LGBTQ Employment Discrimination and it's effects on Human Development

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309172394

LGBTQ Student Achievement and Educational Attainment

Chapter · April 2015

DOI: 10.3102/978-0-935302-36-3_7

CITATIONS

8 READS

2,408

3 authors:

George Wimberly

American Educational Research Association

14 PUBLICATIONS   266 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Lindsey Wilkinson

Portland State University

22 PUBLICATIONS   639 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Jennifer Pearson

Wichita State University

21 PUBLICATIONS   836 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by George Wimberly on 07 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

LGBTQ Issues in Education: Advancing a Research Agenda

ch00-frontmatter.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page i

ch00-frontmatter.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page ii

LGBTQ Issues in Education: Advancing a Research Agenda

Edited by George L. Wimberly

ch00-frontmatter.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page iii

The American Educational Research Association (AERA) publishes books and journals based on the highest standards of professional review to ensure their quality, accuracy, and objectivity. Findings and conclusions in publications are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policies of the Association, its Council, or its officers.

© 2015 American Educational Research Association

Published by the American Educational Research Association 1430 K St., NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 Printed in the United States of America

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, including, but not limited to, the process of scanning and digitization, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ch00-frontmatter.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page iv

Table of Contents Preface v Acknowledgments vii 1 Introduction and Overview 1

George L. Wimberly 2 LGBTQ Education Research in Historical Context 23

Karen Graves 3 Sociolegal Contexts of LGBTQ Issues in Education 43

Catherine A. Lugg and Madelaine Adelman 4 Schools and Children in LGBTQ Families 75

Ryan J. Watson and Stephen T. Russell 5 K–12 Students in Schools 89

Mollie Blackburn and C. J. Pascoe 6 Bullying and K–12 Students 105

Dorothy L. Espelage 7 LGBTQ Student Achievement and Educational Attainment 121

George L. Wimberly, Lindsey Wilkinson, and Jennifer Pearson 8 Higher Education 141

Kristen A. Renn 9 School Workers 161

Jackie M. Blount 10 Use of Large-Scale Data Sets and LGBTQ Education 175

George L. Wimberly 11 Challenges to Doing Research on LGBTQ Issues in Education

and Important Research Needs 219 George L. Wimberly and Juan Battle

12 Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research 237 George L. Wimberly

Name Index 253 Subject Index 255 Workshop Participant Roster 271 About the Contributors 273

ch00-frontmatter.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page ix

ch00-frontmatter.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page x

Chapter 1

Introduction and Overview George L. Wimberly

In an increasingly diverse society, educators and policy makers face thechallenge of fostering educational environments that are inclusive and wel-coming to all students and teachers. Schools and teachers must consider whether the educational context facilitates learning for all youth, including those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer (LGBTQ), or ques- tioning their sexual identity, as well as children of sexual-minority parents. In a pluralistic society, school administrators must also consider whether teachers, aides, or other staff who themselves may identify as LGBTQ are hindered in the workplace because of discriminatory policies, practices, or comments.

The enhanced social status of LGBTQ people and the increased visibility of LGBTQ issues across societal and cultural domains are affecting how we understand schools and educational issues. Changes in family structures and dynamics have led to an increased relevance and awareness of LGBTQ issues in schools or educational contexts. Several states and the District of Columbia have laws permitting same-sex marriage, and many communities recognize same-sex relationships with expanded property rights and legal protections to legitimize these relationships and households. Findings from the 2010 U.S. Census estimate that over 600,000 households are led by same-sex couples, and it is estimated that one quarter of these households are raising children (O’Connell & Feliz, 2011). These changes in family demographics and structure bring LGBTQ issues to the forefront in our nation’s schools.

K–12 schools and colleges have had to respond to the increased visibility of LGBTQ youth and young adults as well as LGBTQ faculty and staff on their campuses. Thus, in a school context there may be children who have LGBTQ parents, students who identify as LGBTQ or engage in same-sex sexual behavior, parents of LGBTQ students, and faculty, staff, school admin- istrators, and other adults in the school context who are directly or indirectly affected by LGBTQ issues and concerns. This opens up a new realm of issues and thinking for the overall population of students, teachers, and others in the school who interact in an LGBTQ context.

The increased visibility of LGBTQ people in schools and in education is changing how we think about school curriculum issues, sexuality, definitions of family, and attitudes toward these issues. It is expanding how we conceptu-

1

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 1

alize, develop, and use education research on LGBTQ issues and topics. School leaders, teachers, parents, and policy makers need information and knowledge to understand the social, psychological, structural, and school cli- mate factors that affect LGBTQ students and others at the individual level (micro level) and to understand how LGBTQ issues affect the school curriculum and structure (macro level). Findings and discussions from scholarly education research can help schools expand to serve all students and become places for learning about and exploring LGBTQ people and their communities.

Recognizing the presence of LGBTQ people and issues in an educational context has been an evolving and dynamic process. For many decades much of the education research on LGBTQ issues related to mental health factors such as youth depression, social isolation, homelessness, and teen suicide (D’Augelli, 2002; D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 2001; Savin-Williams, 2001). Early research studies depict LGBTQ teachers as social deviants or as immoral, arguing that students need to be protected from these educators (Blount, 2005; Graves, 2009). However, an emerging body of literature and education research uses multiple theoretical and conceptual frameworks and conventional research methods to explain and help us understand the LGBTQ experience in our nation’s schools.

Information and findings from education research studies can describe and explain the school experiences of LGBTQ youth and their peer relation- ships across a broad range of topics such as school/campus climate, parent involvement, student achievement, and other essential elements that affect students in schools. Particularly at the high school level, recent education research is shedding light on some of the challenges that LGBTQ youth face. This research suggests that in comparison with their non-LGBTQ peers, LGBTQ students may be more likely to be victims of bullying and harass- ment, have lower levels of academic achievement, have less school engage- ment, suffer emotional distress and social isolation, and experience social and psychological adjustment problems. In some communities local high schools and community organizations are addressing the needs of LGBTQ youth and working within schools to ensure that these students have a safe, vibrant, and rich school experience. However, much of this research is limited to a small number of campuses and communities, resulting in large gaps in knowledge about LGBTQ youth and students, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students, and those living in small towns and rural areas.

College and university campuses have been at the forefront of giving voice to the issues and challenges faced by LGBTQ students. Campus organizations provide social support and psychological counseling, and campus advocacy

2 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 2

organizations and policies protect LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff. Colleges provide a platform for researchers to study students’ current and past experi- ences, attitudes toward LGBTQ issues, and perceptions related to education. Beyond the campus experience, colleges and universities are now investing in academic centers and research to increase our knowledge and understanding of LGBTQ people, topics, and communities.

This report seeks to give voice to the research, to expand our understanding of LGBTQ issues, and to foster scientific and scholarly inquiry that draws upon solid theoretical models and methods. It provides a synthesis of what we know from research on LGBTQ issues, considers the key methods used to gather the information, and discusses essential elements for understanding how research can contribute to the overall discovery and knowledge of LGBTQ issues that are affecting students and youth, school faculty and staff, school curriculum and areas of study, and the overall educational experience. Through- out this report the authors review key LGBTQ research, examine areas for fu- ture research, consider issues important to advancing scholarship, and offer recommendations for investing in research, data, and training of researchers in this important arena of inquiry.

Background on AERA’s Initiative This report derives from an initiative of the American Educational Research As- sociation (AERA) undertaken to examine LGBTQ issues in education, the state of the knowledge, and promising directions for future research. The AERA study gathered information on the state of research on LGBTQ issues in education through multiple processes: (a) an extensive literature search and review, (b) a broad-based Call for Ideas to the education research community to invite input and suggestions, and (c) an intensive small research workshop of scholars. Literature Search AERA staff initiated an extensive literature search and review through e-mail and the AERA website, calling on the education research community for input and ideas on LGBTQ issues in education. This search produced over 400 entries, which showed the breadth of topics and areas of research examining LGBTQ issues in education. This information was supplemented with other literature collected by AERA staff and a literature list generated by the Queer Studies Special Interest Group (SIG). Throughout the development and prepa- ration of this report, AERA continued to add and update the literature list and organize it in a useful format for researchers, practitioners, and educators. The literature collection in itself is an accessible, important product of the project.

introduction and overview 3

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 3

Call for Ideas The Call for Ideas on Scholarly Knowledge on LGBTQ Issues in Education was posted on the AERA website, disseminated across AERA divisions and rel- evant SIGs, and distributed widely to other associations, research societies, and organizations in the social sciences and humanities that directly and indirectly link to scholars in relevant research areas. The AERA call asked researchers to provide citations to significant findings and studies, respond to specific questions about the state of knowledge on LGBTQ issues, identify theoretical perspectives, and discuss methodological concerns in this research. This call resulted in about 100 responses, which contributed to identifying the range of germane knowledge and to the development of this report. Research Workshop In the fall of 2010 AERA held a Workshop on LGBTQ Issues in Education Re- search that brought together scholars in education research and other fields to examine LGBTQ research as it relates to education, identify research on LGBTQ issues across a broad perspective, determine gaps in the research, and discuss what future research agendas might address. The goal of the workshop was to bring scholars from multiple disciplines together to provide a state-of-the-art examination of LGBTQ research as it relates to education as a learning envi- ronment as well as to the health and well-being of those who study or work in educational settings.

The workshop participants included researchers who study and work with LGBTQ populations or in related areas. These scholars discussed from the vantage of their expertise the state of the knowledge, important issues unstudied or understudied, and promising trajectories for future research. They also ad- dressed methodological and conceptual challenges to the research and devel- oped an illustrative map of promising research directions and discussed po- tential funding considerations, data needs, and other resource needs important to advancing this work. Research was examined on substantive topics such as LGBTQ issues in the school context, research on educators and school leaders, the family, K –12 schools and schooling issues, international and cultural con- texts, and indicators and demographics for LGBTQ populations.

In advance of the workshop, participants each contributed to the literature list through memoranda that focused on salient studies and findings and provided important citations to research. These memoranda highlighted work within participants’ particular research domains and expertise. The memos also served as catalysts for the workshop conversation and helped to emphasize issues ad- dressed in the broad-based call from the education research community. The

4 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 4

discussions and memos from the workshop, the literature collection, and the Call for Ideas all contributed to the development of this report.

Use of the Term LGBTQ The term LGBTQ is often associated with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals and their communities. In this report the authors use the LGBTQ term as a general categorization of the individuals, groups, issues, behaviors, and identities that are discussed. But one finding that emerges from this literature is that gender expression, sexual behavior, attraction, and identity are each separate and distinct domains. Throughout the literature, each com- ponent of the term LGBTQ has multiple definitions, has been adopted by some groups and not by others, has changed and evolved overtime, and is deemed appropriate for some situations but unsuitable in others. For example, some women describe themselves as “lesbian” and others prefer the term “gay women” (Moore, 2011). Some people may engage in same-sex sexual behavior, yet reject the label gay or bisexual. The Centers for Disease Control uses the term “men who have sex with men” to capture men who self-identify as straight or heterosexual yet engage in sexual activity with men. Some use the label “queer,” once thought of as derogatory, to associate with queer theory or a queer lifestyle; others designate the “Q” as “questioning.”

Gender expression or transgender issues— the “T” in LGBTQ— remain a somewhat new and understudied area in education research. A few researchers are just beginning to explore and examine the school experiences of those who express their gender outside traditional masculine and feminine roles (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Wentling, Schilt, Windsor, & Lucal, 2008). We are just beginning to have some understanding or some limited research on how those who are transgender or who express gender differently experience school, interact in so- ciety, and understand their sexuality. A person’s gender expression as female, male, or other expression may be different from their sexual expression. We are just starting to learn about some of the experiences that transgender people have on university campuses, but this research is very limited. Even more limited is the literature on alternate gender expression among children and young adults (Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012; Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). Although many researchers include the “T” in a general description of the population, few actually disaggregate the experiences of this group in any way that is generalizable to a wider population. This opens the door to much-needed future research, par- ticularly in a school or educational context.

introduction and overview 5

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 5

Each of the LGBTQ components and definitions can reflect cultural, polit- ical, and social agendas that describe specific issues, individuals, and groups but also can be misaligned with the values, beliefs, and attitudes of others who may have similar identity, attraction, gender expression, or same-sex be- havior. Thus, there is not a universal term that necessarily captures everyone. The authors in this report choose to use LGBTQ to describe the population in an all-encompassing sense. However, when referencing the literature or when talking about a particular group such as gay or transgender people or those who have same-sex attraction, the authors use the more specific term and limit the use of acronyms.

Theories and Conceptual Frameworks Used to Study LGBTQ Issues Theory provides a lens to frame an issue or argument, define key concepts, and ultimately make sense of research findings and results. Scholars of LGBTQ issues in education draw upon the concepts and tenets of multiple theoretical perspectives to develop research questions that address behaviors, individual identity (or identities), group interactions, cultural factors, and the social land- scapes that shape LGBTQ issues in an educational context. Some of the studies in this report represent several theoretical perspectives and show how they are applied to education research issues that affect the LGBTQ community. Among the theoretical lenses used to examine LGBTQ topics are heteronormative perspectives, which frame research in terms of the traditional male-female re- lationship; queer theory, which seeks to dismantle categorical notions; and intersectionality, which brings in different elements of multiple frameworks.

The next section offers further explanation of theoretical models to help the reader understand the research presented and discussed throughout this re- port. Each of the theories discussed is much more complex and broad than as presented here. Readers seeking a deeper understanding of the theories them- selves should consult the cited literature. Following this review of theory, we then discuss some of the research methods that scholars and researchers use to collect information and analyze data on LGBTQ issues. The Heteronormative Theoretical Perspective Much of the education research on LGBTQ issues is framed using a hetero- normative theoretical perspective. This research starts with the notion that tra- ditional male-female relationships are the norm or standard that shapes and dominates social institutions such as the family, politics, religion, public health, and education (Mayo, 2007; Renn, 2010). This perspective organizes identities into categories that are hierarchical binaries, such as male-female and hetero-

6 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 6

sexual-homosexual, with the male heterosexual perspective prevailing as the most powerful and superior perspective. It is this binary dominance that creates the standard by which all other areas are judged. This theoretical perspective supports patriarchy and male dominance throughout society. Within the het- eronormative structure, other notions of gender, marriage, or sexuality are not an option and are viewed as deviant or criminal (Carpenter & Lee, 2010).

Most schools function as heteronormative institutions, which overwhelm- ingly maintain that opposite-sex relationships, coupled with male dominance and female submission, represent the natural and standard manner of behaving and interacting. Many scholars translate heteronormative perspectives as de- rivatives of masculine identity theories and masculine domination (Pascoe, 2007; Sears, 1998, 2005). The heteronormative structuralist framework and traditional attitude are pervasive throughout K–12 schools and in higher edu- cation. As early as preschool, students are socialized to adhere to and accept the strict cultural and moral norms surrounding heteronormativity. Children are often taught gender-based stereotypes such as boys’ being strong and ag- gressive and girls’ being meek, nurturing, and mild mannered.

Beyond social interactions among students, heteronormativity is reflected in school curricula that present only a heterosexual perspective, in different dress code standards for boys and girls, in students’ and teachers’ expressions of homophobia, and often in sports and school clubs where homophobia and transsexual phobia are used as a weapon or threat to compel students to conform (Kosciw et al., 2010, 2012; Lipkin, 2001; Pascoe, 2007). Research shows a general prevalence of homophobia within schools that is often wide- spread and supported by faculty and the general environment (G. W. Smith, 1998; Walters & Hayes, 1998). Students who deviate from the norm are often ostracized, isolated, or otherwise ignored in the school.

