The Trouble with Boys
by Jennifer Buckingham
Click here for PDF version

Boys are falling behind at school at alarming rates while girls continue to improve. What is causing this gender gap? Has the promotion of gender equity in school education gone too far? What can be done to redress the balance?

Marked differences between girls and boys in overall school performance have emerged over the past decade. At the same time as girls have extended their schooling and are now 11% more likely than boys to complete Year 12 (ABS 1999), so too has boysÕ overall performance improved significantly, seemingly at the expense of boys. Boys are now said to be ÔdisadvantagedÕ in relation to girls.

While the evidence for a decline in boysÕ school performance is clear, the reasons behind it are not. Indeed, most explanations tend to raise more questions than they answer.

The decline in the overall school performance of boys compared to girls seems to be a result of their poorer performance in English, a subject based on literacy skills in which boys are also inferior to girls. This raises two questions: why are boysÕ literacy and English skills inferior to girls, and why is this gender gap increasing?

The gender gap

The comparative advantage of girls is apparent at the passing out level/final years. For example, in the 1998 New South Wales Higher School Certificate (HSC), the average mark for girls was higher than that for boys in 64 out of 70 subjects (those subjects with at least 100 students). The subjects in which the boysÕ average exceeded girlsÕ were:
3-unit Computer studies; 3-unit Economics; 2-unit Japanese; 2-unit Maths in Practice (the lowest maths level); and 3-unit Music. The amount by which the boysÕ average exceeded the girlsÕ, however, was no more than 1%. In contrast, for subjects in which the girlsÕ average was higher, the difference was up to 11%.

This gender gap in average school performance is illustrated in Figure 1. The figure shows the difference in the average New South Wales Tertiary Entrance Score (TES)Ñthe aggregated final mark out of 500 for Year 12 studentsÑbetween girls and boys. In 1981, the female average TES exceeded the male average TES by just 0.6 marks. In 1996, the girls beat the boys by 19.4 marks. The most dramatic increase occurred in 1992, when the high scaling of maths and hard sciences was reduced.

Figure 1. (can be viewed in the PDF version of this article)

Why are boys falling behind at school?

The increasing discrepancy in boysÕ and girlsÕ school performance seems to be due to a combination of three related developments: the deteriorating comparative performance of boys in literacy and English, the improving performance of girls in maths and physical sciences, and changes in curriculum and assessment.

The deteriorating comparative performance of boys in literacy and English

Dr Kemp, Federal Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, has stated that Ôthe single most important thing a school can provide to any individual is literacy skillsÕ (Kemp 1996). Yet many children, both male and female, miss out.

The poorer average literacy performance of boys is evident as early as age nine. Boys underperformed compared to girls in the 1996 NSW Basic Skills Tests in both Year 3 and Year 5. There was no significant difference in numeracy (SCRCSSP 1999).

In the 1996 National School English Literacy Survey (NSELS), similar findings emerged. Year 3 and Year 5 students were tested on five modes of literacy: reading, writing, listening, speaking and viewing. Fewer boys than girls achieved the benchmark in every mode, with the largest gender differences in the Ôexpressive modesÕÑwriting and speaking.

Literacy standards, however, are not just falling among boys: the decline is absolute. An analysis of data from the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth program showed that there has been a small absolute decline in literacy in the last two decades. In 1975, 28% of 14 year olds in Year 9 failed to attain basic literacy skills. In 1995, this figure jumped to 30%. Failure rates were higher for boys than for girls in both years, with the boysÕ situation worsening considerably: 30% of 14 year old boys were illiterate in 1975, and 35% in 1995. For girls, the relative figures were better than boysÑ26% and 27% respectivelyÑbut still very unsatisfactory.

BoysÕ poor literacy skills in turn affect their results in English. In Year 12 English performance, boysÕ
average results are consistently poorer than those of girls. Performance data from Western Australia and Queensland show stronger average English results for girls, with more girls than boys in the top achievement band, and more boys than girls in the bottom band. In NSW, in 1992, girls strongly outperformed boys. There were twice as many girls in the highest achievement band, and twice as many boys in the lowest. In 1997, there were more than twice as many girls to boys in the top 25% of English students.

