The Role of Preservice Education in LGBT-Supportive Practices of Elementary Teachers

• In Event: The In/Exclusion of LGBT Issues in Preservice Education

Abstract

As lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues gain increasing visibility in the education arena, growing attention has been paid to how issues of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression manifest themselves in elementary schools (GLSEN & Harris Interactive, 2012; Letts & Sears, 1999). Homophobic bullying/name-calling, gender nonconformity, and LGBT families have been identified as three specific areas of focus for elementary schools (GLSEN, 2012; Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2009; Larrabee & Kim, 2010; Ryan et al., 2013). Yet, teachers are unlikely to receive specific training on LGBT-related issues (Szalacha 2004), even as part of content on bullying or multiculturalism (Espelage & Swearer, 2008; Gorski et al., 2013). Thus, pre-service education may fail to prepare teachers to effectively address LGBT issues. However, there has been little research on the preparation received by elementary teachers on these topics (exceptions include Jennings & Sherwin, 2008).

The purpose of this study was to document the extent of pre-service education received by elementary teachers on relevant LGBT topics and to examine whether this education is related to improved practices. We conducted a series of hierarchical regressions using data from a national sample of 1,099 Kindergarten to 6th grade teachers who completed an online survey administered by a national polling firm, predicting three specific practices (intervention in anti-LGBT remarks, proactive efforts re gender nonconforming (GNC) students, and proactive efforts re LGBT families) with previous exposure to various types of pre-service education. In the first step of the regressions, relevant demographic characteristics were included as controls (for the regression of intervention in remarks, we also controlled for frequency of hearing remarks), the second step included the four types of pre-service education (bullying, multicultural/diversity, gender issues, and LGBT families). Lastly, in order to examine the unique contribution of pre-service education above and beyond any in-service education received, pre-service training was added in the final step.
Pre-service education contributed to a significant portion of the variance in both teachers’ intervention and in efforts to create safe/welcoming environments for GNC students, above and beyond in-service education received. Specifically, multicultural education was a significant predictor of intervention, and education on gender topics was a significant predictor of efforts regarding GNC students. Surprisingly, having pre-service education on LGBT families was negatively related to teachers’ efforts related to GNC students. When accounting for in-service education, pre-service education did not account for a significant portion of the variance in teachers’ efforts related to LGBT families. Neither in-service nor pre-service education on bullying was predictive of any of the teacher practices assessed.
Findings demonstrate the value of multicultural and gender-related pre-service education in preparing elementary educators to effectively address anti-LGBT bias and promote gender equality and diversity. Furthermore, results indicate that bullying education may not result in intervention in LGBT-related bullying, perhaps because bullying education may fail to specifically address LGBT-related bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2008). In order to ensure that elementary teachers are equipped to adequately support all students and combat anti-LGBT bias, elementary education programs should explicitly address LGBT-related topics.

Author

• Emily Greytak, GLSEN