The heteronormative perspective regulates much of how sexuality is con- ceived and discussed in schools, as well as how LGBTQ topics are studied. It is through heteronormative discursive practices that LGBTQ lives are mar- ginalized socially and politically and, as a result, are invisible in some social spaces, including schools. Prior to 1990 the heteronormative perspective dom- inated education research on LGBTQ issues, as much of this work focused on pathological topics surrounding LGBTQ students’ mental health and psycho- logical well-being (D’Augelli,1996; Tierney & Dilley, 1998). Depression, anxiety, and youth suicide were prevalent in this research.

Until the 1970s many K–12 schools did not teach anything related to sexu- ality beyond a health education curriculum. Students learned about the “birds and the bees,” focusing exclusively on the traditional reproductive process (Irvine, 2004). Family dynamics were centered around heterosexual norms of

introduction and overview 7

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 7

marriage and child-rearing, and any deviations were seen as perverted and often scorned (Foucault, 1990). However, sex education evolved as lifestyles, cultural norms, and family dynamics changed, reproductive health topics ex- panded, and diverse groups of students entered our schools. The onset of AIDS in the 1980s demanded that schools address sex education and discuss sexuality with an ever-growing and changing student population. Some of this research is the subject of the current report. Heteronormative perspectives were still the most common: Abstinence-only sex education promoting male- female relationships, heterosexual marriage, and traditional family structures dominated many schools’ curricula. But world events precipitated greater vis- ibility of LGBTQ students, teachers, and issues affecting schools, and led re- searchers to produce a body a knowledge addressing LGBTQ issues. Queer Theory At the opposite end of the theoretical continuum, queer theory supports an in- dividual’s self-identification and full self-expression, challenging the hetero- normative perspective by dismantling all categories of cultural norms and val- ues, class distinctions, racial and gender thinking, preconceived notions of family, and the traditional structure of the institutions that support heteronor- mative roles (Sullivan, 2003). Queer theory is not a specialized theory; rather, it is a perspective or way of thinking that is defined by action. Instead of re- placing the traditional categories with alternatives, queer theory dismantles the categories altogether. Where heteronormative perspective creates categorical binaries within gender, race, class, and sexuality, queer theory is fluid and as- sumes no group hierarchy or connections. Queer theory holds that under a heteronormative framework the LGBTQ person is deemed as powerless; thus, it is only through eliminating categories that LGBTQ people can truly gain power or voice.

Queer theoretical frameworks can help us understand lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender experiences. It also provides the opposing argument to the heteronormative idea that gender and sexuality are fixed and/or natural char- acteristics. A queer theoretical framework is based on the notions that people can live as a gender different from the one they were born into, can refuse to identify as either male or female, can engage in sexual relationships with both men and women, and can reject the gay or straight classification. This per- spective moves beyond ideas of gender and sexuality categories.

Scholars and researchers use queer theoretical frameworks to discuss and produce knowledge across many areas in education, including the curriculum (King & Schneider, 1999; Morris, 1998; Pinar, 1998), teaching methods (Luh- mann, 1998), youth identity development (Davis, 1999), and the family (Letts

8 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 8

& Sears, 1999). Education researchers can add a queer theoretical approach to their work by deconstructing traditional gender and sex categories that hinder their research and not letting homophobic attitudes and conceptualizations cloud their thinking.

However, queer theory is often criticized for being a product of class and racial dominance and privilege, specifically the perspectives of White and wealthy people in the LGBTQ community, the very same categories the theory seeks to dismantle. In some ways this theory dismisses the institutions and categories that some rely on for survival. Applying a queer theory thus decon- structs the identity and experiences of some groups that experience racial op- pression and poverty, and undermines cultural supports that shape their identity (Cohen, 1997). Intersectionality as a Conceptual Framework The intersections of race, class, and even the location of a community often overlap with the theories that researchers use to frame LGBTQ issues. Theo- retical interactions across multiple theories provide a lens for considering how various perspectives stand alone and at the same time are influenced by other perspectives. Cultural norms and values, religion, and how communities relate within society all can shape how we think about and conceptualize LGBTQ is- sues. As with any social construct, the meaning or interpretation of LGBTQ is- sues can change as society changes. What was once taboo may now be at least tolerated and in some cases accepted or celebrated, and in still other cases can now be the norm. In our multicultural, multireligious, multivalue, and diverse society there are many theories and lenses that can define one’s reality and frame an issue. Some argue that it is inaccurate or inappropriate to apply a theory based solely on race, class, or gender or a theory that denies such cate- gories, or to frame research on LGBTQ issues, topics, and subjects. Intersec- tionality can be a key framework for understanding various groups, especially groups that have experienced racial and class oppression (Crenshaw, 1991).

Elements of intersectionality, specifically class, race, and gender, are es- sential to education research, given that schools and educational issues are largely shaped by and reflective of the social context in which they exist (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). For example, among African Americans, Latinos, and other racial and ethnic minorities, the patterns of residential, racial, class, and school segregation are very important in understanding how we address LGBTQ issues. Even today, after decades of diversity efforts, students, re- gardless of their race, are likely to attend schools that are racially homogenous. Most Black and Latino children attend K–12 schools that have a largely mi- nority student population, and White students tend to be the majority in the

introduction and overview 9

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 9

schools they attend (Mickelson, 2014; Orfield, Frankenberg, Ee, & Kuscera 2014). Even among schools that are diverse along racial and class lines, students tend to self-segregate and form homogenous peer and social networks (Orfield et al., 2014). Beyond these informal groups and interactions, students’ course taking, academic placement levels, and ultimately achievement and postsecondary plans show distinct race and class differences (Domina, Conley, & Farkas, 2011; Lucas, 1999). Thus, the intersection of class, race, and other elements can affect how students and schools experience and understand LGBTQ issues. Often, cultural and religious attitudes toward homosexuality, homophobic ideas, and general negative perceptions of LGBTQ issues that exist in the broader community are merely reflected in the school environment. Researchers need to be cognizant of these varied experiences when studying students and schools.

Some researchers use an intersectionlity framework to examine and under- stand LGBTQ issues in education research, specifically when seeking to frame how racial and ethnic minorities experience LGBTQ status and interpret their experiences. In a study of Black college athletes, Southall, Anderson, Nagel, Southall, and Polite (2010) argue that the race perspective dominates Black athletes’ homophobic and negative attitudes toward LGBTQ people and issues. Research suggests that some Blacks view homosexuality as a White experience, despite the homosexual presence in the Black community (Battle &, Barnes, 2010). Black adolescents may think of a gay identity or homosexual commu- nities as being something for and prominent among Whites. Schools with gay student alliances or other support groups or clubs for the LGBTQ community are often viewed as catering only to White students (McCready, 2010; Pascoe, 2007). What is key in this research is the potential intersection of race and sexuality, as illustrated by examples across multiple areas (Carbado, 2002). Theories Across the Disciplines and Fields Education researchers also use prevailing theories within their own discipline or professional field to provide a framework for understanding LGBTQ issues. For example, some sociologists use cultural capital theory to frame arguments about the effect of the school culture on LGBTQ students’ well-being (Wilkin- son & Pearson, 2009). Psychologists use various theories to discuss the sexual identity development of children and youth (D’Augelli, 1996; D’Augelli, Pilk- ington, & Hershberger, 2002). These behavioral and social science disciplines often rely on structuralist or intersectional theoretical approaches to explain LGBTQ issues and guide their research.

However, progressive and poststructuralist theoretical frameworks allow researchers to frame the same phenomena using elements of multiple theoretical

10 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 10

perspectives. This research is framed in the borderlands of what are sometimes competing or conflicting theoretical perspectives. Researchers abandon their rigid theoretical confines to work in a blended or hybrid theoretical perspective. For example, a mix of critical theory and postmodernism are used to understand LGBTQ faculty in higher education (Tierney, 1997). Other researchers rely on theories of cognitive and noncognitive development to explain the effects of the campus and school experiences of LGBTQ students at all educational levels (Abes & Kasch, 2007; Rankin, Blumfeld, Weber, & Frazer, 2010). These multiple theoretical approaches used to address LGBTQ issues in schools, among students, in curriculum, or in a school context exemplify the complexity of the issues and the need for expanded knowledge development and further understanding.

Purposive and Atheoretical Research Although theory can frame and guide education research on LGBTQ issues, much of the research is grounded in questions and issues affecting LGBTQ youth and their school experiences. In this report there are multiple examples of historical research that provide us with illustrative information and knowl- edge about LGBTQ experiences among school administrators, teachers, and staff (Blount, 2005; Graves, 2009; Jackson, 2007). This research is often or- ganized around themes and movements affecting a time period.

As we see throughout this report, many studies are conducted with the pur- pose in mind of addressing a specific topic or bringing knowledge to a specific issue. Organizations such as the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) have responded to issues such as school bullying and harassment by conducting descriptive studies of LGBTQ youth school experiences (GLSEN, 2009). Other scholars have published essays and personal narratives of LGBTQ youth, providing in-depth details of their life and school experi- ences. Some of the research is framed around questions such as, What is a family? (Goldberg, 2007; Moore, 2011; Russell, McGuire, Lee, Larriva, & Laub, 2008) or, What do we know about gay and lesbian teachers? (Blount, 2005; Coloma, 2003; Graves, 2009; Jackson, 2007).

Other research, in the form of program evaluation or policy analysis, may be meant to provide a description, assessment, or review of a program or policy. (Discussed in this report is research and analysis from organizations such as Campus Pride that provide demographic data and statistical information on LGBTQ students and faculty in our nation’s colleges and universities; Rankin et al., 2010). Still other research reviews and evaluates programs and initiatives that target LGBTQ youth, such as gay and lesbian clubs and organ-

introduction and overview 11

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 11

izations in schools. Some organizations have conducted research in fields such as health, social work, and medicine that address youth issues and may have an LGBTQ dimension (Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2001). Some of this reseach describes public opinion on LGBTQ issues or may focus on an area within the specific field (T. W. Smith, Marsden, Hout, & Kim, 2011).

Once issues are framed, research questions developed, and hypotheses stated, education researchers use multiple methods to collect and analyze data and information on LGBTQ issues. Many of these methods are standard across research communities and proven to produce sound scientific knowledge and information. Some researchers may address research questions by using sur- veys, interviewing students, observing behaviors in schools, or providing de- tailed personal stories of students’ lived experiences. Education researchers use multiple methods to collect and analyze data on LGBTQ issues; some of these methods are discussed in the next section.

Data Collection Methods Used in Education Research on LGBTQ Issues

Much of what is known about LGBTQ issues in school and educational set- tings is gathered through qualitative research methods such as case studies, interviews, archival research, and ethnographies (Bilodeau, 2005; Blackburn, Clark, Kenney, & Smith, 2010; Blackburn & McCready, 2009; Chang, 2005; Coloma, 2003; Epstein, 1997). These data collection methods are commonly referred to as fieldwork and involve researchers’ spending significant periods of time in schools, on college campuses, in LGBTQ organizations, or with LGBTQ individuals, immersing themselves in the social settings and col- lecting as much information as possible. Some of these qualitative research methods produce descriptive information about LGBTQ issues, contribute to knowledge development, and inform policy and program development in educational and other contexts. There is no single formula for this research, but rather a myriad of activities that researchers engage in to gather data (Patton, 2002). Other research may rely on quantitative research methods that use numerical analysis generated through surveys, administrative data, and other data sources such as student grades, transcripts, and test scores. As with the discussion of the theoretical perspectives researchers use to study LGBTQ issues, the research methods discussed in this report are much more intricate and involved than we present. We provide a brief description of some research methods and give examples of studies using such methods to address LGBTQ issues in schools, among students and teachers, and in the general educational context.

12 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 12

Qualitative Research Methods Historical Accounts and Archival Information Some of what we know about LGBTQ issues in education and school settings is based on historical accounts and analyses of historical archives such as letters, pictures, newspaper articles, school records, administrative files, per- sonal journals, and community records. Prior to the 1970s, discussion of ho- mosexuality was unthinkable in most circles, and even more taboo in schools and college campuses (Lipkin, 2001; Tierney & Dilley, 1998). K–12 teachers, college professors, and school administrators were regularly fired for the mere suspicion of homosexuality (Blount, 2005; Graves, 2009; Jackson, 2007; Lip- kin, 2001). Formal student organizations for LGBTQ students were prohibited or existed completely underground. In spite of unspoken and real prohibitions against LGBTQ people and organizations in schools, historical archives reveal information about the past experiences of LGBTQ students and teachers that add valuable insight to researchers’ understandings of current as well as past LGBTQ experiences. Education historians access these artifacts and often conduct interviews with individuals about their past school experiences and lives in an LGBTQ context. In Chapter 2 of this report (“LGBTQ Education Research in Historical Context”), the author provides a historical description of LGBTQ teachers. Further examples of research using these methods can be found in Chapter 9 (“School Workers”), where the author provides a historical account of LGBTQ school workers and their experiences in K–12 schools. Ethnographic Research Methods A common research method used in education is ethnography, which involves long-term study of a particular issue or phenomena within a social context. Ethno- graphers engage in participant observation by attempting to discern the patterns and regularities of human behavior. Researchers do not begin ethnographic re- search with specific hypotheses but seek to understand the nature of the social phenomena under study (Patton, 2002). In some of the strongest ethnographies of LGBTQ issues, researchers have immersed themselves in school settings and mixed with students and teachers (McCready, 2010; Pascoe, 2007). Much of the research presented in Chapter 5 (“K–12 Students in Schools,”) uses ethnographic research methods in which the researchers seek to describe, analyze, and interpret the culture of the students, teachers, and overall school environment over time, focusing on the participants’ shared beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and practices. Case studies, too, can be a form of ethnographic research, as ethnographers attempt to collect data on LGBTQ issues in schools and other educational settings. This research is carried out in the natural setting, such as a school or community

introduction and overview 13

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 13

center, and involves intimate or regular face-to-face contact between the re- searchers and the people they study (Blackburn, 2005).

While ethnographies and case studies can provide extensive and detailed descriptions of LGBTQ issues (e.g., concepts of masculinity) in a single school or across multiple schools (Pascoe, 2007), much education research on these issues uses less-intensive techniques to collect information. Throughout this report are examples of research that uses nonparticipant observation, in which researchers record and observe students’ behaviors and actions but do not par- ticipate in the school life or home lives of students. In this kind of study, for example, a researcher may sit in a classroom taking notes on the students’ in- teractions with each other and the teacher.

Qualitative researchers ordinarily take copious field notes, which can include information about what they directly see or hear during the study or personal reflections on what they observe. Field notes can be enhanced with supple- mental information such as posters, class assignments, student essays, letters, and other written and visual materials that researchers gather. For example, researchers may collect posters or flyers about gay student organizations on a campus or take pictures or video recordings of events on campus, perhaps sponsored by an organization being studied (Plummer, 2001; Sears, 2005). Interviews Some of the most in-depth and rich discussions of LGBTQ issues come from interviews (Diamond, 2003; McCready, 2010). Researchers commonly collect data through interviews with students, teachers, parents, faculty, and other in- dividuals. Interviews allow researchers to ask specific questions about issues and probe for in-depth information about the subjects’ feelings, attitudes, in- terests, concerns, and values. In some cases researchers approach subjects with structured interview protocols that contain specified questions that are the focus of the study (Patterson, 1992, 2000). In LGBTQ research these can include specific questions such as, What is it like to be an LGBTQ student at this school? How would you describe the relationships among teachers and students on campus? How do your friends react when they learn you have two dads? Other interview questions can be unstructured, allowing the researcher to have an informal conversation with subjects. Narrative Research Many researchers produce essays and stories about individuals’ experiences. Narrative research can take on forms such as autobiographies, biographies, personal accounts, personal documents, life histories, and testimonials. In nar- rative analysis, the researcher typically collects descriptions of events through

14 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 14

interviews and observations and synthesizes them into stories. Researchers use narrative research to weave together stories about LGBTQ people’s expe- riences in school and on campus. As is clear in the work presented in this report, much of the research about LGBTQ adolescents’ experiences in school is taken from college students’ or other adults’ narrative accounts of their past experiences (Diamond, 2003).