Improving performance of girls in maths and physical sciences

Until the early 1990s, the gender gap between boysÕ and girlsÕ average school performance was relatively small. This balance was maintained because boysÕ poorer performance in English was offset by their stronger performance in, and the stronger weighting for, the physical sciences. The slight difference in average scores in the 1980s favouring girls was probably the result of girlsÕ rising participation and perf-ormance in maths and chemistry, which were also scaled highly.

Changes in curriculum and assessment

In 1992, the higher scaling of the physical sciences was reduced, and boys lost their advantage. The improved performance of girls
across the board and boysÕ poor English performance combined to create a divergence in their average scores. This gender gap has continued to grow.

The disadvantage to boys is exacerbated by the fact that English is compulsory. GirlsÕ comparatively poorer participation and performance in physics, for example, is not reflected in the average scores because it is elective. Similarly, if girls do not take computer studies, it will not affect their average score.

The inclusion of English results when calculating the UAI or its equivalent is now compulsory, so it is pointless to claim that this disadvantages boys. Although it may be true statistically, boysÕ poor performance in English is in itself cause for concern.

Why are boys performing badly in literacy and English?

If boysÕ inferior performance in English is responsible for their educational disadvantage, what is causing this disparity?

A number of factors may play a part in the decline in boysÕ capacity to use and understand English. They include:

(i) biological differences between the sexes affecting capacities and interests;

(ii) gender biases which define certain activities or skills as Ônot masculineÕ, or which underplay the role of masculine models in encouraging certain activities or skills;

(iii) teaching, curricula and assessment;

(iv) socio-economic factors, including family income, family structure and parental education.

The question is do these factors explain both the enduring differences in boysÕ literacy skills and the increasing gender gap in English performance?

Biological differences

Is boysÕ inferiority in literacy biologically determined? Moir and Jessel (1989) and, more recently, Steve Biddulph (1997), have cited neuro-logical evidence that boysÕ brains are structurally different from girlsÕ, essentially in the brainÕs capacity to process linguistic information. The ÔgenderÕ of the brain is determined before birth by the presence or absence of particular sex hormones.

Although numerous studies have failed to show differences in brain structure (Gilbert & Gilbert 1998), the bulk of the evidence for sex differences in brain structure and functioning is, at this stage, still persuasive.

This, however, does not address boysÕ declining English performance. Biological differences may be responsible for enduring differences in boysÕ and girlsÕ literacy skills, but they do not explain why the gender gap is increasing.

Gender biases and expectations

The problem of boys and literacy is sociological, according to educationists. They argue that behavioural differences between boys and girls arise from different gender expectations. Conventional conceptions of masculinity, for instance, and the narrow stereotypes associated with it, are restrictive and damaging to both boys and girls, if in different ways.

Research evidence has shown that boys are just as capable of reading as girls (Shaywitz et al. 1990; Flynn & Rahbar 1994). Yet, boys are over-represented in remedial reading classes (OÕDoherty 1994). Apparently, boys have an aversion to reading, particularly fiction, and think reading is ÔuncoolÕ (Brown & Fletcher 1995). Some claim that boys simply do not view reading as masculine. They prefer more physical activities and, if they do read at all, it is more likely to be magazines or manuals. This may ring true for many, but the evidence is still largely observational and anecdotal.

How literacy is defined and measured may be part of the problem. Different tests of boysÕ literacy skills have been proposed on the grounds that boys are capable of the mechanics of reading, but are disadvantaged by the subjective, introspective nature of literacy as it is presented in schools. The Boys and Literacy project (Martino 1995), for instance, claimed that the emotional element of English at school is in direct conflict with masculinity, and is therefore unacceptable to most boys.

Angela Phillips (1993) has suggested that there is a learned association of reading with femininity due to the predominance of female teachers in primary schools. She argues that this association leads boys to reject reading, and hence literacy. If this were true, the same should occur for maths, which boys are also taught in primary school. This does not seem to be the case.

Gender bias theory may therefore account for some of boysÕ inferiority in literacy, but it does not shed any light on the deterioration in boysÕ English performance. Nor does it offer any explanation as to the genesis of these gender biases.

