THERE is much speculation about the absence of men from seats in higher education (25 per cent representation) and from leadership in the private sector (40 per cent representation). Lower educational achievement in males is the typical theory, but it begs an explanation. There is a unifying theory that can explain these observations and the trend of dismal male church attendance (25 per cent male membership).

Are more women born in Jamaica than men? According to population statistics, as of 2022 we have 969 males per 1,000 females — approximately an even spread. Rates of male to female migration and death are similarly irrelevant for this analysis and the rates for enrolment of males and females in pre-primary, primary, and high school are also practically equivalent (around 80 per cent completion rate for both sexes.)

In looking at achievement by gender in 2019 for both the Primary Exit Profile (PEP) and the Caribbean Secondary Education Certificate (CSEC), there are significant gender disparities. In terms of failure rates, for science, 57 per cent of males compared to 44 per cent of females; for mathematics, 66 per cent males compared to 55 per cent of females; for language arts, 55 per cent males compared to 35 per cent females; and for social studies, 50 per cent of males compared to 30 per cent of females. In terms of readiness for higher education, the 2019 data show 31 per cent of girls passed five or more CSEC subjects including English and maths compared to 23 per cent of boys. These statistics have led some to conclude that the problem stems from inefficiencies embedded within the education system.

While there is some truth to this, the answer is more complex. It is common for females and some males from the same community, and even the same household, given the same schooling opportunities, to obtain different educational outcomes. Therefore, to limit the answer to schooling overlooks a second equally potent determinant of academic success embedded within the home. It is well known in educational circles that the extent to which the input from home or school is compromised commensurately impacts learning and achievement. According to the Registrar General’s Department, 85 per cent of children are born to unmarried mothers and several studies have documented differences between boys and girls raised in single parent homes. In their review, Hetherington et al (1983) concluded that “the intellectual and social development of males may be seen as more adversely affected by living in one-parent homes than that of females from similar family circumstances”.

Dr Michael Coombs, technical director of the Southeast Regional Health Authority, states that “children raised in intact, married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to be physically or sexually abused, less likely to use drugs or alcohol and to commit delinquent behaviours, have a decreased risk of divorcing when they get married, are less likely to become pregnant/impregnate someone as a teenager, and are less likely to be raised in poverty. A child living with a single mother is 14 times more likely to suffer serious physical abuse than a child living with married biological parents and a child whose mother cohabits with a man other than the child’s father is 33 times more likely to suffer serious physical child abuse.”

A number of studies in the United States have explored the relationship between male achievement in father absent (FA) vs father present (FP) homes.

•In a 1970 literature review, Biller reported evidence showing a correlation between FA and juvenile delinquency. He also showed evidence that FA boys have more difficulty forming peer relationships and long-lasting heterosexual relationships as compared to boys raised in a father present (FP) home.

•Chapman (1977) reported lower SAT scores among FA males compared to FP males, and Bain et al (1983) showed that FA third-graders performed significantly worse in reading achievement and scored lower in a measure of internal locus of control than FP children.

•Daniels (1986), in her study of young African American men, discovered that the length of father absence from the home was the strongest predictor of future employment for the young men.

•In their study of African American adolescents, Mandara and Murray (2006) found FA to be a significant risk factor for drug use among boys, but not among girls. They reported that African American boys in a FA home were almost six times more likely to use drugs than African American boys in a FP home, while the risk factor for African American girls was the same regardless of the number of parents in the home.

Male identity is often embedded in the ideal of being a provider and low educational achievement can be a predictor of minimal returns from employment… Single mothers often depend on their boys to earn very early in life and we see them disproportionately in the streets and on work sites. If males are compelled to seek employment when they should be in school then they are not motivated towards educational achievement and will not access the attendant delayed empowerment. If men cannot use achievement as a basis for defining what is male, they will use other standards; for example: “Man fi have nuff gyal an gyal ina bungle” — incompatible with choosing to marry or attending church. While some manage to defy the odds, the sad observation is that most Jamaican men end up lost in the low achievement abyss because they come from father absent homes.

Dr Benjamin is an innovative educational administrator and strategist. He is the vice-president for academic affairs at The Mico University College.