Press Room

The Good, the Bad and the Few: Men In Child Care
by Shaun Becker

As a recent ECE graduate, I have an advantage when I look at my prospective child care career. On practicums in the field, I have observed some of the issues — both good and bad — unravelling around having a male caregiver in a child care centre. A men’s networking/support group, offered through the Manitoba Child Care Association, has given me insight into aspects of my career — both good and bad — that lie ahead. In North America, men typically represent less than five per cent of the child care field. Many researchers have looked at why this figure stays static through the years and how to increase this number. Since I see more men in child care as a positive change for the future, I would like to shed some light on how to include and retain them.

Snapshot
Papers documenting men in ECE have been written since the 1940s. Brian Robinson cites Tubbs and Kaplan, who strongly state that child care is women’s work. In the 1960s and ’70s, this attitude was questioned somewhat. “It became fashionable for men and women to break old stereotypes and, consequently, I found myself welcomed with open arms when I took my first child care job in 1968" (Robinson, p. 54).

Much of this occupational upheaval seems to stem from women entering male-dominated occupations. Reskin and Roos (as cited in Williams, 1992) identified “33 occupations in which female representation increased by more than nine percentage points between 1970 and 1980, but only three occupations in which the proportion of men increased as dramatically” (p. 253).

That is not to say that the ECE field has not seen an increase of male staff. It has. Unfortunately, much of the male influx has been stamped out by the “years of inflammatory coverage on sexual abuse, and the lack of progress on salaries” throughout the 1980s (Neugebauer, p. 8).

Robinson’s two 1978 studies looked at “sex role behaviors, sex-stereotyped attitudes, and personality traits of the male child care workers” (p. 555). His studies examined theories that males in ECE could be used to counter the “feminization” of young children, especially boys. He found that “males appeared to behave no differently from the females, and they scored similarly on a measure of personality” (p. 558).

Male and female educators who were surveyed preferred that boys exhibit masculine behaviors (e.g., achievement, dominance, endurance, autonomy), and that girls behave equally in both masculine and feminine ways (e.g., feminine – nuturance, affiliation, deference). However, Robinson found that these attitudes were not reflected in their actions; that both sets of caregivers reinforced feminine behaviours more than masculine ones. In short, the caregivers didn’t practice what they said they did.

The idea of “feminizing” young children is somewhat ludicrous as it focuses caregivers’ attention on reinforcing appropriate gender stereotypes. This theory is contrasted by others who believe in letting children explore and create their own gender identity (e.g. Brody). As one female caregiver said to Jensen:”
Boys should not be turned into girls, nor the opposite. That is not the intention. The aim must be to give the optimal possibilities, to accept that every individual has both a masculine and feminine side — only with this can we be complete beings (p. 24).

An important finding in Robinson’s studies is that the differences between male and female caregiver attitudes and behaviours may not be as rigid as previously thought. They seem to be more in line with one another than at odds. Yet if this is the case, why do men still struggle at retaining child care jobs?

Low Pay
At our first Men in Child Care networking meeting, we discussed issues preventing some men from staying in the field and our associated fears. The biggest factor for leaving reported was low pay. It was unrealistic to try and support a family on a child care workers (CCW) salary, and so a few returned to higher paying vocations (e.g., carpentry), even though they expressed a wish to stay in the field. That is in keeping with Robinson’s follow up study, where he looked at the attrition rate of the original male and female workers who participated in his studies. Of the original sample, 70 per cent of the men had changed their job and setting, due, in part to poorer salaries. And only half as many women had changed both job and setting. Low wages have been cited by other researchers such as Jensen and Neugebauer.

Other barriers noted by researchers include feeling isolated, and other people’s attitudes, such as parents, staff, ECE students, society, to his career choice. These others tended to view male staff as inferior to other female workers, or as settling for a career, or as just waiting until something better came along.

Living Under an Umbrella of Fear
The fear that most concerned the men at the support group meeting was being accused of molestation or assault. One ECE professor said to Cohen that “it’s the new reason not to have males in [ECE]. In the old days it was fear of homosexuality” (par. 8). In my young career, I can already think of two incidents where directors suggested the need to protect male staff from allegations of child abuse. This protection can be seen through either implicit or explicit staffing policies (e.g., Male staff are to always be accompanied by a female staff when working with the children). Although I respect these directors’ attempts to relieve staff and parental concerns about such a threatening issue, it does little to relieve the bias that men cannot be trusted to care for children alone.

I found an exploratory study conducted by Kathleen Faller extremely interesting. She looked at the victims and perpetrators of 48 sexual abuse cases in licensed and unlicensed child care centres and family care homes. “In multiple perpetrator settings, there was at least one male employee who was involved as well as one or more female” (p. 287). This comprised 50 per cent of the cases studied. Of the single perpetrator cases, 47.9 per cent were men but most of these abusers (20 out of 23 cases) were not caregivers, but were men who had a peripheral role with the centre, such as volunteer, custodian, husband, son, boyfriend or caregiver’s friend.