Teaching and curricula

Two other factors may be combining to weaken boysÕ literacy performance. As discussed already, for biological reasons of brain structure, boys may have a slight advantage in dealing with ÔstructuredÕ or ordered subjects. At the same time, a major change has occurred in reading instruction which bears upon this difference and which may have affected boysÕ literacy, and hence their overall school performance. The ÔphonicsÕ method of teaching reading has been abandoned in favour of a Ôwhole wordÕ or ÔrecognitionÕ approach. The methodical approach to teaching writingÑusing copy books, writing on lines, etc.Ñis also uncommon now.

Children who fail to learn to read in the early stages of schooling may never catch up (Harrison & Zollner 1993). By not allowing for boysÕ developmental delay (Cratty 1986; Vann 1991), boys may be disadvantaged, especially those who do not have support for reading at home. Such a disadvantage in early literacy could seriously affect boysÕ subsequent performance in English.

There is some evidence that a more structured approach to literacy teaching has a beneficial effect on boysÕ performances (Victorian DET 1998; West 1995). Yet, although methods of teaching and assessment may well affect boysÕ literacy skills and English performance, this does not explain why boys learn differently.

Literacy/English and socio-economic status

There is a strong link between the socio-economic status of parents and the performance of their children at school. Socio-economic status is determined by household or parental income, family structure and parental education. The higher the socio-economic status of parents, according to these measures, the higher (on average) the literacy and English performance of their children is, both boys and girls.

Performance indicators showing a gender gap
(figure 1) must therefore be seen in the context of
socio-economic status. The gap between boys and girls varies with their socio-economic circumstances. High socio-economic status boys outperform low socio-economic status girls. However, the gender gap between boysÕ and girlsÕ performance persists within each
socio-economic level.

The influence of this factor has been demonstrated through extensive research by Richard Teese et al (1995). Their analysis of Victorian Year 12 exam results (VCE), for example, found that school performance varied with socio-economic status for both boys and girls, with girls nevertheless outperforming boys in each socio-economic cohort.

Comparable results were found in Year 3 students in NSW (Alloway & Gilbert 1997). When comparing girls and boys with the same socio-economic ranking, girls still did better. At the bottom of the socio-economic scale, both boys and girls exhibited the worst results for their gender, with boys performing worst of all.

The 1996 National Schools English Literacy Survey (NSELS) also found that boys and girls in higher
socio-economic groups obtained better literacy results. In fact, it found that the performance gap between socio-economic groups widened from Year 3 to Year 5. Thus, socio-economic status does influence performance at school in English, for both girls and boys.

Of particular interest is the fact that higher socio-economic status has a moderating effect on boysÕ performance relative to girls. In other words, the gender gap is smaller in high socio-economic groups. Results also fall faster for boys than for girls with progression down the socio-economic scale. (Teese et al. 1995). Moreover, socio-economic status appears to affect English performance specifically, and hence school performance generally, by either enlarging or reducing the gender gap.

Maths and socio-economic status

Year 12 results show that maths participation and performance also differ with socio-economic status. But the gender gap between participation and performance in maths is not comparable to that for English. Boys are about twice as likely to enrol in advanced maths courses and are over-represented in the top performance bands, but they are also more likely to fail (MacCann 1995; Teese et al. 1995). Consequently, girlsÕ average in maths now exceeds boysÕ except in the most advanced course, where they are equal (NSW Board of Studies 1999; Ludowyke & Scanlon, 1997).

Maths is traditionally a male course of study and, until this decade, boys dominated in participation and performance. This is less the case now. Teese et al. (1995) claim that girls from higher socio-economic groups now participate more and perform better while, at the same time, boys from lower socio-economic groups participate less and perform worse than before.

So, there has been a shift whereby girls in higher socio-economic groups are overcoming the traditional gender barriers, and are exceeding the performance of boys in the lower socio-economic groups. This has led to the illusion that all girls significantly improved their school performance. In fact, only a subset of socio-economically advantaged girls has improved, while a subset of socio-economically disadvantaged boys has deteriorated. These discrepancies in performance in these key aspects of education have been intensified by the recent changes in assessment described earlier.

The importance of family

It is now widely accepted that family environment has a strong influence on school attainment. For example, an Australian study found that a familyÕs socio-economic status was positively related to cognitive scores, and that family factors accounted for variations in childrenÕs educational performance, even after controlling for intellectual ability (Marjoribanks 1987).

Why socio-economic status affects English perform-ance and school performance generally, and the gender gap specifically, is less clear.

