The online comment pages of the Daily Mail are juicily alight this week with reactions to the “No More Sir or Miss” debate. This was prompted by the decision by the executive principal of Harris Westminster and Harris Clapham Sixth Form Colleges, James Handscombe, to request that students call teachers by their title and surname, rather than by the terms “Sir” or “Miss”.
His rationale – a very sensible one – is that these terms carry with them a historical weight of cultural expectation about women and men that is still proving difficult to shift in our society.
“Why should gender matter in whether a teacher is effective or not?”
He is right – despite the affection that some people may have for these titles, perhaps because they have embraced them over many years. Our inbred social biases still unfortunately tend to conjure up associations with each term that feed a continued inequality of understanding about the roles and power of men and women in society.
Of course, the move to “title plus surname” is itself fraught with difficulty, because – in English, as in many other languages – there continues to be a distinction made between a married woman (Mrs), a single woman (Miss), and a woman who has made a choice not to have her marital status identified (Ms).
“Titles indicating a woman’s marital status feel increasingly dissonant.”
The same does not apply to men – which feels increasingly dissonant in today’s world. Linguistically, we have also yet to come up with a title that embraces those who feel uncomfortable with any title based on gender … and why, indeed, more profoundly, should gender matter in whether a teacher is effective or not?
One of the reasons I gently (but usually firmly) insist on using my title of “Dr” – quite apart from the fact that I worked hard for my doctorate – is that it reflects my professional status, and not my personal one, and I am proud of my professional responsibilities.
Interestingly, in some school environments (typically those described as progressive), the use of teachers’ first names is seen as a mark of immense mutual respect, and the removal of titles can reduce hierarchical boundaries which can stand in the way of the relationship between the student and the “teacher-as-guide”, rather than the “teacher-as-sage”.
This can work extremely well; it is not an answer for every environment, however, not least because many school communities, battling multiple levels of disadvantage, actually still require teachers to be sages, and – very purposefully and determinedly – to maintain a hierarchical distinction which supports strong behaviour management, for instance.
“First name terms are not an answer for every school environment.”
If “no title” is not always an option, then what title is best? Could we consider – as in many European countries – the title “Professor”, or – as in many Asian countries – the title “Teacher”?
It is not for an educational commenter to decide, however; primarily, it is up to schools to determine what they want their teachers to be called – with the co-operation and input of the teachers themselves, of course.
In an educational environment where part of our task is to develop curious, questioning, challenging minds, the imposition of ideology should not go unchallenged. Nevertheless, the question that we should ask is: what kind of culture do we want to build in school? And how will the way in which we address one another reflect this?
Food for thought … thank you, James, for bringing it to the forefront.