Although interviews, personal narratives, historical analyses, and program evaluations can provide detailed and in-depth responses to questions about LGBTQ issues, they can be time consuming and require a research team to collect the information. As a time-saving alternative, researchers can use ques- tionnaire data that provide a self-report of attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and sentiments from a large group of respondents. Researchers are now turning to the Internet and social media to collect data through e-mail, online surveys, and Facebook responses about LGBTQ issues and concerns (Kosciw et al., 2012; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). Quantitative Methods and Mixed-Method Research Researchers can also use surveys to collect information to test hypotheses or answer questions about LGBTQ issues in education research. A key element of survey research is that it allows the researcher to collect information on multiple topics from a large group of people. Surveys include questions about the beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, and demographic characteristics of students, teachers, administrators, and schools in general. Surveys may be cross-sectional, collecting information from selected individuals at a single point in time; or they can be longitudinal, gathering information at two or more points. Most large-scale survey studies produce numerical information that researchers can analyze using descriptive and inferential statistical techniques.

Some examples of large-scale surveys referenced in research in this report include responses from nationally representative samples in studies such as the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, and the General Social Survey, as well as data from the U.S. Census and the American Community Survey. These large-scale survey instruments and the data collections that can address LGBTQ issues in educa- tion are discussed in detail in Chapter 10 (“Use of Large-Scale Data Sets and LGBTQ Education”). Many of these surveys are collected for a general audi- ence or issue such as health-related concerns, adolescent development, or gen- eral school experiences. Some include items that identify LGBTQ behavior, identity, attraction, or household composition. Others include items on attitudes and beliefs about LGBTQ issues such as same-sex marriage or gay couples adopting, fostering, or rearing children (T. W. Smith et al., 2011).

introduction and overview 15

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 15

Some studies combine qualitative and quantitative methods— case study, interview, survey— to collect data and gather information. A mixed-method study could involve analyzing data from a large-scale study (such as Add Health or the GLSEN National School Climate Survey, to provide a national picture of an LGBTQ issue), surveying students in a local school, and con- ducting in-depth personal interviews with some of the students who were sur- veyed. Concurrently, researchers might gather archival data from selected schools, observe student behavior, and develop their study around the phe- nomena and experiences they observe in the school. Throughout this report, we see examples of research that draw upon multiple conceptual frameworks and research methods to help explain LGBTQ issues in education.

This report illustrates research about LGBTQ issues in education. Each chapter provides an overview of a given research area, discusses key or salient studies, provides nuggets of knowledge that illustrate what we know, and dis- cusses examples of promising research directions and opportunities. Much of the research discussed draws upon the theoretical perspectives discussed above and uses the research methods outlined.

Overview of the Research Report The aim of this report is to advance appreciation of the extant knowledge on LGBTQ issues in education research and recommend future directions for scholarly research. It is organized into chapters contributed by education re- searchers and other scholars writing in their areas of expertise. Chapter 2 traces the history of LGBTQ issues in schools and other educational contexts. Chapter 3, explores the legal, political, social, and policy contexts of LGBTQ issues in education during the 20th century that set the stage for education re- search on this topic.

Chapters 4 through 9 each focus on a specific topic in LGBTQ education research: children in families with LGBTQ parents, K–12 students’ school experiences, bullying, student achievement and educational outcomes, issues in higher education, and the experiences of faculty, staff, and other school personnel. The authors of these chapters address the key literature and research on LGBTQ issues that contribute to our understanding of the educational en- vironment, review the various theoretical perspectives that have shaped the LGBTQ scholarship, examine data and data adequacy issues, highlight the strengths and limitations of the research, and discuss the challenges of doing research in this area.

Chapter 10 discusses how researchers use information from large-scale data sets to study LGBTQ educational issues, focusing on the potential of

16 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 16

extant data to help researchers examine and understand LGBTQ students’ school experiences and the impact of schools and school-related policies. However, conducting research in a nascent and developing area can be difficult, particularly with regard to controversial and sensitive topics such as sexuality. Chapter 11 addresses some of the challenges that researchers may encounter when developing and implementing studies that address LGBTQ issues in an education context.

Finally, this report offers recommendations for the research community and for those who support or use research on how to further our understanding of these issues. The concluding chapter advocates for a higher profile for LGBTQ issues in education as an important topic of study. It identifies essential pathways for future research, resources needed to support research, and key questions about LGBTQ issues in education research.

References Abes, E. S., & Kasch, D. (2007). Using queer theory to explore lesbian college students’

multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 48(6), 619– 636.

Battle, J., & Barnes, S. L. (2010). Black sexualities: Probing powers, passions, practices, and policies. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender people. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bilodeau, B. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgender students at a Midwestern research university. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3, 29–44.

Blackburn, M. V. (2005). Agency in borderland discourses: Examining language use in a community center with black queer youth. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 89–113.

Blackburn, M. V., Clark, C. T., Kenney, L. M., & Smith, J. M. (Eds.). (2010). Acting out: Combating homophobia through teacher activism. New York: Teachers College Press.

Blackburn, M. V., & McCready, L. T. (2009). Voices of queer youth in urban schools: Pos- sibilities and limitations. Theory into Practice, 48(3), 222–230.

Blount, J. M. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school work in the twentieth century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.

Carbado, D. W. (2002). Race to the bottom. UCLA Law Review, 49, 1283–1313. Carpenter, V. M., & Lee, D. (2010). Teacher education and the hidden curriculum of het-

eronormativity. Curriculum Matters, 6, 99–119. Chang, Y. (2005). Through queers’ eyes: Critical educational ethnography in queer studies.

Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 27, 171–208.

introduction and overview 17

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 17

Cohen, C. J. (1997). Punks, bulldaggers, and welfare queens: The radical potential of queer politics. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 3, 437–465.

Coloma, R. S. (2003). Que(e)r(y)ing nationalism: History, nation, and imperialism. Journal for Computing Teachers, 19(3), 51–70.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and vio- lence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1996). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual development during adolescence and young adulthood. In R. P. Cabaj & T. S. Stein (Eds.), Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 267–288). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths aged 14 to 21. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 433–456.

D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilkington, N. W. (2001). Suicidality patterns and sexual orientation–related factors among lesbian, gay and bisexual youths. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31, 250–265.

D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(2), 148–167.

Davis, J. (1999). Forbidden fruit: Black males’ constructions of transgressive sexualities in middle school. In W. J. Letts IV and J. T. Sears (Eds.), Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling (pp. 49–60). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Diamond, L. M. (2003). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 352–364.

Domina, T., Conley, A., & Farkas, G. (2011). The link between educational expectations and effort in the college-for-all era. Sociology of Education, 84(2), 93–112.

Epstein, D. (1997). Boyz’ own stories: Masculinities and sexualities in schools. Gender and Education, 9(1), 105–115.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: Volume 1. An introduction. New York: Vintage Books.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (2009). The experiences of lesbian, gay, bi- sexual and transgender middle school students (GLSEN Research Brief). New York: Author.

Goldberg, A. E. (2007). (How) does it make a difference? Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 550–562.

Graves, K. (2009). And they were wonderful teachers: Florida’s purge of gay and lesbian teachers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2001). Inside-OUT: A report on the experiences of lesbians, gays and bisexuals in America and the public’s view on issues and policies related to sexual orientation. Retrieved from http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/3193- index.cfm

Irvine, J. M. (2004). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States, with a new preface. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

18 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 18

Jackson, J. (2007). Unmasking identities: An exploration of the lives of gay and lesbian teachers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.

King, J. R., & Schneider, J. J. (1999). Locating a place for gay and lesbian themes in ele- mentary reading, writing, and talking. In W. Letts & J. Sears (Eds.), Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling (curriculum, cul- tures, and (homo)sexualities) (pp. 125–130). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Letts, W., & Sears, J. (1999). Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling (curriculum, cultures, and (homo)sexualities). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lipkin, A. (2001). Understanding homosexuality, changing schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Luhmann, S. (1998). Queering/querying pedagogy? Or, pedagogy is a pretty queer thing. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 141–156). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mayo, C. (2007). Queering foundations: Queer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender educational research. Review of Research in Education, 31, 78–94.

McCready, L. T. (2010). Making space for diverse masculinities: Difference, intersectionality, and engagement in an urban high school. New York: Peter Lang.

Mickelson, R. A. (2014). The problem of the color lines in twenty-first-century sociology of education: Researching and theorizing demographic change, segregation, and school outcomes. Social Currents, 1(2), 157–165.

Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, relationships, and motherhood among black women. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Morris, M. (1998). Unresting the curriculum: Queer projects, queer imaginings. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 275–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erl- baum.

O’Connell, M., & Feliz, S. (2011). Same-sex couple household statistics from the 2010 Census. Washington, DC: Fertility and Family Statistics Branch, Social, Economic and Housing Statistics Division. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/samesex/

Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E., Ee, J., & Kuscera, J. (2014). Brown at 60: Great progress, a long retreat and an uncertain future. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles.

introduction and overview 19

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 19

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63(5), 1025–1042.

Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052–1069.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Pinar, W. F. (1998). Queer theory in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Plummer, D. C. (2001). The quest for modern manhood: Masculine stereotypes, peer

culture and the social significance of homophobia. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 15–23. Rankin, S., Blumenfeld, W. J., Weber, G. N., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 State of higher ed-

ucation for LGBT people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride. Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of

the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141. Russell, S. T., McGuire, J. K., Lee, S. A., Larriva, J. C., & Laub, C. (2008). Adolescent

perceptions of school safety for students with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(4), 11–27.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). Suicide attempts among sexual minority youth; Population and measurement issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(6), 983– 991.

Sears, J. (2005). Gay, lesbian, and transgender issues in education: Programs, policies, and practices. New York: Harrington Park.

Sears, J. T. (1998). A generational and theoretical analysis of culture and male (homo)sex- uality. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 73–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Smith, G. W. (1998). The ideology of “fag”: The school experience of gay students. Socio - logical Quarterly, 9(2), 309–335.

Smith, T. W., Marsden, P., Hout, M., & Kim, J., (2011). General Social Surveys, 1972– 2010 [machine-readable data file] /Principal Investigator, Tom W. Smith; Co-Principal Investigator, Peter V. Marsden; Co-Principal Investigator, Michael Hout; sponsored by National Science Foundation.—NORC ed.—Chicago: National Opinion Research Cen- ter [producer]; Storrs, CT: The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut [distributor], 2011.

Southall, R. M., Anderson, E. C., Nagel, M. S., Southall, C., & Polite, F. C. (2010). An in- vestigation of ethnicity as a variable related to US male college athletes’ sexual-orien- tation behaviors and attitudes. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(2), 293–313.

Sullivan, N. (2003). A critical introduction to queer theory. New York: New York University Press.

Tierney, W. G. (1997). Academic outlaws: Queer theory and cultural studies in the academy. London: Sage.

Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (1998). Constructing knowledge: Educational research and gay and lesbian studies. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 49–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20 introduction and overview

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 20

Walters, A. S., & Hayes, D. M. (1998). Homophobia within schools: Challenging the cul- turally sanctioned dismissal of gay students and colleagues. Journal of Homosexuality, 35(2), 1–23.

Wentling, T., Schilt, K., Windsor, E. J., & Lucal, B. (2008). Teaching transgender. Teaching Sociology, 36(1), 49–57.

Wilkinson, L., & Pearson, J. (2009). School culture and the well-being of same-sex-attracted youth. Gender & Society, 23(4), 542–568.

introduction and overview 21

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 21

ch01.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 22

Chapter 2

LGBTQ Education Research in Historical Context

Karen Graves

This chapter addresses the sociopolitical context that corresponds with the publication of LGBTQ education research in the past few decades. It opens with a brief review of the climate regarding gender and sexuality as it pertained to educational concerns from the start of the 20th century. In the 1970s, research reflected the emergence of the gay rights movement. By the end of the 1980s, LGBTQ educators’ attention turned to a literal fight for their lives, as happened throughout the LGBTQ community. Over the course of the past two decades, the publication of LGBTQ education research has proliferated, focusing largely on respect, safety, and the well-being of youth, and on increasing clarity regarding sexual identities.

This report has been a long time coming. Fifty years have passedsince the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) began representingpublic school teachers fired because of their sexual orientation, 40 years since the National Education Association (NEA) issued a resolution op- posing job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and 36 years since California educators organized to defeat the Briggs Initiative. It has been nearly three decades since a Kokomo, Indiana, district superintendent turned Ryan White out of school and U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop argued for the inclusion of AIDS information in elementary curricula. For more than 20 years, educators have had access to the 1989 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report on youth suicide and, for 18 years, courts have held educators responsible for anti-gay violence in their schools following the landmark Nabozny v. Podlesny decision in 1996. Seven years ago, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) wiped “sexual orientation” off its map and struck “social justice” objectives from its list of concerns.1 Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) issues have coursed through the educational landscape in the past 50 years and, obviously, continue to engage education scholars. An accounting of re- search in the field is overdue, but not surprisingly so. William Pinar’s (1998) claim that homophobia “is especially intense in the field of education” remains largely undisputed (p. 2).

23

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 23

To understand more fully the trajectories of the research on LGBTQ edu- cation in the past few decades, this chapter revisits the sociopolitical context of the work. Using as a point of reference the bibliography generated in con- junction with the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Work- shop on LGBTQ Issues in Education (AERA, 2010), I highlight social and political currents that surged through the scholarship. Although this chapter focuses on the decades that match the dates of publications listed in the AERA bibliography, I will begin with a very brief review of the climate regarding gender and sexuality as it pertained to educational concerns from the start of the 20th century.2

Climate Regarding Gender and Sexuality, 1900–1939 It is critical that educators, researchers, and policy makers understand that in- tolerance of LGBTQ educators is a relatively recent phenomenon, emerging in the mid-20th century. Before 19th-century sexologists, criminologists, writ- ers, and creative artists drew attention to same-sex behavior and posited new ideas about identity based on sexual orientation, school officials were most certainly concerned with the gender identity of teachers, and the gender lessons they taught to students. The feminization of the profession in the decades sur- rounding the Civil War increasingly put male teachers on the spot to defend their masculinity as the traits a sexist society associated with women became attached to teachers. By the end of the century, leading educators expressed alarm at the “boy problem” in education, worried that the high percentage of women teachers would unduly influence traditional gender development of boy students. In educational circles, these issues were of greater concern than the emerging “scientific” findings that sexual attraction and behavior reflected the nature of one’s being rather than a choice associated with a “sinful” act. The ground-breaking historical research that analyzes the ways in which nor- mative expectations for educators (and their students) regarding sexual orien- tation and gender have shifted over time is Jackie Blount’s 2005 book Fit to Teach: Same-Sex Desire, Gender, and Schoolwork in the Twentieth Century.3 In the opening pages she explains the value of historical research to the field: When we examine “how current conditions have developed in specific historical contexts . . . our conditions are open to question and critical analysis” (p. 11).