Family income

Does the lack of financial resources in low socio-economic families account for lower school performance? The Western Australian Child Health Survey (Zubrick et al. 1997) showed a relationship between household income and school performance. It found that as income declined, overall academic competence declined.

These results, however, do not take into account other variables associated with differences in economic circumstances, such as family structure and parental education. Moreover, financial disadvantage would arguably affect both boys and girls equally, yet this does seem to be the case. If socio-economic status is relevant to the growing gender gap, there is presumably an aspect of low socio-economic status families, other than low income, which affects boys more than girls.

Family structure

Divorce often leads to a fall in socio-economic status, and this can adversely affect childrenÕs educational outcomes, according to research (Demo & Acock 1988; National Health Strategy 1992). The Western Australian Child Health Survey also provides evidence for a relationship between family structure and school attainmentÑthe proportion of children with low academic competence was almost twice as high for sole-parent families as for couple families, i.e. 30% and 17% respectively (Zubrick et al. 1997).

Moreover, even after controlling for income, it has been found that children whose parents are divorced or separated have lower levels of educational attainment than children from intact families (Guidubaldi et al. 1983; Spruijt & de Goede 1997). If economic hardship were the main predictor of school performance, one would expect to find no difference between children in stepfamilies and children in intact families, where both received similar incomes. Yet, children in stepfamilies still generally perform less well (Amato & Keith 1991).

A custodial parentÕs remarriage also appears to have a different effect on boys and girls. The presence of a stepfather has been associated with the greater well-being of boys who have a custodial mother, but not girls (Amato & Keith 1991; Hetherington et al. 1985). Amato and Keith (1991) found that for a variety of outcomes, there is an interaction between the childÕs gender and the custodial parentÕs gender. Boys seem to be better off with their fathers, and girls better off with their mothers. These findings further support the idea that the absence of a father from home has a negative impact on the well-being of a child and its educational performance.

Therefore, as one of the strongest predictors of low socio-economic status is sole parenthood, so sole parenthood in turn is a predictor of lower average school performance. Nearly 90% of sole-parent families are headed by mothers. Since the majority of these mothers have poorer educational levels than mothers in general (ABS 1991), and insofar as parental education is a significant factor in childrenÕs educational performance, sole parent families, on average, are clearly a less propitious educational environment for children.

Studies have also shown that divorce has more pervasive and enduring negative consequences for boys than for girls (Guidubaldi et al. 1986), and that time spent in single-mother families has significantly stronger adverse effects on boysÕ educational attainment than girlsÕ (Krein & Beller 1988). This might be because boys in sole parent families frequently lack a male role model and miss the discipline exercised by most fathers. However, there is little supporting evidence for such a view.

The fact therefore remains that there are some circumstancial aspects of low socio-economic status families that adversely affect boys more than girls. Without discounting the stresses and strains for parents with low family incomes, when we look more closely at the correlation between socio-economic status and school performance, family income per se declines in importance, and family structure, parental competence and parental influence come to the fore.

Summary

¥ Against a background of poor standards of literacy in both boys and girls, the general school achievement levels of boys are declining in comparison with girls.

¥Ê The notable features of this significant and increasing discrepancy are boysÕ more serious literacy problems and subsequent poor performance in English.

¥Ê Biological differences, possibly involving hormonal and brain structure differences, may play a part by influencing capacities, interests and motivations, thereby yielding advantages for boys in certain subjects, and for girls in others. The research evidence is so far inconclusive. But if significant innate gender differences do exist, any recent changes in curricula, instruction and assessment that are comparatively less congruent with boysÕ capabilities and interests, could be a factor in boysÕ declining performance.

¥Ê The socio-economic backgrounds of children are strong predictors of their literacy skills and school performance. For boysÕ English performance, the relationship is particularly significant in that the gender gap increases with decreasing socio-economic status. What matters most is not parental income, but rather parental education, general competence, and family stability. In broken families, the father is frequently absent from home and childrenÕs lives. A vital question is whether this disadvantages boysÕ education more than girlsÕ.

Implications and recommendations

The declining educational achievement of boys is associated not only with subsequent unemployment, and an impoverished intellectual and social life, but also delinquency and crime (Kercher 1988; Gottfredson & Hirschi 1990). For these reasons alone, it is critical that the problem of boysÕ education be addressed in a systematic way.

