Teachers Making Decisions to (Not) Support LGBTQQ and Gender-Creative Youth, Adults, and Families

• In Event: Conducting Activist, Collaborative Research: Sustained Teacher Inquiry on Sexual Identity and Gender Expression in Schools

Abstract

The third paper focuses on risks, benefits, and barriers LGBTQQ and straight teachers experience in their efforts to support LGBTQQ and gender-creative students and families in schools. Teachers play an important role in shaping youths’ and families’ experiences in schools, especially for LGBTQQ-identifying youth and families. The annual GLSEN school climate survey found that when teachers provide social and curricular support to LGBTQQ-identifying students in schools, the experiences of all students are improved (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). However, the study also revealed that teachers often do not make such decisions, resulting in schools where “Less than a fifth of students reported that school personnel frequently intervene[d] when hearing homophobic remarks or negative remarks about gender expression” (p. 15). Additionally, the current scholarship frequently names teachers’ fear and perceptions of risk as a rationale for limited action or inaction (e.g., Gonzales, 2010; Hoffman, 1993; Schall & Kauffmann, 2003; Sieben & Wallowitz, 2009; Thein, 2013). Given these tensions, this paper delves into complexities and uncertainties teachers experience as they decide whether or not to advocate for LGBTQQ people in schools. Specifically, it seeks to address the following question: in the stories teachers tell, when, where, how, under what conditions, and to what degrees do they (not) support LGBTQQ and gender creative people in schools? From the larger data set of audio recorded and transcribed interviews, the analysis for this paper focused on interviews with teachers and interviews with others where teachers and their practices were discussed. Interviews were coded and analyzed in two cycles: first, a cycle of descriptive coding and, second, a cycle of pattern coding based on emergent themes (Saldaña, 2013). A constant comparative approach (Heath & Street, 2008) was used throughout analysis. Based on this analysis, teacher decision-making became a site for understanding the ways in which teachers (don’t) support LGBTQQ people in schools. More specifically, teachers utilized four criteria in making their decisions: first, their perception of the effectiveness of a decision; second, their feelings of competency and vulnerability; third, the availability of resources such as time; and, fourth, their individual investment. Within these criteria, teachers who reported being hesitant to support LGBTQQ people held dichotomous understandings. They dichotomized officially sanctioned learning from understanding LGBTQQ experiences or their teaching job from queer advocacy. These dichotomies formed a rigid configuration that justified teachers’ inactions. On the other hand, teachers who held more contingent, processual, and fluid understandings of both teaching and queer advocacy reported being more likely to act in support of LGBTQQ people. Based on these findings, we argue that teachers and educators more generally must shift their understandings of supporting LGBTQQ people. This work should take relationships with LGBTQQ youth, families, and adults as a starting point, positioning them as experts and seeking to facilitate dialogue and learning for teachers. It should allow for mistake-making and a process of teachers learning. Finally, teachers should balance ethical and activist decisions with strategic and longitudinal ones, choosing to have productive courageous resolve.

Author

• Ryan Schey, The Ohio State University - Columbus