Blount deftly shows how scholarly literature as well as elements in popular culture contributed to the slowly developing backlash against teachers, who suddenly found themselves beyond the pale of “professional” expectations as the social sands shifted beneath their feet. Blount draws from sources as diverse as “The Jolly Game of Old Maid,” introduced around 1900, and G.

24 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 24

Stanley Hall’s 1904 tome Adolescence, in which the celebrated child psychol- ogist described single women as a deviant third sex. Yet, as late as 1929, it was possible for prominent researcher Katherine Bement Davis to publish Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women, a scholarly exploration under the auspices of the Rockefeller-funded Bureau of Social Hygiene of New York. Davis reported that teachers and superintendents constituted just over half of the 1,200 single, college-educated women in the study. Among those educators, 22% reported experiencing intense emotional relations with women, and another 25% reported experiencing intense sexual relations with women (Blount, 2005, pp. 60–70). Davis’s study marked the end of a period when candid discussion of one’s natural sexual expression was possible, how- ever. By 1932 Willard Waller’s popular text The Sociology of Teaching warned against employing homosexual teachers, claiming that homosexuality was contagious. And at the end of the decade, Mental Hygiene for the Classroom Teacher detailed the supposed mental instability of single teachers (Blount, 2005, pp. 72–78).

Climate Regarding Gender and Sexuality, 1940–1969 Cold War politics that swept across the globe at the end of World War II set the stage for the most repressive period in U.S. history for LGBTQ citizens, and educators became a particularly vulnerable target. Political maneuvering, emerging scientific arguments, and civil rights efforts intensified the maelstrom that violently disturbed postwar life. As Mary Bernstein explains, organized resistance was beyond the reach of gay men and lesbians caught up as pawns in the prevailing domestic containment strategy pursued by politicians at all levels of government. “Political organizing of any sort by homosexuals was precarious at best, as activists risked loss of jobs or homes, attack on the street, and, of course, imprisonment. Beyond seeking pity or toleration from professionals, coalition-building and expressive political action were out of the question, as mere survival ruled the day” (Bernstein, 2002, p. 542). The defining, shameful legacy of this period in education history was the widespread purge of LGBTQ teachers and professors.

Rather than reviewing key events in a strictly chronological order, it may be more helpful to trace the dynamic interplay of political and educational currents by first laying out a political outline and then layering on other de- velopments. Spurred on by Republican attacks on the Truman administration, the U.S. Senate launched an investigation and issued a report in 1950 entitled “Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government.” Al- though there was no valid connection to be drawn, Senator Joseph McCarthy

lgbtq education research in historical context 25

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 25

and his compatriots succeeded in linking communism and homosexuality in the public mind and casting both as threats to U.S. security. The military had already purged thousands of service men and women on the basis of their sexual orientation at the conclusion of the war (conveniently), and within three months of taking office, President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450, barring homosexuals from government employment. The objective and accompanying tactics trickled down to state and local government, and the 1950s landscape quickly became one of police raids, undercover surveil- lance, witch hunts, employment purges, forced hospitalizations, and physical attacks against LGBTQ people.

These developments emerged alongside (and, one might say, despite) sci- entific publications that challenged traditional views of sexuality. Most promi- nent among the publications were the Kinsey reports, in 1948 and 1953, and Evelyn Hooker’s research, which first appeared in 1956. In Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), Kinsey and his colleagues noted, “there appears to be no other major culture in the world in which public opinion and the statute law so severely penalize homosexual relationships as they do in the United States today” (p. 483). The oppressive climate gave rise to the estab- lishment of homophile organizations: groups that promoted assimilation into mainstream American culture and advocated broad-based education on topics concerning sexual orientation. The Mattachine Society, founded in Los Angeles in 1951, and the Daughters of Bilitis, organized in San Francisco in 1955, reached a national audience through their publications and courageously ad- vocated for tolerance in professional circles, for example among psychologists and clergy.

In general, however, the early homophile organizations maintained a distance from the field of education— and LGBTQ educators adopted a similar stance. The political climate was simply too volatile for anyone to speak publicly in support of LGBTQ educators. So, when the Florida Legislature launched the most intense investigation of homosexuality in the history of U.S. education, the targeted teachers were left to forge their own survival strategies. From 1957 to 1965, in a gross display of civil rights violations, the Florida Legislative Investigation Committee interrogated professors, teachers, and students who they assumed were homosexual. Instead of demanding that legal protections be honored for the accused educators, the Florida Education Association eagerly abetted the committee. The teachers lost their jobs and credentials. The investigative committee eventually imploded, in large measure due to backfire from the 1964 release of its report “Homosexuality and Citizenship in Florida.” The themes that drove the committee went underground for a time (Graves, 2009).

26 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 26

The year 1964 also proved to be a turning point of another sort. That year the ACLU reversed course and began to argue that criminal prosecution of consenting adults who engaged in private sexual activity was unconstitutional. The ACLU supported Mark Morrison, a California teacher who resigned when a male colleague with whom he had sex reported the incident to school district officials. Although the behavior in question was legal in California, Morrison lost his teaching credentials on the grounds of immorality. The state supreme court ruled that homosexuality did not interfere with a person’s ability to teach; but the court allowed the school district to define homosexual behavior as immoral and determined that Morrison could not reclaim his job. The court explained that since Morrison’s “immoral” behavior had become public knowl- edge, he could no longer be considered an effective teacher (Blount, 2005, pp. 112–113; Harbeck, 1997, pp. 213–220).

Homophile groups had been working for over a decade to secure basic legal protections when Illinois became the first state to decriminalize same- sex behavior in 1961. Soon, discernible cracks began to appear in other dis- criminatory political-economic structures. Homophile activists kept up the pressure with a series of protests at the United Nations, the White House, the Civil Service Commission, the State Department, the Pentagon, and Inde- pendence Hall. In 1967, students at Columbia University formed the Student Homophile League, the first of many similar student organizations to push for LGBTQ civil rights and promote gay culture. Two years later, drag queens and homeless youth drew a line on Christopher Street in Greenwich Village at the Stonewall Inn. The police violence they confronted on those June evenings had become commonplace over the previous two decades, but the rioters’ ac- tions marked the beginning of the end of acquiescence as a strategy for survival.

Within 10 years, lesbian and gay teachers would make a similar stand of their own.

The 1970s: Fighting for Our Rights The ACLU was the first major institution to leverage support for individual teachers who challenged dismissals on the basis of sexual orientation in court. In 1971 and 1972, a series of cases tested legal arguments designed to keep LGBTQ educators out of schools. These decisions turned on morality and pri- vacy assumptions that had long circumscribed all teachers’ autonomy and em- ployment rights (Graves, 2009, pp. 120–143). In some cases the teachers gained ground in the effort to secure nondiscriminatory employment protec- tions, but as Jackie Blount has observed, in all cases the individual teachers whose jobs were on the line were displaced. And, of course, the legal battles

lgbtq education research in historical context 27

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 27

stretched on for years. Eventually, a U.S. District Court struck down an Oregon statute regarding the dismissal of teachers on the basis of immorality as too vague; the New Jersey State Board of Education determined that teachers could not be fired for activism outside the classroom; the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that school districts could not ban homosexuals from teaching or demand that they stay closeted; and in 1972, Washington, D.C., became the first school district in the nation to adopt a policy banning employment dis- crimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Board Chair Marion Berry, Jr., took a leading role in articulating the matter as a civil rights issue (Blount, 2005, pp. 108–134).

The successes were piecemeal and limited in scope. Courts were likely as not to uphold discriminatory practices, as when they ruled that transsexual teachers were “incapacitated” as educators because of social stigma con- cerning their sexual status, or that homosexual status itself, rather than any particular behavior, provided sufficient ground for dismissal (Blount, 2005, pp. 118–119). LGBTQ educators, however, found new sources of support as universities and professional organizations went on record, one after an- other, denouncing homophobia. The American Library Association formed a Task Force on Gay Liberation in 1970, the same year that the University of Nebraska offered the first gay studies class in a college curriculum. The National Gay Student Center was organized in 1971 to serve as a central source of information for campus student organizations springing up around the country. California State University, Sacramento, established the first gay studies program in 1972, and the Gay Academic Union was organized in 1973. The American Psychiatric Association made by far the greatest impact that year, with its unanimous decision to remove homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders (Eaklor, 2008, pp. xvii–xxx). And the NEA Representative Assembly took a stand against job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in 1974. Local members of the American Federation of Teachers pushed the organization toward a similar stance in battles throughout the decade, efforts that culminated most forcefully in California in 1978 (Blount, 2005).

When gay rights activists started winning in efforts to establish local an- tidiscrimination measures in counties and cities across the country, they roused an oppositional force that still considered homosexuality to be criminal, patho- logical, and immoral. One problem with piecemeal reform is that civil rights advances can be reversed relatively easily if local opposition is organized. (And as legal and political analysts are aware, putting rights up for vote often doesn’t serve the disenfranchised well; eventually, a more comprehensive po- litical philosophy must emerge if rights are to be secured.) A well-known case

28 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 28

in point occurred in Florida after the Miami-Dade Metro Commission voted to expand its antidiscrimination laws regarding jobs, housing, and public ac- commodations to include gay men and lesbians. Social equality of this sort didn’t sit well with religious conservatives, and they immediately began a campaign to overturn the measure through a public referendum. They found a leader in singer/orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant, and the nascent political wing of the religious right found its wedge issue in gay and lesbian teachers. Although Florida was among the first states to overturn its “crime against na- ture” statute in 1971, the old myths that had fueled the Legislative Investigation Committee in the 1960s resurfaced in Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign. Bryant and her ilk conjured up images of predatory schoolteachers to raise campaign cash and manipulate voters, and the referendum to roll back the an- tidiscrimination ordinance passed by a two-to-one margin (Blount, 2005, pp. 130–134; Harbeck, 1997, pp. 38–59).

The backlash whipped through the country as voters in St. Paul, Minnesota; Wichita, Kansas; and Eugene, Oregon, erased civil rights protections for gay men and lesbians. Then attention turned to California, where State Senator John Briggs introduced a bill to prohibit gay men, lesbians, and any other person who spoke positively about homosexuality from teaching in public schools. Briggs could not get his bill through the legislature so he put it up for public vote through a statewide referendum. Activists worked for months to avoid another defeat at the polls, acknowledging that this particular loss would set back the movement for gay civil rights significantly. Like the Florida Leg- islative Investigation Committee, however, Briggs had overreached. By tar- geting all teachers’ freedom of speech rights and threatening agreements reached through collective bargaining, he unwittingly increased the base of his opposition. The broad coalition to defeat the Briggs Initiative included labor unions, media outlets, and a wide swath of politicians, entertainers, and artists, as well as LGBTQ activists and educators (Blount, 2005, pp. 135–155; Harbeck, 1997, pp. 60–81). In addition to collaboration, LGBTQ educators embraced the strategy of coming out articulated by Harvey Milk in his 1978 Gay Freedom Day speech at San Francisco City Hall. In effect, the Briggs fight became teachers’ Stonewall Riots: the point at which hundreds, perhaps thousands, put everything on the line. The teachers and their allies held, de- feating Briggs’s proposal by a margin of 58–42%. It was a watershed moment, but the celebration was short-lived. Three weeks later, the assassinations of Harvey Milk and San Francisco Mayor George Moscone, as well as the im- plausible judicial aftermath, reminded anyone who had underestimated the depth of anti-gay violence in 20th-century U.S. culture just how desperately people might cling to dominant notions of sexuality.

lgbtq education research in historical context 29

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 29

The four articles from the 1970s that are listed in the AERA bibliography of LGBTQ issues in education reflect a desire to get a psychological handle on identity formation regarding gender and sexuality (Bem, 1974; Bernard, 1979; Cass, 1979; Silvern, 1978). This is not surprising in the wake of the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 reclassification of homosexuality, or the emphasis in the courts on the importance of teachers’ serving as role models for students. It is likely, however, that a Phi Delta Kappan publication reached a wider au- dience. In October 1977, the editors featured a section entitled “The Homosexual Teacher and Related Topics.” The journal took up issues at stake in the Miami- Dade referendum and the Briggs Campaign, pitting former California State Superintendent Max Rafferty against an anonymous gay teacher. Two additional articles addressed curricular issues on the topic of human sexuality and litigation regarding dismissal of teachers on moral turpitude charges (Anonymous, 1977; Francis & Stacey, 1977; Kirkendall & Tritsch, 1977; Rafferty, 1977). In a decade framed by questions regarding who was fit to teach, scholars and prac- titioners focused on scientific and legal analyses concerning identity.

The 1980s: Fighting for Our Lives The earliest publications listed in the AERA bibliography from the 1980s con- tinued exploring themes raised in the previous decade: sex roles and identity issues. While the research in education remained closely tethered to psycho- logical analyses, prominent work such as poet Adrienne Rich’s (1980) essay on compulsory heterosexuality drew attention to other forces that influence identity development. Education research on LGBTQ issues was, in fact, rather sparse during the period marked by the emergence of AIDS and the rise of the religious right.

The first signs of what would become one of the most devastating pandemics in modern history appeared in 1980, but the public was generally unaware of the virus until a 1981 New York Times article linked the disease to gay men. Public policy officials were slow to act— not as a matter of neglect, according to journalist Randy Shilts, but as a matter of policy during the political ascen- dancy of the religious right (Lugg, 1998, p. 271). Midway through the decade, however, President Ronald Reagan’s friend Rock Hudson died of AIDS, and the famous actor’s death set off media attention to the devastating disease. Still, it took the confrontational tactics of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) to generate support for research and to push the public at large beyond apathy (Blount, 2005, p. 165; Lugg, 1998, p. 272).

Interestingly, schools were one of the places where panic and anti-intellec- tualism displaced apathy. After middle school student Ryan White contracted

30 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 30

the HIV virus through a blood transfusion, his Kokomo, Indiana, school district banned him from school in 1985. The national press covered White’s ordeal: Community members petitioned to keep him out of school, and his court-or- dered return prompted taunting and vandalism at his school and home. Finally, educators and students at Hamilton Heights High School in Cicero, Indiana, welcomed White to their community. In the last years of his life, White took the nation to school, exposing baseless fears about AIDS and teaching some- thing about compassion.

The U.S. Surgeon General was more direct. C. Everett Koop urged elemen- tary schools to incorporate AIDS education in his 1986 report on the epidemic. It was not an easy sell. Many school districts were unmoved, either by the science or by concern for the well-being of their students, to alter traditional curricula. But as Catherine Lugg (1998) observed, by pointing out that AIDS was a possible outcome for “at risk” students, Koop pried the door open for re- searchers to study issues concerning lesbian and gay students (pp. 272–273).

Science teacher Virginia Uribe was ahead of the curve in developing school counseling services for LGBTQ students. She established Project 10 in 1984 in response to anti-gay bullying, drawing the name of the organization from Kinsey’s reports that approximately 10% of the population had engaged in sexual activity with persons of the same sex. Project 10 began as discussion groups for students who wanted to learn about sexual orientation and grew into a district educational effort involving school assemblies, distribution of printed information, and training for educators who served as contacts for stu- dents. Within a few years, Project 10 expanded beyond the Los Angeles school district to meet the needs of students across the country (Blount, 2005, pp. 168–169). Uribe’s work, Ryan White’s experience, and Dr. Koop’s recom- mendations were early indicators that a critical shift was underway regarding the focus of LGBTQ educational issues, from teachers to students. Spurred on by the AIDS crisis, the NEA Representative Assembly took up a number of policy issues that eventually culminated in a 1988 resolution to address the needs of LGBTQ students in general. The next year Kevin Jennings organized the first Gay-Straight Alliance in Massachusetts (Blount, 2005, pp. 166–179).

