front of abuse cases”.

Although it had not deterred those interviewed, when asked why more men do not enter the profession as primary school teachers, in his interview Will said because of safeguarding and the “stigma attached…men working with children.” He felt that some men may want to enter the profession but are deterred from doing so as people might say that “it is a bit funny working with children.” Will’s comments are confirmed by the findings from Cushman (2005) who identified that male teachers have sometimes had their motives for pursuing a career in primary education questioned. Pollitt and Oldfield’s (2017) study found that this was a salient barrier that men had to overcome and confirmed that men had to demonstrate resilience.

Safeguarding also appeared to be a factor in some of the responses these men hear when they tell people they are a primary school teacher, specifically from other young men, “some of them are a bit stereotypical, joking, oh, a man working

with children”(Will, interview) and this type of comment was also mentioned by

Jack (focus group), “I have got a lot of lad mates, they will say something related

to safeguarding, they think it is hilarious.” With Will’s “stereotypical” responses

120

have made suggestive comments about his work with children, specifically that Will has chosen to work with young children because it puts him in a position to molest children. Jack’s, “lad mates” joke about child protection and find his work with young children is “hilarious”, whereas Jack himself realises that safeguarding is a serious matter within the school. Colin, the focus group facilitator, said that he felt “almost judged more” when discussing safeguarding than when discussing the curriculum with other members of staff and had to be more careful “with a bunch of

women.”

Safeguarding issues were also mentioned by participants in relation to things that they would not do as a male in the primary school,

“more careful when it comes to when the children are getting changed for

PE and swimming, females just go in and tell them, I open the door with my back on it …. Having to go and get someone else in the classroom, that’s the stand out one.”

(Will, interview)

Will is saying that the main thing he would not do as a man is to be left alone in the classroom when the children change for PE and would always want another adult present. Will was presumably feeling uncomfortable at being left alone with children in his class whilst they were getting changed because it could put him in an awkward position if a child asked him to help them to get changed and in the worst case scenario, put him at risk of allegations of child molesting and being a paedophile. In his interview, Harry said that, as a man, he did not take girls to get changed or

coach girls at sports although he did help out with the boys’ football and said there was a “major factor… covering yourself, more as a male”.

121

This theme also arose in Jack’s interview when asked if there was anything he did not do as a male; “Coaching girls’ sports, they were a bit funny with”. The “they” he refers to that were being “a bit funny with”, are his colleagues within the primary school. Jack also talked about always having the door open and

“as a male teacher you have to double check yourself and be a bit more

protected. Subconsciously, either because of media portrayal or past events.”

He also felt that it was a

“conversation I had to have with the PE guy when he came in, be very

cautious, especially with the girls getting changed, be extra cautious.”

All these comments and the precautions the men in my study took to ensure they were above reproach are similar to those of participants in Pollitt and Oldfield (2017) who regarded these types of safety precautions as a protective factor and helped to maintain their resilience in challenging circumstances.

For Jack, the issue of safeguarding arose with two different groups of people, his “lad mates” and his work colleagues, and although it did not seem to affect him in terms of successfully completing the course, other male trainees might not be so resilient. Other men may decide that they would not be able to overcome this type of reaction or find that they are unable to cope with suggestive comments, even if only made as a joke. This could therefore have an effect on retention. These ‘hidden’ factors such as suggestive comments or jokes from their friends and colleagues may put retention at risk because these types of jokes and comments, although justified as harmless, could actually effect men in a negative way and influence them in their decisions as to whether to continue or withdraw from the course. The experiences that men in my study had demonstrate that men need to have the resilience to be able

122

to ignore or overcome these types of comments. In my study, Jack was able to ignore the “silly taunts” from his friends. Jones (2003a) stated that trainees have to learn how to engage in a series of sanctioned practices and have to manage risks. Out of 36 male teacher trainees in the research by Jones (2003a), only six said touching children was not an issue and four of those said that they would keep children at a safe distance, so the majority of respondents did feel that safeguarding was a concern for them. My finding on safeguarding is different to those of Szwed (2010), whose respondents gave little attention to child protection and Skelton (2009 p.48) where male student teachers did not have “concerns about having to work in situations that might lead to allegations of child sexual abuse” and was not a reason for withdrawing from primary teacher education courses.

However, in earlier research by Skelton’s (2007 p. 685) student teachers agreed that being a male teacher was perceived as being a “risky business” where physical and emotional contact was concerned. The men in my study were very careful not to provide an opportunity where their actions could be misinterpreted or where there was the possibility of misunderstandings. They tried to avoid any situations where physical contact with children might happen. Sargent’s (2000) findings also reflect my study. He found that the majority of male teachers in his study spoke of their reluctance to be physically in contact with children in school because the action might be misconstrued. Men in these contexts are operating under a “burden of constant scrutiny” (Sargent 2000 p. 414). Considering Sargent’s study was 18 years ago, the issue does not seem to have changed, which implies that the perceptions of men working with young children in primary classrooms in relation to safeguarding have not altered despite the increased checks that all those who work with children have to undergo.

123

The scrutiny of male trainees in relation to safeguarding seems to contribute to men adopting distancing behaviours that could be called ‘safe’ around children and Sargent (2000 p. 429) asks whether this is a self-fulfilling prophecy as men retreat into patterns of behaviour that are “distinctly stereotypically masculine and clearly contradictory to our perception of motherly (teacher) behaviour”. Apart from adopting distancing behaviours, the men in my study did not comment on other types of ‘safe behaviour’ but Jimmy’s immediate thought if “a child puts their arms

around me” was who else might be observing this, demonstrates a need to be aware

of these. ‘Terry’, the student teacher in Smedley’s (2007) study insisted on making physical contact with children, albeit carefully. Smedley (2007 p. 381) identifies this as ‘Terry’s’ way of coming to understand himself as a teacher in the face of diametrically opposed discourses of masculinity that emphasise the “caring, sensitive” man and the “perverted, predatory” man. ‘Terry’ can be seen to be reacting to Sargent’s (2000 p. 415) observation that the reluctance to have any physical contact “does not provide the kind of close attention or emotional support” that children need and it can give the impression that men are not nurturing.

The findings show that men in my study felt under more scrutiny than their female colleagues in relation to safeguarding. They were aware that their behaviour could arouse suspicions and they took actions to distance themselves from contact with the children in the classroom and around the school. Some men had to overcome or ignore derogatory comments from their friends as a man entering primary education (RQ 1, 1a).