The research evidence so far does not allow us to identify causes of the gender gap in performance with any confidence, but it does highlight areas where further research is urgently needed. Is the absence of a father at home more salient for boys than for girls? Are gender-specific role models important? Are there Ôgender biasesÕ in curricula, instruction and assessment, and, if so, how do they work and should they be reformed?

Key recommendation 1: That methods of literacy instruction be critically examined and reviewed in light of the evidence that boys may not respond as well to the current methods.

The intrinsic worth of education, and its impact on quality of life, attracts far less attention that the vocational outcomes of education. But what about the less tangible rewards, such as enjoyment of learning, the satisfaction to be found in reading, and the ability to appreciate the arts? These neglected benefits of education seem to be regarded as the privilege of girls, and of children in socially advantaged families. Educationally disadvantaged boys, who tend to come from socially disadvantaged families, should have equal access to the intrinsic value of education as well as its vocational uses.

The success of feminist programmes in promoting gender equity in schools has been evident for some time. Girls are now participating in education to a greater extent, widening their choice of subjects, and achieving comparable outcomes,
so the focus has shifted to boys.
The NSW GovernmentÕs Report
on BoysÕ Education (OÕDoherty 1994), for instance, has Ôgender equityÕ programmes as its key
recommendation.

There is an inherent danger, however, in placing too much emphasis on gender. In fact, gender equity strategies should attempt to minimise the importance of gender, rather than make it a central issue. Schools might also begin to question how their methods of teaching and assessment are unwittingly handicapping less resilient boys from an early age, rather than asking whether boysÕ and girlsÕ subject choices in high-school are polarised on the basis of gender identity.

Key recommendation 2: That a wide-scale, possibly longitudinal, study be commissioned, using data held or capable of being collected by the Departments of Education or other government agencies, to look into the effect of familial and environmental variables on both boysÕ and girlsÕ educational performance in general, and literacy skills specifically.Ê

Departments of Education have been reluctant to release data which would help answer these questions, presumably to protect poorly performing schools and teachers, and inappropriate teaching methods, from critical scrutiny.

Key recommendation 3: That strategies which promote gender equity be extended so that they target the obstacles to equal educational opportunities and enjoyment for boys and girls earlier rather than later, both in terms of curricula and gender biases.

Inconclusive empirical evidence and an abundance of speculative opinion are hampering the search for a solution to the puzzle of boysÕ educational decline. Until this situation changes, possibilities for reform are limited, and the educational outcomes for boys will remain uncertain.

References

Alloway, N. and P. Gilbert 1997, ÔBoys and Literacy: Lessons from AustraliaÕ, Gender and Education 9: 49-58.

Amato, P.R. and B. Keith 1991, ÔParental Divorce and the Well-Being of Children: A Meta-AnalysisÕ, Psychological Bulletin 110: 26-46.

ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics). 1991, AustraliaÕs One-Parent Families, ABS Cat. No. 2511.0.

ÑÑÑ. 1998, Australian Social Trends, ABS Cat. No. 4102.0.

ÑÑÑ. 1999, Schools, Australia,Ê ABS Cat. No. 4221.0.

Biddulph, Steve. 1997, Raising Boys, Finch, Sydney.

Brown, R. and R. Fletcher 1995, Boys in Schools: Addressing the Real Issues, Finch, Sydney.

Cratty, B.J. 1986, Perceptual Motor Development in Infants and Children, Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Demo, D.H. and A.C. Acock 1988, ÔThe Impact of Divorce on ChildrenÕ, Journal of Marriage and the Family 50: 619-648.

Flynn, J. and M. Rahbar 1994, ÔPrevalence of Reading Failure in Boys Compared with GirlsÕ, Psychology in Schools 31: 66-71.

Gilbert, R. and P. Gilbert 1998, Masculinity Goes to School, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards.

Gottfredson, M. and T. Hirschi 1990, A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Guidubaldi, J., H.K. Cleminshaw, J.D. Perry and C.S. McLoughlin 1983, ÔThe Impact of Parental Divorce on Children: Report of the Nation-Wide NASP StudyÕ, School Psychology Review 12: 300-323.

Guidubaldi, J., H.K. Cleminshaw, J.D. Perry, B.K. Natasi and J. Lightel 1986, ÔThe Role of Selected Family Environment Factors in ChildrenÕs Post-Divorce AdjustmentÕ, Family Relations 35: 141-151.