Although they faced a tremendous amount of resistance, educators were emboldened to stand up for the safety and well-being of LGBTQ students. The importance of their efforts was made undeniably clear when the U.S. De- partment of Health and Human Services released its report on youth suicide at the end of the decade. In spite of considerable political pressure to suppress the report, the research was disseminated to the public. A key finding was that gay and lesbian youth, because of the prejudice and abuse leveled against them, were 2 to 3 times more likely than other young people to attempt suicide,

lgbtq education research in historical context 31

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 31

and their deaths accounted for as much as 30% of the total number of youth suicides each year. The authors of the report recommended that public and private secondary schools provide all students with positive, accurate infor- mation about homosexuality, particularly in parts of the curriculum dealing with human sexuality, health, literature, and social studies. No state in the union aside from Massachusetts adopted this policy recommendation (Lugg, 1998, pp. 273–274). But the report seemed to prompt a sea change in education research. The publications that round out the AERA bibliography for the 1980s were all published in 1989. They examined school climate and curricular issues, hate crimes against lesbians and gay men, and suicide among gifted students (Farrell, 1989; Herek, 1989; Troiden, 1989). As education researchers entered the last decade of the 20th century, they were primed, finally, to study what had been forbidden for years.

Bridging the 21st Century: Fighting for the Kids and Claiming Our Identities

With the few exceptions noted above, the AERA LGBTQ bibliography en- compasses research published in the 1990s and 2000s. By my count there were 479 publications between 1990 and 2011, with roughly four times as many after 2000 as in the previous decade. In an effort to analyze the themes that run through this scholarship, I created a reordered version of the bibliog- raphy, divided into thirteen sections.4 The sections, listed here from largest to smallest in terms of numbers of publications, focus on these topics: (a) stigma, health, and safety; (b) teachers, teacher education, pedagogy, and curriculum; (c) K–12 school environment; (d) identity, development, and counseling; (e) higher education; (f) intersectionality; (g) policy and politics; (h) school- family partnership; (i) transgender issues; (j) queer research; (k) administration and leadership; (l) history; (m) empire and nationalism. Stigma, Health, and Safety Approximately 20% of all education research on LGBTQ issues has focused on stigma, health, and safety. This is not surprising for a number of reasons. The AIDS crisis demanded attention to health concerns at the same time that conservative religious groups were demonizing LGBTQ people for political gain. Some educators pursued a more comprehensive understanding of LGBTQ issues, but the 1989 Department of Health and Human Services report on youth suicide emphasized the least that school officials could do. In spite of mounting anti-gay political pressure, school officials still had to provide for the physical safety of students. Of the 100 publications in this area, 12 focused

32 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 32

on anti-gay stigma, 43 addressed health risks, and 45 targeted anti-gay bullying. The vast majority of these publications appeared after the 1996 Nabozny v. Podlesny decision, the first legal challenge to anti-gay violence in public schools. Sadly, events— including multiple reports of student suicides in 2010—underscore the point that this battle is not yet won. Teachers, Teacher Education, Pedagogy, and Curriculum Education research reinforces the commonsense notion that maintaining a safe school climate is the most basic of educators’ responsibilities. Another critical professional expectation is that teachers establish an effective learning environment for students. The second-largest area of inquiry in LGBTQ edu- cation research involves teachers, teacher education, pedagogy, and curriculum. Research in this area addresses LGBTQ educators’ employment conditions and all educators’ professional discretion involving what and how they teach.

Although in the early1990s the nation’s attention regarding employment rights focused most intently on restrictions in the military (e.g., the 1993 “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” compromise), at that point only six states and the District of Columbia prohibited employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Only four of the publications in the AERA bibliography from before 1993 explicitly addressed topics regarding LGBTQ teachers, per- haps because the need to attend to student safety was more pressing. It was certainly the case that individual teachers still took a great risk in coming out. In fact, sodomy laws remained on the books in 14 states prior to the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision. That landmark case carried critical significance for teachers, in particular, because a person convicted of violating a state law could not hold a teaching license.

It is easy to understand that teachers living in the closet are not likely to ad- vocate for LGBTQ equity in their schools or respond to requests to contribute to research initiatives on LGBTQ education. More than half of the AERA bib- liography’s publications on LGBTQ teachers were issued after the Lawrence decision. It is sobering to realize, however, that at a time when the U.S. military has ended job discrimination against LGBTQ citizens, only 21 states plus the District of Columbia currently protect against this form of discrimi- nation. Only 15 states and D.C. prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.5 This inequity must be addressed if educators hope to create a safe learning environment and offer an intellectually honest curriculum for all students.

As we have seen, it is not uncommon for action in the school community to lead education research on LGBTQ issues. Kevin Jennings founded the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in 1990. Prior to the

lgbtq education research in historical context 33

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 33

1992 battle over the Children of the Rainbow curriculum in New York City, there were only two publications on teacher education, pedagogy, and cur- riculum. A few more publications appeared as students, most notably in Mas- sachusetts and Utah, organized to work against anti-gay bias in schools, de- veloped workshops, and battled for Gay-Straight Alliances (Blount, 2005, pp. 172–175). Between 1997 and 2007, education researchers responded with 39 publications that examined pedagogy, curriculum, and teacher education from LGBTQ perspectives. Although NCATE determined in 2007 that LGBTQ is- sues were not worthy of attention in teacher preparation programs, scholars hardly missed a beat. In the next four years, education researchers produced 19 publications addressing LGBTQ themes, all underscoring the point that how we teach matters. Administration and Leadership Researchers also know that leadership is a critical factor in establishing a safe and effective educational environment. Scholarship on LGBTQ issues con- cerning administration and leadership has been slight but steady since 1998, with an average rate slightly higher than one publication per year. The majority of this research addresses administrators’ perspectives and practices regarding their roles and responsibilities in terms of maintaining a safe learning and work environment, and examines the legal and cultural minefields that ad- ministrators must navigate. A few of the essays focus on the situation of LGBTQ administrators whose job security is even more fragile than that of their teacher colleagues. All of this work emerged after the 1996 Nabozny case, and most publications appeared in 2003 or later, the year of the Lawrence decision. K–12 School Environment A closely related and somewhat overlapping set of publications focused on the K–12 school environment in general. Earlier scholarship addressed a range of topics, such as ways to challenge homophobia, work toward tolerance, and break through the invisibility that enveloped LGBTQ students. Later research focused on school climate, including GLSEN surveys and reviews of research, and analyses of whole-school approaches to enhancing LGBTQ students’ levels of academic achievement, communicating with LGBTQ families, and helping students navigate diverse aspects of their identities. Higher Education Most of the research on LGBTQ issues in higher education appeared after 1998, the year of Matthew Shepard’s murder. Campus climate analyses account

34 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 34

for most of these publications, although the sample may be skewed as half of this scholarship is attributed to one author.6 It is noteworthy that, among the works that addressed coming-out themes, those that focused on professors ap- peared later than those that focused on students. Some of the earlier research examined identity, including transgender issues. More recent scholarship in this vein has explored LGBTQ student leaders and activists. Education research on LGBTQ issues in higher education also includes work on policies and ped- agogy, as well as general overviews of the field. School-Family Partnership It has long been recognized that the school-family partnership is a critical factor in promoting students’ development and academic achievement. In 1972 a New York fourth-grade teacher wrote a letter to the editor of the New York Post denouncing the inaction of police officers who failed to intervene when her gay son was beaten at a public protest. Later that spring, Jeanne Manford walked with her son in New York’s Gay Pride Parade, carrying a sign that read: “Parents of Gays: Unite in Support for Our Children” (Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, n.d., “About PFLAG.”). Initially surprised by the overwhelming response to her statement, Manford went on to organize Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). By 1980 PFLAG was distributing information regarding sexual orientation to ed- ucational institutions and religious organizations in yet another example of activists stepping up to educate the public on issues not yet embraced by schools in general.

Over the years, PFLAG has taken on Anita Bryant’s “Save Our Children” campaign and discrimination in the military; made the connection between hate speech, hate crimes, and youth suicide; lobbied for the first safe-schools legislation in the country; and pushed the U.S. Department of Education to in- clude gay and lesbian students in Title IX protections against harassment based on sexual orientation (PFLAG, n.d., “History: PFLAG’s rich past,”). At about the same time that PFLAG was chalking up these legal victories, the author Lesléa Newman and illustrator Diana Souza (1989) published Heather Has Two Mommies, a pathbreaking children’s book that addressed the topic of LGBTQ families. As controversy over the book raged (the American Library Association ranks it among the most challenged books during the 1990s), ed- ucation researchers began to publish work on LGBTQ families.

The other political current that paralleled the relatively steady release of educational research on LGBTQ families can be traced to Hawai’i. In 1996 the Hawai’i supreme court ruled in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples, setting in motion a series of state-level rulings and public referenda

lgbtq education research in historical context 35

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 35

on this fundamental civil right. In the same year, the U.S. Congress passed the ill-named “Defense of Marriage Act,” which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages conferred by states. As if to underscore the turbulent nature of the politics on this issue, Hawai’i amended its consti- tution to ban marriage equality in 1998. Vermont (2000), Connecticut (2005), New Jersey (2006), and New Hampshire (2007) adopted civil unions for same- sex couples, while Massachusetts became the first state to uphold marriage equality (initiated by order of the state supreme court in 2003). In 2004, the year that the Massachusetts marriage law went into effect, 11 other states voted to ban marriage equality. Two years later a similar ban failed in the U.S. Congress. In 2008 Connecticut became the second state to recognize marriage equality, the same year that California voters passed Proposition 8, overturning the state supreme court’s ruling in favor of marriage equality. It is significant to note that the supporters of Proposition 8 relied on the worn, discredited tactic of suggesting that schoolchildren, somehow, might be harmed were marriage equality to survive in California. In 2009 Iowa, New Hampshire, and Vermont adopted marriage equality laws, followed by the District of Co- lumbia in 2010, New York in 2011, and Washington, Maine, and Maryland in 2012. Maine had passed legislation for marriage equality in 2009, only to see it repealed by referendum later that year. Following the historic 2012 election in which voters in four states supported ballot measures favoring marriage equality, observers witnessed a sea change regarding the issue. In June 2013 the Supreme Court issued two rulings: finding the federal Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional (United States v. Windsor) and dismissing the appeal by supporters of Proposition 8, the California ban of same-sex marriage.7

Most of the education literature published on LGBTQ families addresses the well-being of children with same-sex parents. Some publications offer a comparative analysis of heterosexual and same-sex parenting, while others focus particularly on school-family communication and ways that schools can meet the needs of LGBTQ families. Identity, Development, and Counseling Between 1991 and 2010, sixty-two publications addressed LGBTQ identity, development, and counseling in the field of education. More than half of them focused on identity issues. Fifteen related works on development were pub- lished between 1994 and 2006, and 11 publications on counseling were evenly spread across the two-decade period. The most active period of publication occurred after the 1997 resolution of the American Psychological Association that urged mental health professionals to take a leading role in combating stigma associated with homosexuality, and to challenge the unfounded practice

36 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 36

of “conversion therapy” (“Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation”; see DeLeon, 1998, pp. 934-935). Gender is the most consistent subtheme running through this part of the AERA LGBTQ bibliog- raphy, and, although work that focuses on developmental or counseling models is more concentrated in the earlier period, it appears as a topic of study as late as 2005. Transgender Issues Only 16 publications in the bibliography address transgender issues as the central topic of analysis. The first, “Transgender Students on Our Campuses,” by L. J. Lees, appeared in 1998. This was five years after Leslie Feinberg (1993) published her award-winning novel Stone Butch Blues. At that time, Minnesota was the only state that protected against job discrimination on the basis of gender identity. More than half of the scholarship on transgender issues in education focuses on colleges and universities. These publications are concerned primarily with inclusion and institutional policies that move the community beyond a gender binary. Two essays focus on the field of social work, in particular, and 4 of the 16 publications explicitly draw upon the perceptions and experiences of transgender people. Queer Research Scholarly and political currents that were disrupting traditional notions of identity began to coalesce in 1990. This was the year the direct action group Queer Nation was founded. Short-lived and loosely organized, Queer Nation worked to end homophobia and increase queer visibility by applying a sort of political pressure that complemented the assimilation approaches of other LGBTQ groups. Reflecting on multiple social movements from a historical perspective, one can see that it takes a combination of radical and liberal strategies to gain civil and human rights for marginalized people. Clearly, one of the most influential outcomes of Queer Nation’s work was reclaiming “queer” as a powerful concept, and prompting new ways of thinking in intel- lectual and social circles. Although the first American edition of Michel Fou- cault’s History of Sexuality was released in 1978, other important work in queer theory emerged in 1990. Intrigued by scholarship such as Gender Trouble (Butler, 1990) and Epistemology of the Closet (Sedgwick, 1990), colleges and universities began to offer courses and programs in queer studies. In subdividing the AERA bibliography for analytical purposes I was curious to see how many of the 479 entries used some version of “queer” in the titles. I counted 43 such works, just under 9%. Education researchers ran about a decade behind other scholars in explicitly grappling with queer themes, if the titles are any indica-

lgbtq education research in historical context 37

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 37

tion. The first two references appeared in 1998. Queer theory drives the research that Roland Sintos Coloma (2003, 2006) has published on empire and nationalism, the only two publications in the AERA bibliography to bring a clearly identified postcolonial perspective to bear on LGBTQ issues. Intersectionality Publications that address multiple aspects of one’s identity account for only 35 entries in the AERA bibliography. This literature on intersectionality began to appear about a decade after the 1981 release of Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa’s edited collection This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color. Nearly half of the LGBTQ scholarship on intersectionality focuses on race and ethnicity, with most articles addressing African American experiences. Gender is an explicit theme in a third of this research, and a few publications consider social class, gifted students, disability, or transsexual status. The scholarship in this section is split nearly evenly between analyses of students’ experiences in schools and studies on individual development or well-being. Policy and Politics Thirty entries in the AERA LGBTQ bibliography focus on policy and politics. The production of work in this field has been steady since 1997, with the ma- jority of publications dated 2003 or later. A third of the scholarship addresses legal issues such as equal access, equal educational opportunity, hate crime, and the impact of the Lawrence decision. Articles regarding hate crime parallel activity in the U.S. Congress throughout the 1990s to establish laws for col- lecting hate crime statistics, setting guidelines for penalties, and discussing strategies for prevention. Scholars concerned with community pushback in response to the increasing number of Gay-Straight Alliances in U.S. schools drew the 1984 Equal Access Act into their arguments. Much of the work in this section analyzes issues that reflect the “no promo homo” stage of the de- bate, one in which anti-gay activists go beyond stigmatizing LGBTQ people on the basis of perceived criminality, disease, or sinful nature to explaining their intolerance on the basis of not wanting to “promote” homosexuality. As legal scholar William Eskridge notes, “the most popular situs for no promo homo policies has been public education” (2000, p. 1359). This argument tends to arise in curriculum battles or in cases involving teacher dismissals or university funding. One fifth of the research in the policy and politics section of the AERA bibliography examines the efforts of religious activists engaged in setting educational policy, censorship cases, and other aspects of the culture wars that intersect with LGBTQ education, stretching from 1998 to 2009.

