Less than one-in-five primary school teachers were female. By Year 9, girls were one-and-a-half years behind boys in literacy. Every year, 12,000 more girls than boys failed to complete high school.

And universities were dominated by men, with 64 per cent more male graduates than female graduates.

What would happen next?

Governments would convene urgent inquiries, and rewrite curricula. Media outlets would run front-page campaigns. Universities would launch targeted pathways, and develop new programs.

Schools would redesign classrooms, and shift their culture. And society would mobilise, because we care deeply about our daughters.

But this isn’t a hypothetical. These outcomes exist today; only the sexes are reversed. It’s boys and young men who are falling behind.

In the ACT, boys trail girls in writing by nearly 20 percentage points by Year 9, and are twice as likely to fall into the lowest literacy bands.

Nationally, boys are much less likely to complete school and far less likely to attend or complete university.

This isn’t a marginal issue. It’s a systemic one. And yet, our policy response remains muted.

A workforce imbalance hiding in plain sight

One of the most overlooked drivers of this crisis is the near absence of men in early education.

Across Australia, only 18 per cent of primary school teachers are male. In practice, this means that most boys will go through their entire primary schooling with just one (or no) male classroom teachers.

In childcare, male representation is even lower, often just 3 per cent.

International evidence reinforces the trend. In England, nearly a third of primary schools have no male classroom teacher at all.

This matters. Research consistently shows that students benefit from diverse role models. For boys (especially those without strong male figures at home) the presence of capable, caring men in classrooms can be transformative. 

This isn’t about replacing female teachers. It’s about balance.

What the FOI reveals - and what it doesn’t

Recent Freedom of Information (FOI) results from the ACT Education Directorate raise serious questions about how this issue is being handled.

First, the Consultation Draft of the ACT Public Service Gender Equity Strategy (2023–2028) included a clear target: a 5 per cent increase in male representation across female-dominated professions, including: teaching, school leadership, legal roles, health, and nursing.

Yet this target was removed before the final strategy (2024–2029) was approved.

Second, while the Directorate supported the idea of whole-of-government internships for men in female-dominated fields, there is little evidence of sustained or systemic action on this.

Instead, the ACT Government has continued to promote female empowerment, when the ACT Public Service already has 65 per cent women (and females make up 58 per cent of executive roles).

Third, the FOI indicates that the Directorate has undertaken no meaningful analysis of the costs or consequences of such low male representation in schools.

And fourth, key policy settings (such as the School Leader Recruitment Guidelines) appear to have been developed by female public servants, with significant input from the Australian Education Union, within an already heavily feminised workforce.

This suggests that women leaders are writing policy to elevate other women, in a female-dominated workforce.

At the same time, official narratives continue to attribute workforce gender imbalances to “historical social stereotypes”.

That explanation is far from complete. It overlooks well documented differences in physiology, interests, hormones, psychology, behaviour, biology and career preferences between men and women; differences that interact with pay, status, working
conditions, and cultural signals.

In short: we are diagnosing the problem inadequately, and therefore solving it poorly.

Why boys need more men in schools

The decline in male teachers isn’t just a workforce issue, it’s an educational one.

Boys develop later in verbal skills (on average), respond differently to classroom environments, and benefit from clear structure, competition, and physical engagement.

Many current classroom models (highly verbal, sedentary, and compliance-focused) align much more closely with typical female developmental patterns.

These practices discriminate against boys and young men.

Male teachers aren’t a silver bullet. But they often bring complementary strengths: different communication styles, behavioural expectations, and ways of engaging boys.

Just as importantly, they model what positive masculinity looks like: discipline, responsibility, care, and purpose.

As highlighted by my op-ed in The Australian, fewer male teachers means fewer boys seeing themselves reflected in learning environments. And more disengagement as a result.

A practical path forward

So what should be done?

First, we need targeted, evidence-based literacy interventions for boys: early, structured, and consistent. The science of reading is clear, and explicit instruction works.

Second, we must significantly increase the number of male teachers in primary schools. This requires more than slogans. It means:

  • Scholarships and fee reductions for male teaching students
  • Mid-career transition pathways for men
  • Competitive pay and conditions
  • Public campaigns that elevate the status of teaching for men

Third, schools should broaden their pedagogical approaches to incorporate movement, competition, hands-on learning, and clear behavioural expectations.

Fourth, we must embed male-inclusive wellbeing and mentoring programs, drawing on fathers, coaches, tradesmen, veterans, and community leaders.

And finally, governments must treat boys’ underachievement as a core equity issue, not as a peripheral one.

A call for balance, not division

None of this diminishes the progress made for girls and women. That progress should be celebrated.

But true equality doesn’t mean focusing on one group indefinitely while another falls far behind. The goal is balance.

Because when boys succeed, they become men who are more likely to be employed, engaged, mentally healthy, and contributing to society. And when men thrive, then families, communities, and economies thrive alongside them.

We would never accept the hypothetical scenario at the start of this article.

We shouldn’t accept its mirror image either.