Faller’s preliminary findings suggest that men who enter child care as a profession are not a great threat to children. Although this study is preliminary, Faller mentions that “most of the findings are consistent with those of Finkelhor et al., who conducted a national telephone survey of sexual abuse in daycare with a larger, systematically chosen sample” (p. 285). This piece of information may help us to reconceptualize who the actual abusers are in child care centres and family care homes.

Changing Attitudes
Knowing the barriers to male participation in the ECE field is the first step towards changing the future. But real change starts with the individual. As Neugebauer wrote: “We all like to see ourselves as open minded and accepting. But if you, the director [or front-line worker], believe that men aren’t by nature nurturing, or that men are more likely to be abusers, your efforts to employ men [or accept them as peers] will be half-hearted.” When staff recognize their own attitudes towards men as caregivers, they can work together to create a healthy and positive, gender-inclusive environment. Many men in our networking/support group feel they have been part of their centre’s team — a good sign that feelings of isolation and tokenism reported by researchers may be disappearing. A positive attitude also shows when they talk to parents about their concerns with having male caregivers at their centre.

Gender Inclusive Policies
If, as a team, you still have reservations about having men in your centre changing or taking children to the bathroom or naproom, establish gender inclusive policies to help male child care providers feel less singled out. For example, always have two staff in the naproom, whether male or female, and rotate staff pairings and assignments. Having two staff in a room will establish a staff safety guard, and rotating staff will impede any teams of predators from forming.

Gender-inclusive policies can also mean sharing all responsibilities, such as assigning both men and women jobs such as minor repairs at the centre. These two steps could go a long way towards recruiting and retaining a male CCW at your centre. Further, Neugebauer points out that “convincing a second man to work in your centre is much easier than the first” (p. 8).

Recruiting Critical Mass
However, these initiatives can only help so much. Increasing the number of men who train to be child care providers may help bring about more permanent changes. Critical mass, or the “percent of an under-represented sex required to ensure permanent changes in a sex-segregated place of work” (Jensen, p. 21), generally hovers around 20 per cent — a far cry from recent estimates of less than 5 per cent.

Worldwide, recruitment campaigns have been implemented to increase this figure. In Viburg County, Denmark, a joint initiative was undertaken by the employment office, a training college, and two trade unions (Jensen). Their campaign, “Children Also Need Men,” used media coverage, brochures, posters, and Denmark’s 32 colleges to actively recruit men. By the summer of 1995, they had achieved a 20 per cent enrolment for ECE training.

A similar campaign in Canada drawing attention to the field might help recruit not only more men into ECE, but women as well. ECE is a viable and exciting career. Campaigns that focus on the strengths, growth and future of our field will help everyone to accept child care as a profession.

A female supervisor in Gothenburg, Sweden sums up the issue of men in child care nicely:
When our centre is described, interest is most often focused on the men. The women are just as important. It is the interplay between the female and male staff that the positive effects are achieved (p. 4).

Support Group
Our Men in Child Care networking/support group has met a few times since it’s inception. At one of the last meetings, we discussed ways to bring the role of male caregivers forward. A few of us offered to speak at career symposiums, while others offered their services to act as a spokesperson for the MCCA during media events. As well, a telephone list was drawn up so that we could be in contact with one another. Through personal and organizational advocacy, we hope to instill that men can have a positive influence on both the families we serve, and the centres/communities we work in, and that child care is a worthy career option for men.

As Brody suggested, “young children may need consistent, nurturant interaction with representatives from both sexes if they are to acquire strong gender identities, [and] experience a broad array of sex-role behavio[u]rs....” (p. 33). Having members of both sexes in a positive an pro-active work environment will benefit all, be it children, parents or staff. By challenging the myths surrounding male caregivers, we can all act as ambassadors of change by accepting the viability of men choosing child care as a career path.

Shaun Becker is a recent graduate of the University of Winnipeg's Developmental Studies Stream C program. Email him with questions and comments at pokey_b_ca@yahoo.com. © CCCF 2000

References

Brody, S. (1978). Daddy’s Gone to Colorado: Male Staffed Child Care for Father-Absent Boys. The Counseling Psychologist. 4(4) 33-36.

Clyde, M. (1993). Tertiary Students Perceptions of Male Workers in the Early Childhood Field in Australia. Atlanta, Georgia: Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association: ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED361062.

Cohen, D. (1992). Why There Are So Few Male Teachers in Early Grades. Education Digest. EBSCOhost, Full Text Display at ,http://gw3.epnet.com/fulltext. (1999, January 4).

Faller, K. (1988). The Spectrum of Sexual Abuse in Daycare: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Family Violence. 3(4) 283-298.

Jensen, J. (1996). Men as Workers in Childcare Services: A Discussion Paper. ERIC Reproduction Service No ED403080.

Neugebauer, R.(1994, May/June) Recruiting and Retaining Men in Your Center. Child Care Information Exchange. 5-11.

Robinson, B. (1979). Men Caring for the Young: An Androgynous Perspective. The Family Coordinator. 28, 553-560.
Williams, C. (1992). The Glass Escalator: Hidden Advantages for Men in the ‘Female’ Professions. Social Problems. 39(3) 253-267.

Weinbach, R. (1987). Refeminization of Child Care: Causations, Costs, and Cures. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. 14(3) 31-40.