38 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 38

History The AERA bibliography includes 11 historical analyses. Books, the standard type of publication in the field of history, number four. Collectively, these books focus on the period from the late 19th to the late 20th century. All four are concerned with LGBTQ teachers and administrators, the main theme being the ideological and corresponding political shifts in attitudes regarding gender and sexuality. Two of the four books deal specifically with the purges and legal battles that emerged at mid-20th century (Blount, 1998, 2005; Graves, 2009; Harbeck, 1997). The seven articles that round out the list explore these themes and more recent history regarding sex education in New Zealand, LGBTQ issues in K–12 schools, and the first LGBTQ college student groups.

The emergence of this work is tied to the availability of primary sources. LGBTQ archives were not even created until the 1970s, and then it was a challenge to collect records that were not safe for people to keep during the long period of repression. Further, the intellectual challenge of accurately in- terpreting issues defined by their changing nature was especially acute for ed- ucation historians seeking information about public employees whose very survival depended on hiding aspects of their lives that were at the core of the inquiry. Even state agencies kept materials out of public reach until the political climate changed and states adopted more open public access laws.

Conclusion My goal in this chapter has been to offer a general description of the sociopo- litical context of LGBTQ issues in education during five historical periods from 1900 to 2010. The overview is, of necessity, brief. The purpose is to lay a foundation for understanding the trajectory of LGBTQ research in education as it emerged during the past 40 years.

As I review this sketch, two points seem especially pertinent. First, grassroots organizing typically precedes institutional change, whether in law, religion, or education, as exemplified by the homophile protests, the Stonewall Riots, the Briggs Initiative, and the ACT-UP demonstrations. Individual educators such as Mark Morrison, Jeanne Manford, Virginia Uribe, and Kevin Jennings were often the catalysts for reform. Of course, they needed the support of larger or- ganizations to make significant progress, as well as the close examination and intellectual clarity provided by scholarly research.

But (and this is the second point) the research usually has followed the ac- tivism, at least in education— at least regarding LGBTQ issues. The research emerged in response to court cases, health crises, and the rise of hate groups. Perhaps that sequence simply reflects the traditional role of the academy. The

lgbtq education research in historical context 39

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 39

traditional role does not explain, however, why research on LGBTQ issues in education has trailed that in other academic disciplines— a notable circum- stance, given the central role of education in society and the centrality of sex- uality issues in education. And it does not explain the fact that the academy itself is made up of scholars who hold diverse ideas about the nature of rigorous scholarship.

The work is critical. The need for research like that represented in this report, with its survey of what we know and what we need to know more about, could not be more pressing.

Notes 1. For a detailed examination of NCATE’s revision and the response it prompted at

AERA, see Therese Quinn and Erica R. Meiners, Flaunt It! Queers Organizing for Public Education and Justice (2009, pp. 29–42).

2. Throughout this chapter I use the terms homosexual, lesbian, gay, and queer to reflect the contexts of specific histories under examination. Although the AERA LGBTQ bibliography is not a comprehensive document, it is the most complete collection of LGBTQ education scholarship of which I am aware. Conceding the point that the bibliog- raphy was not carefully vetted, I found it useful in capturing an overview of the field for the purposes of this chapter.

3. Also see Jackie Blount, “School Workers,” Chapter 9 in this report. 4. Creating categories by topic is not a precise business, of course. In subdividing the

AERA bibliography for analytical purposes I put some publications in more than one cate- gory, marked by an asterisk. The entire section on queer research overlaps with work listed in other categories. This means that the total number of listings in my subdivided bibliog- raphy, 506, exceeds the total number of publications, 489 (479 published in 1990 or after).

5. The U.S. military ended discrimination against LGBTQ citizens on September 20, 2011. As of that date, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington had laws prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Wisconsin prohibit job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

6. Many of the entries attributed to this author have similar titles and appear in multiple edited volumes.

7. To summarize, as of June 2014, seventeen states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington), eight Native American tribal groups (Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Coquille Tribe, Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Santa Ysabel Tribe, and Suquamish Tribe), and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry.

40 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 40

References American Educational Research Association. (2010). LGBTQ issues in education research

bibliography. Available from the American Educational Research Association, 1430 K Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20005.

Anonymous. (1977). A homosexual teacher’s argument and plea. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 93–94.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.

Bernard, M. E. (1979). Does sex role behavior influence the way teachers evaluate students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 553–562.

Bernstein, M. (2002). Identities and politics: Toward a historical understanding of the lesbian and gay movement. Social Science History, 26, 531–581.

Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873– 1995. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Blount, J. M. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and schoolwork in the twentieth century. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homo- sexuality, 4, 219–235.

Coloma, R. S. (2003). Que(e)r(y)ing nationalism: History, nation, and imperialism. JCT, 19, 51–70.

Coloma, R. S. (2006). Putting queer to work: Examining empire and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, 639–657.

DeLeon, P. H. (1998). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, Incorporated, for the legislative year 1997: Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the Council of Repre- sentatives, August 14 and 17, Chicago, Illinois; and June, August and December 1997 meetings of the Board of Directors. American Psychologist, 53, 882–939.

Eaklor, V. L. (2008). Queer America: A people’s GLBT history of the United States. New York: New Press.

Eskridge, W. (2000). No promo homo: The sedimentation of antigay discourse and the channeling effect of judicial review. New York University Law Review, 75, 1327–1411.

Farrell, D. M. (1989). Suicide among gifted students. Roeper Review, 11, 134–139. Feinberg, L. (1993). Stone butch blues. Ithaca, NY: Firebrand Books. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee. (1964). Homosexuality and citizenship in

Florida. Tallahassee: The Florida Legislative Investigation Committee. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Pantheon

Books. Francis, S. N., & Stacey, C. E. (1977). Law and the sensual teacher. Phi Delta Kappan, 59,

98–102. Graves, K. L. (2009). And they were wonderful teachers: Florida’s purge of gay and lesbian

teachers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

lgbtq education research in historical context 41

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 41

Harbeck, K. M. (1997). Gay and lesbian educators: Personal freedoms, public constraints. Malden, MA: Amethyst Press.

Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men. American Psychologist, 44, 948–955.

Hooker, E. (1956). A preliminary analysis of group behavior of homosexuals. Journal of Psychology, 42, 217–225.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.

Kirkendall, L., & Tritsch, L. (1977). Educational implications of the Dade County imbroglio. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 94–97.

Lees, L. J. (1998). Transgender students on our campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students: A handbook for faculty and administrators (pp. 37–43). Westport: Greenwood Press.

Lugg, C. A. (1998). The religious right and public education: The paranoid politics of ho- mophobia. Educational Policy, 12, 267–283.

Moraga, C., & Anzaldúa, G. (Eds.). (1981). This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color. Watertown, MA: Persephone Press.

Newman, L. (1989). Heather has two mommies (D. Souza, Illus.). Boston: Alyson Won- derland.

Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays. (n.d.). About PFLAG: PFLAG’s history. Retrieved from http://community.pflag.org/page.aspx?pid=267

Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays. (n.d.). History: PFLAG’s rich past pro- vides a solid foundation for the future. Retrieved from http://community.pflag.org/ page.aspx?pid=279

Pinar, W. F. (1998). Queer theory in education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Quinn, T., & Meiners, E. R. (2009). Flaunt it! Queers organizing for public education and

justice. New York: Peter Lang. Rafferty, M. (1977). Should gays teach school? Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 91–92. Rich, A. C. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Journal of Women’s

History, 15, 11–48. Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley: University of California

Press. Silvern, L. E. (1978). Masculinity-femininity in children’s self-concepts: The relationship

to teachers’ judgments of social adjustment and academic ability, classroom behaviors, and popularity. Sex Roles, 4, 929–949.

Troiden, R. R. (1989). Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers, and curricula. New York: Harrington Park Press.

U.S. Senate, 81st Congress, 2nd Session, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments. (1975). Employment of homosexuals and other sex perverts in government. In L. Parr (Ed.), Government versus homosexual. New York: Arno Press. (Original work published 1950)

42 lgbtq education research in historical context

ch02.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 42

Chapter 3

Sociolegal Contexts of LGBTQ Issues in Education

Catherine A. Lugg and Madelaine Adelman

State regulation of sexuality, inspired and reinforced by societal bias against LGBTQ people, directly informs the practice and promise of public education in the United States, in schools considered both as workplaces and as places of learning. These dis- criminatory effects on schooling are found even when the political or policy fight over sexuality is not overtly connected to schools or those who work or learn within them. This chapter analyzes the politics of public policy related to such regulated, criminal- ized, and stigmatized identities while also identifying the conditions that sustain or challenge the bias against LGBTQ people and issues in U.S. schools. It draws on Queer Legal Theory as an overarching framework in which these trends may be un- derstood, and through which future research may be imagined.

Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children’s schools [italics added], or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive.

—Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas

T his chapter provides a legal, political, and policy overview to contex-tualize LGBTQ issues in education research. Given the relative silenceon this topic among scholars, we have drawn together studies that span several disciplines, including education, history, and law, in order to offer readers a socio legal context in which to situate their own research ques- tions. Taken together, these studies illustrate that state regulation of sexuality, inspired and reinforced by societal bias against lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans- gender, queer, and/or questioning people (i.e., individuals who claim a fluid sexual identity and/or gender identity/expression and/or refuse to be labeled), directly informs the practice and promise of public education in the United States, in schools considered both as workplaces and as places of learning.

These discriminatory effects on schooling are found even when the political or policy fight over sexuality is not overtly connected to schools or those who

43

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 43

work or learn within them. This occurs in three ways. First, purity campaigns and moral panics over the corruption of school-aged children have been endemic to efforts to regulate sexuality and constrain LGBTQ rights in areas such as sexual relations, marriage, and the military (Herdt, 2009). Second, stigmatization and criminalization of queer identity have led to concrete forms of discrimination in the everyday (school) lives of LGBTQ educators, parents, and students and their allies. Third, a combination of this regulation and discrimination has led to institutionalized forms of invisibility, rendering absent LGBTQ people who exist within the school community. Recent sociolegal changes have begun to address these concerns; we highlight them throughout this chapter.

A note on terminology: We use the term queer throughout to mean individ- uals who have been perceived by society or have considered themselves to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, queer and/or ques- tioning. We acknowledge that this term is a “recovered slur” and that, as such, its use is troublesome. We also use queer as normative— with nonqueers, who are more commonly known as heterosexuals and/or gender-conforming persons, considered to be somewhat lacking. While perhaps jarring for the uninitiated, both “queer” and “nonqueer” are linguistically consistent with the theoretical lens that we employ for this chapter— the lens of Queer Legal Theory (QLT) (Hutchinson, 1997, 1999; Valdes, 1995, 1997, 2004). Below we analyze the politics of public policy related to such regulated, criminalized, and stigmatized identities while also identifying the conditions that sustain or challenge the bias against LGBTQ people and issues in U.S. schools. We draw on QLT as an overarching framework in which these trends may be understood and through which future research may be imagined.

A Brief Discussion of Queer Legal Theory Queer Legal Theory1 is an intellectual descendant of Critical Legal Studies, Critical Race Theory, Feminist Legal Theory, Gay and Lesbian Legal Theory (as well as Gay Legal Theory), and finally Queer Theory, which were developed by legal researchers based on scholarship in the humanities. Queer Legal Theory was then subsequently “imported” into educational research. A central assumption of QLT and these forerunners is that all identity is unstable and, furthermore, that racism is normal and woven into the fabric of American life, as are sexism and classism (Hutchinson, 1997, 1999; Valdes, 1995, 1997, 2004). However, unlike other critically oriented legal theories, QLT is focused primarily on queers— or people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, queer, and/or questioning— and how law and policy influence their individual and collective lives. QLT draws on Feminist Legal

44 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 44

Theory’s commitment to disestablishing patriarchy, Critical Race Theory’s dedication to unmasking the deep racist structures within U.S. society and life, Critical Legal Theory’s examination of how class structures are perpetuated and reinforced, and Gay and Lesbian Legal Theory’s understanding of how heteronormativity (the notion that the entire world is nonqueer— or that it should be) is reproduced, whereas queer identity and individuals are eliminated (Hutchinson, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2005; Valdes, 1995, 1998, 2004).

However, Queer Legal Theory moves beyond these other theories in distinct and important ways. QLT rejects the tendency toward gender essentialism that underpins much of Feminist Legal Theory (Harris, 1990; Valdes, 1995), the heteronormativity reflected in early Critical Race Theory’s analyses (Hutchinson, 1999, 2001), the overreliance on class as the sole analytic variable in Critical Legal Theory (Valdes, 1995), and the inherently racist and classist assumptions reflected in Gay and Lesbian Legal Theory, and Gay Legal Theory in particular (Hutchinson, 1997, 1999, 2000; Valdes, 1995, 1997, 1998). It is fiercely anti- essentialist and anti-majoritarian, rejecting the notion that there are “specific ways” for human beings to exist based on social classifications. Drawing on the concepts of intersectionality and multidimensionality from Critical Race Theory, QLT acknowledges that human beings have multiple ways “to be.” An individual may be queer and working class, as well as female and of Lebanese descent. QLT assumes that identity is unstable. Like other critically oriented legal theories, and unlike most mainstream social science theories, QLT is activist in orientation: It is dedicated to eliminating the social, political, eco- nomic, cultural, and legal structures that criminalize, stigmatize, and pathologize individuals who have historically been determined to be “queer” (Valdes, 1995, 1997). Finally, QLT views demands that queers “pass” or “cover” their identities and appear nonqueer as inherently discriminatory, since such demands strip queers of political voice and, in some instances, of their very humanity (see Yoshino, 2002).

As applied to U.S. public schooling, QLT seeks to unmask areas of homo- phobia, heterosexism, and transphobia. These areas include curriculum content (including sexuality education and affirmative images of LGBTQ people); policies governing extracurricular activities (including Gay-Straight Alliance student clubs and proms); regulation of bullying, harassment, and hate speech (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006); employee policies such as domestic partner benefits; and “no promo homo” policies requiring either that queerness not be mentioned or that mentions all be negative, such as stressing that both queer sexual be- havior and identity are illegal, immoral, and pathological (see Eskridge, 2000). QLT helps researchers peer into the very fabric of public schooling to see whether and how homophobic and transphobic bias and heteronormative priv-

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 45

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 45

ilege exist and shape the lives of those who work, study, and play within the school’s walls (see Lugg, 2003, 2006b).

Furthermore, since it embraces the concepts of multidimensionality and in- tersectionality, QLT examines how school policies and practices that explicitly target queer people can also reproduce gender bias, sexism, racism, and classism (see Valdes, 1998). For example, often public school students are ha- rassed because of their perceived orientation and how they “do” their gender (Lipkin, 2004; Lugg, 2003, 2006b; Pascoe, 2007; Wilchins, 2004). In other instances, queerness is viewed as a “Whites-only” phenomenon (see Hong, 2001; Spain, 2001), or queer-positive student groups are seen as indifferent to the needs of queer students of color (see McCready, 2001, 2010). QLT helps to address the multiple (and often hidden) dimensions that come with any policy (Valdes, 1998), including the discriminatory implementation of policies (e.g., when students of color are disproportionately disciplined in school). For the current project, QLT provided a lens to analyze prior sociolegal phenomena, as well as a method to ground analyses of contemporary educational policies, practices, and politics. We now turn to a brief discussion concerning the reg- ulation of sexuality in the United States in general and the roles played by sodomy laws, specifically for queer people.

