Disrupting the conservative parent discourse: Parents’ considerations of school-based bullying of gender/sexuality diverse students

• In Event: Disrupting the Mythology of Bias-Based Bullying: Queer Kids and Social Violence

Abstract

Objectives: While it is widely accepted that hetero/cis-normative discourses in schools are best countered through lessons which affirm gender and sexuality diversity (GSD), and research has shown that GSD-inclusivity reduces school-based victimisation, there remains a precariousness about the inclusion of GSD-related content in Australian schools. The ‘average’ Australian parent is constructed by social groups, lobbyists, politicians, and conservative media as highly ‘traditional’ and opposed to GSD-inclusive material. To date, little existing research has systematically explored if these assumptions are mirrored in reality.

Theoretical Framework: The deployment of the homogenous, assumed parent within policy and curricular considerations impacts how GSD-related, bias-based harassment/violence is addressed in Australian schools. The concept of a “culture of limitation” (Ferfolja & Ullman, 2020) – perpetuated by a range of intersecting political and socio-cultural discourses which resist diversity while maintaining the normative – is used to frame and understand the constraints, real and imagined, experienced by educators with respect to GSD-inclusivity. These constraints extend to how educators understand and address GSD-related, bias-based harassment/violence. Australia’s national bullying guidance for teachers reflects its culture of limitation as evidenced by a ‘safe’, ‘value-free’ approach which fails to proactively engage with concepts of inclusivity, affirmation, visibility or associated educational experiences as related to diverse identity characteristics.

Methods: Given the in/direct influence of the assumed, conservative parent on policies and practices, our research sought to generate nationally representative data on parents’ perceptions of GSD-inclusive curriculum, including experiences of parents with a child who identifies as gender and/or sexuality diverse. This mixed-method project employed a combination of a nationwide survey of parents of children attending a public (government) school, alongside a two-prong qualitative approach to elicit personal narratives from a subset of parents.

Data sources: A total of 2,093 parents submitted useable survey responses, with children near-evenly distributed across primary/elementary, middle, and high schools. Survey participants were from a range of cultural, religious and linguistic backgrounds, broadly reflective of those reported at the population level. Thirteen interviews and 16 online forum participants provided qualitative data from parents of gender and/or sexuality diverse students.

Results: Contrasting prevailing narratives, our survey data revealed that parents are overwhelmingly supportive of GSD-inclusive education. Rationale included parents’ investment in the wellbeing of gender and sexuality diverse students and the belief that inclusive curriculum would reduce GSD-related, bias-based harassment/violence. Nationally, 85% of Australian parents support their child learning about ways students can challenge the discrimination of gender and/or sexuality diverse individuals to promote inclusion.
Interview/forum participants noted the challenges of navigating the existing bullying framework in Australian public schools, where GSD-related marginalisation and violence is positioned and addressed in reductive ways that often render the target as an ‘outsider’ and locate fault with the victim.

Significance: The current ‘apolitical’ bullying framework fails to meaningfully engage with the broader socio-cultural drivers of GSD-related, bias-based harassment/violence. This leads to educators’ identification of students’ individual fault and failure to enact educative interventions. Findings from our research counter the persistent narrative that parents are opposed to GSD-inclusivity and pave the way for schools’ meaningful engagement.

Authors

• Jacqueline Ullman, Western Sydney University

• Tania Ferfolja, University of Western Sydney