A Safer Place? LGBT Educators, School Climate, and Implications for Administrators

• In Event: 50 Shades of Gay: Past, Present, and Future of Research on the Spectrum of Sexuality and Education

Abstract

Studies were conducted in 2007 and 2011 to analyze LGBT teachers’ perceptions of school climate as well as impact of school leaders on climate. This paper presents and compares quantitative nonparametric, descriptive, and qualitative results of the National Survey of Educators’ Perceptions of School Climate (NSEPSC), offering recommendations for school leaders.
Before 2007, research on LGBT educators was primarily small-sample, qualitative studies. Stories of LGBT educators were revealed, but the research did not represent LGBT educators nationally.
This paper describes the creation and administration of a survey of the workplace climate for LGBT educators. The 2007 and 2011 study results are compared and relate to these research questions:
a) How do LGBT educators perceive their workplace climate?
b) What factors influence them in how they perceive their workplace climate? The Likert-style survey design was coupled with open-ended questions to capture experiences phenomenological in nature.
The NSEPSC 2007 and 2011 were posted on SurveyMonkey™. Purposive sampling was used. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed using qualitatively hermeneutical analysis. Nearly all areas and levels are included in both samples. Participants represent all regions of the United States, but most identified as European American.
Almost all participants reported hearing homophobic remarks both years, especially from students. 2011 saw a decrease in teachers using them and an increase in policies regarding their use. Both years, parents had children removed from their classrooms, questioned lesson content, accused respondents of making children gay, and charged they promoted being gay. Respondents perceived conservative religious parents complained. Heteronormativity also breeds harassment (Melillo, 2003), especially the assumption of heterosexual marital status.
In both years, one-third felt their jobs were at risk if they were out and one-quarter reported experiencing harassment. In 2011, the number of participants perceiving an unsafe community attitude increased.
In 2007, comparable numbers completed items about negative and positive consequences of being out. In 2011, more completed items about negative consequences. The negative consequences by administrators included threat of job loss, reassignment, investigations, extra duties’ pay withheld, promotion denial, merit pay denial, unfair action plans, and student services withheld. Positive consequences included how being out allowed support of LGBT students.
A lower level of support by state law, union contract, and local ordinances was reported in 2011. A similar number reported being out to someone at school. LGBT content is rarely included in the curriculum or professional development. Both years, nearly 40% felt uncomfortable discussing LGBT issues with supervisors. In 2011, fewer respondents felt comfortable supporting LGBT students.
Homophobia was demonstrated by members across the school population. Nearly all LGBT educators frequently heard insults about their identities. Support of LGBT staff stayed the same or worsened in 2011. Whether in or out of the closet, school climate was a source of stress, which continues the historical pattern of LGBT educators’ experiences in schools (Blount, 2000).
To the authors’ knowledge, this is the only pair of large-scale quantitative studies, making it a valuable addition to the LGBT literature base.

Authors

• Tiffany Wright, Millersville University of Pennsylvania

• Nancy J. Smith, Millersville University of Pennsylvania