The Regulation of Sexuality and Sodomy Laws

Sodomy laws are the chief systematic way that society as a whole tells gays they are scum.—Richard Mohr (1986–1987, p. 53)

Historians (e.g. Blount, 1998, 2003, 2005; Graves, 2009; Harbeck, 1997) and ethnographers (e.g., Fields, 2008; Garcia, 2102; Gray, 2009; Luker, 2006; Pascoe, 2007; McCready, 2010) help to explain how public schools are cultural sites where normative values and social expectations about gender and sexuality are constructed, circulated, and contested. These values and expectations are formed and reinforced not only by the school community it- self, but also are informed and enforced by the broader sociolegal context. Here, we analyze how sexuality and gender have been constituted and regu- lated in ways that (negatively) shape the everyday experiences of actual or perceived LGBTQ people who learn, work, and engage as families in the public school community, including but not limited to unnamed ignorance, uninvited scrutiny, uninterrupted harassment, and unrecognized discrimination. Among other effects, these mostly undocumented experiences of contemporary schooling lead systematically to lowered educational performance and achieve- ment; a diminished sense of well-being; a lack of belonging within the school

46 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 46

community; professionally unprepared teachers, staff, and administrators; di- verted employment aspirations; and unemployment. We argue that while schools purport to prepare all of their students to be career, college, and civic ready, the unfortunate result has been that official and unofficial institution- alized expressions of anti-LGBTQ stigmatization, criminalization, and invis- ibility mean that schools prepare students— and school employees— to enjoy differentiated citizenship. In short, the rejection of nondominant expressions of sexuality and gender is but another way that schools reproduce social and economic inequality.

Historically, the intimate lives of Americans have been subjected to all manner of scrutiny, at the local, state, and federal levels.2 This situation has been particularly acute for public school personnel and students (see Biegel, 2010; Blount, 1998, 2003, 2005; DuBuisson, 2006; Eskridge, 1999b; Graves, 2009; Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2003, 2006a, 2006b; Szalacha, 2003). Indeed, the bureaucratic state developed and expanded its reach through the increased recognition and regulation of “homosexuality,” often triggered through sur- veillance of gender nonconformity (Canady, 2009; Eskridge, 1999a).

One issue commonly raised by laws governing consensual sexual behavior and sexuality is their historic variability; what is permissible in one state can be forbidden or tightly constrained in another (Eskridge, 1999b). Another issue is the selective enforcement of many such laws (Chauncey, 1994; D’Emilio, 1983; Eskridge, 1999a; Leslie, 2000, 2005; Lugg, 2003). Both of these aspects— variability and selective enforcement— mean that one’s human rights may be more or less constrained depending on local conditions and the individuals in- volved (Ball, 2003; Dayoff, 2001; D’Emilio, 1983; Eskridge, 1999a; Harbeck, 1997; J. N. Katz, 1992; Leslie, 2000, 2005; Murdoch & Price, 2001; K. Thomas, 1992). Consequently, all laws regulating consensual sexual behavior have a strong surveillance aspect: One never knows where, when, or whether these laws will be enforced (Ball, 2003; Goodman, 2001). A third issue raised by these laws is their power to stigmatize. Regulations concerning sexuality have always carried strong social penalties and sanctions, including public humilia- tion. Mere mention of one’s queer status invites stigmatization, thus reducing an individual’s political and civil (including parental and employment) rights in some instances (see Goffman, 1963; Yoshino, 2002).

In particular, sodomy laws have contributed to a threefold form of oppression and stigmatization that specifically targets queer people, viewing them as (1) heretical, (2) medically pathological, and (3) criminal (see Lugg, 2006a). In the first and still common view— that queers are heretical— the mere existence of queer people violates literalist Biblical norms regarding same-sex sexual behavior (Eskridge, 2005). Like other heresies, queerness is portrayed as highly

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 47

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 47

contagious and disgusting, and as needing to be either minimized or eliminated (Eskridge, 2005; Knauer, 2000).

The second view is that queers are medically pathological (Cruz, 1999; Terry, 1999). Queers had been pathologized for over 50 years by various medical com- munities; and medical professionals stressed that this “pathogen” was highly contagious (see Blount, 1998; Eskridge, 2005; Knauer, 2000). This justification began crumbling in the late 1940s with the publication of the first Kinsey study (Cruz, 1999; D’Emilio, 1983; Terry, 1999) and was officially dismantled in 1973, when the American Psychiatric Association (APA) withdrew “homosex- uality” and “bisexuality” from its list of mental disorders (Diagnostic and Sta- tistical Manual of Mental Disorders; Cruz, 1999; D’Emilio, 1983). This process continues with the APA’s current revision of the diagnosis of gender identity disorder to a likely more normative, albeit still problematic, notion of “gender dysphoria” (Lowder, 2012). Nevertheless, the ex-gay movement continues to claim that gay people’s sexual orientation should be changed— a project that the medical community notes is doomed to failure (Erzen, 2006)3—and that gender identity should not be changed from that assigned at birth.

The third view asserts that queers are intrinsically criminal. Male-on-male sodomy (specifically, anal sex) was long criminalized in the United States, but most other same-sex consensual sexual behavior was not criminalized until the 1920s (Eskridge, 1994, 1999a, 2001). Furthermore, only beginning in the 1920s did identity become synonymous with actual or perceived queer behavior and vice-versa (Eskridge, 1999a; Leslie, 2000; Seidman, 2003). U.S. sodomy laws were subsequently revised and expanded in the hopes of rooting out suspected “perverts and deviants” from all manner of public employment and public life (Canady, 2009; Eskridge, 1994, 1999a; Graves, 2009; Leslie, 2000, 2005; Terry, 1999). By the early 1920s, every U.S. state had criminalized any form of transgressive sex; that is, all queer sexual behavior, nonqueer oral and anal sex, and all nonqueer sexual behavior outside the confines of marriage (i.e., premarital and extramarital nonqueer sex; Eskridge, 1994, 1999a; Seid- man, 2003). Penalties for queer sex varied, depending on the state in which the offense was committed, ranging from a few weeks in jail to forced institu- tionalization in a mental hospital where treatments included electroshock and lobotomy, to castration for male offenders, to life in prison (Alwood, 1996; Cruz, 1999; Eskridge, 1994, 1999a; Terry, 1999).4

Sodomy laws, in conjunction with morality clauses in public educators’ employment contracts, have been used to keep queer educators closeted, their identities hidden, or to fire them if revealed or “outed” (DuBuisson, 2006; Eckes & McCarthy, 2008; Graves, 2009; Harbeck, 1997; Lugg, 2006b). During the 1950s and 1960s, when most of the “homosexual” witch hunts that shaped

48 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 48

public schooling in the United States took place, queer students and employees fell victim to all three oppressive stigmas (heretical, pathological, and criminal). Consequently, both public school students and educators took great care in covering their identities— if they could (Blount, 2003, 2005; DuBuisson, 2006; Graves, 2006, 2009).

Ironically, in the midst of the terrifying 1950s, the American Law Institute recommended that all noncommercial, consensual, private sexual behavior be decriminalized (Luna, 2000). What this meant for queer people was that their legal status should be decriminalized and laws criminalizing same-sex sexual behavior should be repealed. By the 1970s, bolstered in part by the nascent gay rights movement, as well as by the APA’s reformed stance on homosexuality, 21 states decriminalized same-sex consensual sexual behavior (Lugg, 2006b). During the 1980s, the movement to legislatively repeal these laws tightly reg- ulating consensual sex became entangled with the purity politics of the growing Protestant Right, which focused on the danger of “homosexual teachers” to public-school children (Blount, 2005; Eskridge, 2005; Lugg, 1998).

At the same time, the movement to decriminalize queer sex received a crippling “one-two” punch. The first was the emergence of AIDS, which struck down a generation of gay men who were well versed in political action, and brought with it a rabid anti-queer hysteria (Shilts, 1987). The second was the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick, which ruled that the Georgia statute banning consensual sodomy was constitutional. In upholding the law, the Court stated that there was no constitutional right to “homosexual sodomy.” Nor did queer people have a right to privacy if “ho- mosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home” (Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, at 195–196).5 During this period of conservative political retrenchment, reformers shifted their focus to the judiciary and sued under the federal and various state constitutions.

While the movement to decriminalize queer identity progressed into the 1990s, the devastating Hardwick decision enabled individual states and the U.S. military to maintain criminal bars and other policies that stigmatized queer Americans. Furthermore, the growing Protestant Right made the repres- sion of U.S. queers a central focus of its political action (Blount, 2005; Eskridge, 2005; Lugg, 1998). By the dawn of the 21st century, queers remained criminals and heretics in many parts of the United States.

The Lawrence Decision On September 17, 1998, John Lawrence and Tyrone Garner were arrested by the Harris County (Houston, Tex.) police for allegedly engaging in consensual

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 49

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 49

sodomy in Lawrence’s apartment.6 Responding to a report of a man with a gun, the police burst into Lawrence’s apartment. Instead of finding an armed man making terroristic threats, the police reported that they had discovered a gay, working-class, interracial couple engaged in consensual anal sex (see Hernandez-Truyol, 2004).7 The police arrested both men, charging them with deviant sexual intercourse in violation of Section 21.06 of the Texas criminal code, which had criminalized all same-sex consensual sexual activity but specifically exempted all cross-sex consensual sexual activity (Graff, 2003). Both Lawrence and Garner pled no contest, paid their fines, and with the aid of sympathetic lawyers and, eventually, national queer rights organizations, began litigating against the Texas sodomy statute (Hernandez-Truyol, 2004).

The subsequent Lawrence decision rested on two pillars of Supreme Court jurisprudence: the right to privacy and the prohibition of governmental animus (Eskridge, 2005; Hernandez-Truyol, 2004; Hutchinson, 2005; Marcus, 2006). Justice Anthony Kennedy observed in his majority decision:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and in its more transcendent dimensions. (Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority in Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, at 562)

In other words, states could not pass laws that specifically targeted queers for harm because the promotion of governmental hatred is not legally permissible under the U.S. Constitution. Although queers were not accorded equal protec- tion per se in Lawrence, queers had finally gained access to privacy rights, something that had been denied outright in Hardwick. In so writing, the Court majority invalidated all laws banning consensual sodomy. Quite simply, indi- vidual states could no longer criminalize queers outright.

Yet the Lawrence decision is remarkable for what it does not say: Queers still do not belong to a legally “suspect class” like African Americans and all women (Eskridge, 2005; Hernandez-Truyol, 2004; Hutchinson, 2005; Leslie, 2005; Marcus, 2006; Powers, 2010). Justice Kennedy used a “rational basis” standard of judicial review— which is the lowest standard (Eskridge, 2005; Marcus, 2006). What this means is that some laws that limit the rights of queers may still pass constitutional muster— if they are legally rational. As

50 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 50

legal scholar Mary Ann Case (2003) noted at the time of the Lawrence decision, for queers, being decriminalized does not mean that the historical stigma has been eliminated. Although queers are no longer criminals, thanks to Lawrence, the question becomes “Are queers full U.S. citizens?”8

Differentiated Citizenship and Public Schooling

[The] public school entrance is often reported as the occasion of stigma learning, the experience sometimes coming very precipitously on the first day of school, with taunts, teasing, ostracism, and fights. —Erving Goffman (1963, p. 33)

As described earlier, anti-queer stigma (and efforts to counter it) became part of the structure of U.S. society during the 20th century (D’Emilio, 1983; Es- kridge, 1999a; J. N. Katz, 1992).9 What this means in terms of basic citizenship rights and obligations is that queers— either actual or perceived— have had fewer rights and fewer protections against discrimination (Eskridge, 1999a, 2005; Garland, 2001; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006; Leslie, 2005; K. Thomas, 1992). The 14th Amendment clearly states that all U.S. citizens have “equal protection under the law,” but this has not been the case for queers (Irons, 1999; Karst, 2003; Leslie, 2005; MacKinnon, 1989; Valdes, 1995; Young, 1990, 2000).

What the post–Reconstruction Era Supreme Court and its successors did regarding U.S. citizenship rights was to maintain the American constitutional norm of “differentiated citizenship.” That is, all persons born or naturalized in the United States do not enjoy the same rights and privileges under U.S. law, although the 14th Amendment states precisely the opposite. Current political theorists (Kymlicka, 1995; Young, 1990, 2000) have a quite different concep- tion of differentiated citizenship (citizenship where historic difference is pos- itively attributed under the law). Drawing on U.S. history and case law, these theorists hold that many U.S. citizens have experienced second-, third-, or even bottom-tier citizenship rights in comparison with those held by propertied, nonqueer, White males who happened to be Protestant (Eisenstein, 1988; Irons, 1999; Kairys, 1998; Leslie, 2005; MacKinnon, 1989). For purposes of this discussion, “differentiated citizenship is a hierarchy of political and legal rights based on group characteristics . . . that have been historically stigmatized in the US” (Lugg, 2008, p. 187). Consequently, justice— as well as meaningful access to political power in the United States— has not been blind; rather it has been selectively myopic (Lugg, 2003).

The post–Reconstruction Era also brought the rise of mass public schooling in the United States. The entire culture was marked by gross inequalities along

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 51

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 51

lines of race, class, gender, religion, and dis/ability (Irons, 1999; M. Katz, 1987; Spring, 2004). Not surprisingly, so were the public schools, as govern- mental entities (Anderson, 1988; Anyon, 1997; Nasaw, 1979; Spring, 2004). While public schooling did inculcate notions of what it meant to be a citizen in a democratic republic (see Spring, 2004) and provided a measure of social mobility for some, it was and remains remarkably adept at reproducing the in- equitable social order (Anyon, 2005; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Brantlinger, 2003; Counts, 1927; Mickelson, 2003; Oakes, 2005; Spring, 2004).

Much of the current discourse surrounding public schooling involves the notion that reforming public education will provide a direct pathway to eco- nomic and social mobility for individuals, as well as maintain the economic hegemony of the United States (e.g., Friedman, 2006). However, this assess- ment tends to ignore the role that public schools have played in the reproduction of inequality (Anyon, 2005; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Brantlinger, 2003; Oakes, 2005; Spring, 2004), as well as their role in stigma enforcement (Goffman, 1963). From curriculum tracking, which historically has placed non-Anglos and the poor of all ethnic and racial backgrounds— regardless of actual ability— in the “lower,” non-college-bound tracks (Brantlinger, 2003), to special edu- cation placements, where African American boys are grossly overrepresented (Henry & Anderson, 1994), to separate (and inferior) academic offerings for pregnant and mothering teens (Pillow, 2006), to state-sponsored religious practices, including vocal prayer (Lugg, 2004), public schools can impart very strong messages regarding who is a full citizen and who is not (see Arriola, 1998; Biegel, 2010; Eskridge, 2000; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006; Kumashiro, 2002; Lugg, 2003). This official stigmatization demoralizes and diminishes students and prepares them for a lifetime of lesser citizenship. Furthermore, students who are accorded full citizenship rights are socialized into accepting differen- tiated citizenship as a natural part of life in America.10 Their elevated legal and political status is unexamined, unquestioned, and even glorified.

