Cranbrook School saga exposes toxic woke view of boys’ schools
Behind the scenes of the Cranbrook School drama is a lesson in how axing single-sex education for boys promotes bad politics and inequality.
The Cranbrook School council saga is the quintessential Sydney eastern suburbs story. Billionaires, corporate titans, directors, and investment bankers aplenty, coupled with election dramas at school council, alleged disputes between the headmaster and the school council, pissed-off parents paying $40k school fees and threats that funds from donors will dry up. And this week, mass resignations by all but one person on the school council.
Other platforms will cover the dizzying personality clashes among Sydney’s most arrogant and most woke, and Netflix might one day squeeze some further vicarious viewing pleasure out of this tangled elite web. But for all the sexy discord, a serious issue has been pushed aside, one that allegedly triggered the ructions at the private school in Sydney’s Bellevue Hill. Namely, the future of single-sex boys’ schools.
The first point to note is that single-sex reformers, whether at Cranbrook or elsewhere, have little to say about girls’ schools. There is no move that I know of to pressure eastern suburbs girls’ schools to go co-ed. This is only about boys’ schools. For example, Cranbrook will go co-educational in years 7 to 12 within less than a decade. Though the plan has been delayed from the original timeline of admitting girls in years 11 and 12 in 2023, there remains a deeper question of the reasons behind such a move. And not just at Cranbrook, given other boys’ schools are feeling the same pressure.
Apparently, the argument is that single-sex boys’ schools promote something called “toxic masculinity” (however that is defined) and this can only be rectified by the leavening influence of schoolgirls entering the classroom.
Elite private boys’ schools are, so it is said, particularly at risk of toxic masculinity and therefore in particular need of moral guidance from young women because, in addition to the youthful flows of testosterone, these boys are privileged. That mix of male hormones and money apparently makes for an especially virulent form of toxic masculinity.
To be sure, not all self-appointed social engineers use this inflammatory language. Some talk about the “hyper” masculinity that exists at private boys’ schools, before remarking that there is a natural slide from hyper to toxic masculinity. Others use softer words, referring to the humanising experience when boys are educated alongside girls.
But the tenor is clear enough: boys need to be educated alongside girls to grow into well-adjusted, respectful men. Whereas girls, an apparently superior species, have no such need. When the same socialising needs are not said about girls, the argument becomes one about female supremacy, and makes a mockery of equality and choice.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that my son went to Cranbrook. Therefore, I am not only conflicted but genuinely puzzled about these claims because the only direct evidence that I have – namely that from my son and his wide group of male friends from the school – is that a more considerate, decent, well-educated bunch of young men would be hard to find.
Indeed, my personal experience derived from going to a co-ed high school in a working-class suburb in Adelaide is that neither the presence of girls, nor the patent lack of privilege, had any kind of miraculously civilising influence on the boys in my year. Without wanting to be unkind to my former classmates, I saw a lot less toxic masculinity, however defined, among the young men I saw at millennial Cranbrook than I saw in 1980s Adelaide.
I am aware that my personal experiences are merely anecdotal and should not be confused with evidence. However perhaps that is appropriate because the debate about toxic masculinity, its causes and cures, seems to be remarkably fact-free.
As far as I am aware, not only is there no generally accepted definition of “toxic masculinity” but there appears to be no scientific or empirical evidence about whether this affliction, whatever it is, will be cured by coeducational schooling.
Instead, the word “toxic” is often a dead giveaway of an especially shallow public conversation. It is routinely attached to all manner of accusations where the accuser – or presumed reformer – prefers to make a shallow claim rather than undertake careful analysis.
For example, when announcing her departure from The Project this week, Lisa Wilkinson said she found the “targeted toxicity” from some sections of the media towards her hard to bear.
For goodness sake, the television celebrity was criticised for her ill-conceived remarks at the Logies. For that, she was indeed targeted by no less an authority than the Chief Justice of the ACT Supreme Court, who said of her speech: “The implicit premise of it is to celebrate the truthfulness of the story she exposed.”
If one were prone to flinging around accusations of targeted toxicity, one might say that Wilkinson was guilty of the same when her remarks forced a judge to delay a criminal trial to ensure that the defendant had a better shot at receiving a fair trial.
The ubiquitous label “toxic culture” is often lobbed when someone complains about being bullied or harassed in the workplace. Boards and executive offices go into meltdown when that word bomb lands anywhere near them, regardless of the lack of evidence. Invariably, there is some bone-headed reaction – team-building yoga classes or re-education camp – instead of some well-aimed discipline at a genuine aggressor.
Having some knowledge, as a parent, of Sydney girls’ schools, I could throw a few bombs, too. I could suggest there is considerable toxic femininity afoot in some girls’ schools, where some students treat others very badly indeed.
However, you would be right to demand solid evidence in support of a claim that the only way to fix the toxic behaviour of girls was to bring boys into those all-girl classrooms. And I could produce no evidence, as distinct from anecdote, that girls at single-sex schools suffer from toxic femininity.
Which brings us to the academic impact of single-sex schooling. There is no consistent evidence to support the claim that co-ed schools improve academic outcomes or better socialise young boys. Smatterings of research suggest that single-sex schooling has a beneficial effect on girls’ academic results while for boys the outcomes are mixed. That means, even if one accepts what appears to be unproven, namely that boys would benefit academically and perhaps socially from co-ed schooling, girls would clearly suffer.
So, when Cranbrook goes co-ed, we will have to scour Sydney to find some eastern-suburbs parents willing to make martyrs of their daughters and their academic prospects to improve Cranbrook’s wayward young men.
Hopefully, then, there are some Cranbrook alumni or friends who are sufficiently wealthy to fund the kind of uber-generous scholarships that might be needed to coax the initial cohort of girls to the school. But is that really sustainable? What would happen, for example, if Atlassian ran into financial problems?
A more sustainable, to say nothing of common sense, proposal would be for schools – all schools – to better understand that appropriate discipline is the best way to deal with bad apples and build a healthy school culture. This applies as much in co-ed working-class schools as it does at a ritzy single-sex school. Because all schools have students who behave badly, including Cranbrook. Schools can send a powerful message by suspending or even kicking out the few boys who behave badly. But at private schools, chasing fees and placating parents are not unrelated.
Speaking of which, it is reprehensible how quickly we have come to expect schools, not parents, to rear respectful, well-adjusted children. A bratty, entitled parent is very likely to produce the same kind of kid. I saw that at Cranbrook, too. Again, we might do better by expecting more from parents than succumbing to vacuous moral blackmail from those who arrogantly insist on buttonholing society to fit their preferred vision.
This brings us to what is in many ways the most objectionable part of forcing Cranbrook to go co-ed to save itself: the condescension of these social engineers. The underlying premise is that parents and boys should be denied single-sex schools for their own good. Increasingly, a tiny, shouty section of society is determined to up-end various institutions in the bogus pursuit of seeking equality between the sexes by removing educational choices for boys. Indeed, the Cranbrook saga is a metaphor for similar noisy, nosy, politically woke games that infect many other spheres of human activity. Nothing is done quietly and thoughtfully anymore.
Here, the aim is to constrict the supply of single-sex boys’ schools, denying choice to parents of boys but not girls. While parents of girls will continue to choose from a multitude of marvellously different single-sex and co-ed schools, we are fast heading to the point where parents of boys will be forced to accept the “one size fits all” greyness of co-ed schools only. Soviet-style conformity – but only for boys. Sounds like inequality to me.
More Coverage
