Affordances and Constraints of Three Approaches to LGBTQ-Inclusive Curricula in a Secondary Language Arts Classroom

• In Event: 30.079 - Exploring Sexuality and Gender in English Language Arts Classrooms: Creating Opportunities for Challenging Heteronormativity

Abstract

This paper outlines the ways a teacher Ms. Jones included representations of LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer) people in her ELA curriculum by exploring the affordances and constrains of three approaches to LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum: first, independent choice reading; second, small group literature circle discussions; and third, whole class instructional conversations. Data for this paper comes from a semester-long ethnographic study of a 10th grade ELA classroom and Gay-Straight Alliance at an urban, performing arts-focused public magnet high school in a Midwestern city. I visited the school 1-4 times weekly, observing for the majority of the day and completing fieldnotes. I recorded (video and audio) classroom lessons and GSA meetings, collected documents such as student work, and interviewed students, teachers, and administrators.

Literacy scholars have presented conceptual calls for LGBTQ-inclusive curricula (e.g., Blackburn & Buckley, 2005; Hermann-Wilmarth & Ryan, 2015), and quantitative researchers have argued that LGBTQ-inclusive curricula result in LGBTQ youth experiencing school as safer (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer & Boesen, 2014). Page (2015, July) argues that approaches to LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum can be grouped into three tiers of risk and reward, with independent choice projects being low risk and reward, small group configurations being medium, and whole class activities being high. Rather than outlining such a hierarchy, I argue that three different approaches entail various affordances and constraints for different groups including individual students, the teacher, and the cultural group of the classroom.

Independent choice reading enabled students to follow their interests in learning about LGBTQ people but didn’t offer opportunities to do so with a community of learners. This resulted in isolation for LGBTQ and ally readers. Similarly, while Ms. Jones feared fewer parental challenges with this approach, she lacked the time to discuss these books with students and was unable to know all of their content. These constraints limited the ways that she could work towards a queer-friendly classroom. Small group literature circles offered LGBTQ and ally students to read and enjoy LGBTQ-inclusive literature as a community but left them vulnerable when mediating homophobia without the support of the teacher. Ms. Jones was able to dialogue with more students in this configuration but was unable to always mediate and wasn’t able to include representations of LGBTQ people for all students. In whole class conversations, students were able to hear a greater diversity of perspectives but were less likely to participate due to time constraints and became more likely to perform heteronormativity to save face. Ms. Jones was able to more globally challenge all students to think about LGBTQ people and disrupt heteronormativity but in ways that led to unequal emotional labor and introduced greater possibilities of damaging relationships with youth publicly performing homophobia and transphobia. Hence, while each of the three curricular inclusion approaches offered affordances, they contained constraints, meaning that no single approach was sufficient or ideal. I conclude that it is through navigating the tensions among the collective utilization of these approaches that there is greater promise for disrupting heteronormativity and cultivating queer-friendly classrooms.

Author

• Ryan Schey, The Ohio State University - Columbus