Harrison, B and J. Zollner 1993, ÔTeaching Reading: The Importance of Visual Attention SpanÕ, Education Monitor, Autumn: 9-11.

Hetherington, E.M., M. Cox and R. Cox 1985, ÔLong-term Effects of Divorces and Remarriage on the Adjustment of ChildrenÕ, Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry 24: 518-530.

Kemp, D. 1996, Schools and the Democratic Challenge, Bert Kelly Lecture for The Centre for Independent Studies, St Leonards, October.

Kercher, K. 1988, ÔCriminologyÕ, in E.F. Borgatta and K.S. Cook (eds), The Future of Sociology, Sage, Beverley Hills, California.

Krein, S.F. and A.H. Beller 1988, ÔEducational Attainment of Children from Single-Parent Families: Differences by Exposure, Gender and RaceÕ, Demography 25: 221-234.

Ludowyke, J. and J. Scanlon 1997, Improving the School Performance of Boys, Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals, Melbourne.

MacCann, R. 1995, A Longitudinal Study of Sex Differences at the Higher School Certificate and School Certificate: Trends over the Last Decade, NSW Board of Studies, Sydney.

Marjoribanks, K. 1987, ÔFamily Environments and Educational AchievementÕ, in J.P. Keeves (ed), Australian Education: Review of Recent Research, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

Martino, W. 1995, ÔBoys and Literacy: Exploring the Construction of Hegemonic Masculinities and the Formation of Literate Capacities for Boys in the English ClassroomÕ, English in Australia 112: 11-24.

Moir, A. and D. Jessel 1989, Brainsex, Michael Joseph, London.

National Health Stratetgy. 1992, Enough to Make You Sick: How Income and Environment Affect Health, Department of Health, Housing and Community Services.

NSW (New South Wales) Board of Studies 1997, 1996 School Certificate Reference Test and Award Statistics Report, NSW Board of Studies, Sydney.

ÑÑÑ.1999, 1998 Higher School Certificate Examination Statistics, NSW Board of Studies, Sydney.

OÕDoherty, S. 1994, Report on BoysÕ Education, NSW Government Advisory Committee.

Phillips, A. 1993, The Trouble with Boys, Pandora, London.

Shaywitz, S., B. Shaywitz, J. Fletcher and M. Escobar 1990, ÔPrevalence of Reading Disability in Boys and GirlsÕ, Journal of Medical American Association 264: 998-1002.

Spruijt, E. and M. de Goede 1997, ÔTransitions in Family Structure and Adolescent Well-BeingÕ, Adolescence 32: 897-911.

SCRCSSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision). 1999, Report on Government Services 1999, AusInfo, Canberra.

Teese, R., M. Davies, M. Charlton and J. Polesel 1995, Who Wins at School? Boys and Girls in Australian Secondary Education, Macmillan, Sydney.

Vann, A.S. 1991, ÔLetÕs Not Push our Kindergarten KidsÕ, Education Digest 57: 43-45.

Victorian DET (Department of Education and Training). 1998, Gender Perspectives in Assessment and Reporting. Community Information Service, Department of Education, Melbourne.

West, P. 1995, Giving Boys a Ray of Hope: Masculinity and Education, Discussion paper for Gender Equity Taskforce, Australia, February.

Zubrick, S.R., S.R. Silburn, L. Gurrin, H. Teoh, C. Shepherd, J. Carlton and D. Lawrence 1997, Western Australian Child Health Survey: Education, Health and Competence, Australian Bureau of Statistics and the TVW Telethon Institute for Child Health Research, Perth, Western Australia.

 Author

Jennifer Buckingham is Research Assistant with the Taking Children Seriously programme at The Centre for Independent Studies. This article is an edited version of the policy monograph, Boy Troubles: Understanding Rising Suicide, Rising Crime and Educational Failure, due out in June 2000.

Policy is the quarterly review of The Centre for Independent Studies. For more information on subscribing to Policy, click HERE

If you are interested in the Centre's activities and publications, why not subscribe to e-PreCIS, our regular email update on the latest news and events.

(e-PreCIS requires html capable email facilities, such as Microsoft Outlook Express or Netscape Messenger)