LGBTQ Americans— adults, children, and their families— face daunting challenges in most public school settings both as workplaces and as places for learning. Currently, depending on the state, a child might encounter “no promo homo” laws, which may ban positive mention of queerness. As Lugg noted in 2003:

In Alabama, one may not “promote lifestyles or activities prohibited by sodomy and sexual misconduct laws. . . .” In Minnesota, “nothing in the Minnesota Human Rights statutes shall ‘be construed to mean that the state condones homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle’” or “authorizes or permits the promotion of homosexuality

52 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 52

or bisexuality in education institutions or requires the teaching in education institutions of homosexuality or bisexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.” (Lugg, 2003, p. 118, quoting Eisemann, 2000, p. 132)

Recent litigation and the subsequent consent decree involving the Anoka- Hennepin, Minn., school district and the U.S. Department of Justice illustrates the dangers of “no promo homo” policies in public schools. Passed in 1994 as part of a district-wide revision to its health curriculum, Anoka-Hennepin’s policy that “homosexuality should not be taught/addressed as a normal, valid lifestyle” was quickly interpreted by school personnel as banning any positive mention of queerness throughout the district— across all curricular and student areas (see Rubin Erdely, 2012, para. 22). Given the political power of Protestant Right activists within the district (Baca, 2012), teachers and administrators routinely failed to intervene if a student was verbally insulted, harassed, or even gay bashed (Rubin Erdely, 2012). The district experienced a rash of student suicides, nine in a two-year period (2009–2011), many by students who were queer or who were perceived to be queer. In March of 2012, after a brief period of litigation during which it became clear that the district would lose in federal court (see Rubin Erdely, 2012), the district signed a consent de- cree with the U.S. Department of Justice, agreeing to comport with equal rights protections for all students, including queer students.

But the federal government’s role in public school policy can also be prob- lematic. Thanks to the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (see Elia & Eliason, 2010; Pillow, 2006), abstinence-only and abstinence-based sexuality education permeates most U.S. public schools, extolling sexual celibacy until nonqueer marriage, and excluding the topics of queer sex and queer relationships (Fields, 2008; Garcia, 2012; Luker, 2006; Sternberg, 2007; also see de Vise, 2007). The exclusion of LGBTQ issues in sexual health is reinforced by filter software on school computers, which screens out queer- inclusive Web content (American Civil Liberties Union, 2011), and by a pro- found absence of LGBTQ issues in school curricula (Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Elia & Eliason, 2010; Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010; Szalacha, 2003). Taken together, these education policies silence and stigmatize queer people in schools and exclude them and representations of them in school curricula and programming.

Undergirding anti-queer education policies, many public schools continue to maintain dangerously homophobic and transphobic environments, despite the enactment of laws to address bullying and harassment in schools and the

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 53

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 53

recent enactment of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Queer kids experience the highest rates of name-call- ing, harassment, and physical assaults, with gender nonconforming and trans- gender children at the greatest risk for ill-treatment in public schools (Arriola, 1998; Brittenham, 2004; Greytak, Kosciw, & Diaz, 2009; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006; Kosciw et al., 2010; Robson, 2001). Teachers and administrators display reactions ranging from honest cluelessness to dangerous indifference, to overt hostility toward their queer students (Kozik-Rosabal, 2000; Kumashiro, 2002; Lipkin, 2004; Lugg, 2003, 2006b; Szalacha, 2003).

Beyond the schoolhouse door, queer kids face greater harassment and danger from their own parents and guardians than do other historically mar- ginalized children. Queer kids who come out as queer to the adults in their lives risk being thrown out of their homes and/or physically and verbally as- saulted by their parents or guardians at far higher rates than their similarly sit- uated nonqueer peers (D’Augelli, 2002; Harris & Dyson, 2004; Leck, 2000; Nesmith, Burton, & Cosgrove, 1999; Quintana, Rosenthal, & Krehely, 2010; Ruskola, 1996). Recent research demonstrates the negative health effects of this sort of parental and caregiver rejection for LGB youth (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz & Sanchez, 2009). Given the marginalization of many queer youth in their family, neighborhood, and/or work communities, the school community constitutes a potentially transformative space.

Positive public school developments have emerged since the 1990s to ad- dress the silencing and exclusion of LGBTQ issues from schools. One devel- opment is the rise of GSAs, or Gay-Straight Alliances. GSAs are noncurricular clubs that have sprung up across the United States (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). Like other school-based clubs, they are protected by the federal Equal Access Act of 1984, which, ironically, was passed to protect student-initiated Christian clubs. GSA’s have been controversial since their inception, largely because they are federally protected, queer-positive student clubs (Lugg, 2003; Rehder, 2001). Unlike other student-based clubs, students starting a GSA often face trouble identifying a school worker willing to sign on as a sponsor due to the anti-LGBT school climate. School districts that have tried to ban the clubs outright in high schools have repeatedly lost in federal courts (Lugg, 2006b). However, other districts have threatened to ban all student-related noncurricular activities in order to eliminate the GSA, have required students to get parental permission to join any club (Johnson, 2007), or required students to annually renew their clubs. Such policies may be universal as codified but have differ- ential effects on GSAs.

Media coverage of high-profile cases of unchecked bullying and harassment has drawn significant attention to the issue of hostile anti-LGBTQ school cli-

54 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 54

mates, leading to policy reform and implementation. The landmark case Nabozny v. Podlesny (1996), in which a student sued his school district for lack of protection against anti-gay violence, resulted in a settlement close to $1 million and put schools across the country on notice (also see Stein, 1999). The more recent Tehachapi case, which followed the suicide of a middle school student who had been subject to sexual and gender-based harassment, required policy reform, school climate surveys, and educational training. Ad- vocacy organizations have called for and/or crafted model anti-bullying and harassment policies for schools (e.g., American Bar Association, 2011; Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2011). The U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights has even issued a “Dear Colleague” letter to inform educational institutions of their professional obligation to enforce existing policies, including cases involving sexual orientation and gender ex- pression. As a result of nationwide advocacy, 17 states and the District of Co- lumbia now have enumerated laws that explicitly prohibit bullying and/or ha- rassment based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity (GLSEN, n.d.).

While much attention has been placed on the amelioration of hostile climates in the public schools as places of learning, fewer advances have occurred with regard to schools as workplaces (Adelman & Lugg, 2012). The status of queer educators working in public schools remains fairly tenuous in most states. Queer educators are technically protected against discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity by a patchwork combination of anti- bias statutes, executive orders, administrative rules or personnel regulations in 17 states and Washington, D.C. (an additional four states prohibit discrim- ination based on sexual orientation only, and see Lugg, 2006b). States with employment nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity have been recent adopters of some form of marriage equality; states without employment discrimination policy based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity typically maintain laws banning queer marriage (see Human Rights Campaign, 2007, 2014a, 2014b) and/or no promo homo laws (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, n.d.). Furthermore, only 2 of the 14 states that had sodomy laws on the books prior to the Lawrence decision have repealed them, which makes queer educators in those states statutory criminals (Leslie, 2000, 2005; Lugg, 2006b). Consequently, most queer public school teachers remain closeted (DuBuisson, 2006; Jackson, 2007), and queer public school administrators are deeply closeted (Capper, 1999; Fraynd & Capper, 2003; Tooms, 2007; also see Sears & Mallory, 2011). Notably, despite recent legal rights advances for LGBT people, queer adults who work in schools re- main some of the most invisible and vulnerable to anti-LGBT sentiment in society (Adelman & Lugg, 2012).

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 55

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 55

Some of this vulnerability is a legacy of the Cold War Era witch hunts that began in the early 1950s and crashed over public schools in successive waves (Eskridge, 1994). They did not abate until the early 1990s (Lugg, 2006b). But since the 1970s, the Protestant Right has consistently and insistently argued that openly queer educators present a unique moral and physical threat to the impressionable youth of America (Baca, 2012; DuBoisson, 2006; Eskridge, 2000, 2005). This view centers on the perceived heretical and contagious nature of “open homosexuality” (Baca, 2012; DuBoisson, 2006; Eskridge, 2000, 2005; Knauer, 2000; Lugg, 1998). As a result, since the 1990s there have been several high-profile cases of teachers being harassed, threatened with dismissal, and actually dismissed for being publicly “out” about their queer status (see DuBuisson, 2006; Eckes & McCarthy, 2008; Lugg, 2003). Many other queer educators— even if they remain closeted— have been subject to differential treatment and a hostile work environment, types of discrimination often “difficult to address legally” (Eckes & McCarthy, 2008, p. 538; also see Wright, 2010). Employment nondiscrimination and harassment policies remain varied; the recommended policy language—”actual or perceived sexual ori- entation and gender identity/expression”—remains uncommon, leaving public school employees unprotected.

The problem of the invisible queer adults who work in public schools is troubling on a number of levels. First, anti-queer stigma silences both queer school workers and their many potentially sympathetic nonqueer allies (Capper, 1999). These silences further enforce existing anti-queer stigma and send the message that queerness, and positive views of queerness, are literally unmen- tionable. Furthermore, the silencing and invisibility of queer public school workers erase possible queer adult role models for both queer and nonqueer students. Many children, regardless of their identities, are desperate for and deserve positive adult role models. By forcing queer adult public school em- ployees into the closest in the name of “professionalism,” all children are de- prived of a more fully rounded education as well as much-needed role models (DuBoisson, 2006). The lack of employment protection for queer school work- ers also limits the willingness of nonqueer school workers, who fear being la- beled as queer, to effectively intervene when they see or hear anti-queer bias and behavior. In short, if the adults are not safe within the walls of the public school, it is nearly impossible to create a safe environment there for children.

Public schools have been a remarkably effective mechanism for reproducing the legal bias against queer people, through silences and distortions that prepare queer students for their diminished citizenship and remind the queer adults of their similarly diminished status. Because of the power and historic role of stigma enforcement (Goffman, 1963) and schools’ effectiveness in reproducing

56 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 56

differentiated citizens, public school policies as well as the politics of public schooling have presented some formidable challenges to social justice–minded activists, educators, and researchers.

Next Steps

Keeping the crimes against nature law on the books, though perhaps unenforceable, will send a clear message that the Commonwealth of Virginia is serious about marriage and decency.—Victoria Cobb, chief lobbyist for the Family Foundation of Virginia (cited in Lewis, 2003, para. 8)

Since the 2003 Lawrence decision, there have been a number of setbacks and achievements for queers with regard to U.S. citizenship, which directly influ- ence the ability of schools to protect students and workers (and their families) from anti-LGBTQ discrimination and violence and to consider how to create a healthy and affirming learning and working environment. While many states passed statewide bans on “gay marriage,” some have gone further and enshrined this anti-queer bias into their state constitutions or fight higher court rulings deeming such bans unconstitutional. Until it was ruled unconstitutional in 2013 by the U.S. Supreme Court (in Windsor v. United States), the federal De- fense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996 (see Lugg, 2003), explicitly rejected the federal government’s responsibility in recognizing legal contracts between queer adults who happen to love each other.

The inclusion of queer families in public schools is shaped not only by same-sex marriage and divorce laws but also by the policies associated with creating, supporting, and protecting queer families. Many states, for example, still bar queers from adopting children. In Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services (2004), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state of Florida’s ban on gay adoption. The law, passed in 1977 as part of the broader, virulently homophobic Save Our Children Campaign, led by then–media star Anita Bryant (see Eskridge, 1999a, 2005), banned queers from adopting children under the rationale that homosexuals engaged in ho- mosexuality (which at the time was criminalized) and hence were unfit parents (Dayoff, 2001; Eskridge, 2005; Ludwig, 2006). While Florida’s state supreme court eventually invalidated that ban in 2010 (see Florida Department of Chil- dren and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., 2010), queer-hostile states are increasingly permitting single people to adopt, but 14 states do not permit “second parent adoption.” Second parent adoption has been a strategy whereby partnered queer parents residing in hostile states seek

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 57

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 57

to gain legal recognition for both parents. It looks as if the policy window is closing somewhat on this option. Seen from a Queer Legal Theory perspective, adoption and related family rights issues, such as child custody, domestic vi- olence, and immigration status, each can constrain or support a public school’s ability to reflect and embrace all of the families that make up its community.

While conservative activists admit the laws are technically unenforceable (although there have been arrests and convictions post-Lawrence; see Lugg, 2006b, Mustian, 2013), these laws’ continued existence sends a strong message that queer identity is officially stigmatized in these states. For public school workers and students, the continued criminalization of queer identity greatly limits the ability to be “out” as well as free from governmentally sanctioned anti-queer bias.

By contrast, there have been some critical positive developments, originally in what are known in popular political discourse as “blue states” but have quickly spread to include historically conservative states like Utah and Virginia. Currently, 36 states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex marriage (and divorce)—and that number is rapidly expanding. According to the or- ganization Freedom to Marry (2015), at present “nearly 72% of the U.S. pop- ulation lives in a state currently issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples state-wide.” More changes are rapidly under way, given the recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions in two same-sex marriage cases (the DOMA-related case Windsor v. United States and the California Proposition 8 case Hollingsworth v. Perry). While the Court did not rule that marriage equality is a fundamental Constitutional right, it did hold that same-gender couples, in- cluding one or more transgender partners, who hold valid and legal marriage certificates must be treated as married by the U.S. federal government in the case of recognition and access to federal benefits. In Windsor, the Court de- clined to order the individual states to recognize marriage equality, but nu- merous federal and state courts, as well as federal circuit courts, drawing on this newly established Supreme Court precedent, have ordered that states adhere to Windsor. Forthcoming legal rulings by the Supreme Court, expected in June 2015, may create new possibilities for inclusion of and education about queer families in public schools— since there are no reasons left that can meet Constitutional muster for barring inclusion.

Policy reforms such as the U.S. military’s recent overturn of its gay ban under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” also will likely open opportunities for additional sociolegal transformations, which, in turn, will affect the experiences of LGBTQ students, workers, and families in schools (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). In one intriguing federal court ruling involving public schools, a Boston federal judge dismissed a case brought by religious parents who objected to the Lex-

58 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 58

ington, Mass., school district’s teaching about gay marriage to their children. In their suit the parents claimed that their free exercise rights had been curtailed by the school district because the district taught material— gay marriage— that ran counter to their religious beliefs. In his strongly worded decision, fed- eral judge Mark Wood wrote that public schools are “entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.” Wood added, “Diversity is a hall- mark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differ- ences in sexual orientation” (U.S. court upholds same-sex teaching, 2007, para. 3–4). Wood said the parents had the option of sending their children to a private school or home-schooling them in accordance with their religious beliefs but did not have the right to proscribe a secular curriculum to uphold their religious beliefs.

At the state level, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education (2007) that public school districts are financially liable if they maintain a pervasively homophobic school climate. The student involved had been continually harassed in his Toms River schools, from Grade 4 until Grade 9, when he transferred to another district. As the unanimous (7–0) court observed, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, which includes sexual orientation, “permits a cause of action against a school district for student-to-student harassment based on an individual’s perceived sexual orientation if the school district’s failure to reasonably address that ha- rassment has the effect of denying to that student any of the school’s ‘accom- modations, advantages, facilities or privileges’” (Kidd, 2007, para. 8). The school district could be sued for financial damages because it had failed to eradicate homophobic bias. In the court’s strongly worded decision, New Jersey public school districts have an affirmative duty under the state’s con- stitution to ensure that their schools are free from homophobic bias (Kidd, 2007). Although the New Jersey decision is an important development, it is important to point out what it does not say. New Jersey public schools do not have a duty to be queer and/or transgender affirming, only to be free from homo phobic bias.

Landmark statewide administrative, judicial, and legislative decisions have advanced the inclusion and protection of transgender and gender nonconform- ing students in public schools. Colorado’s Department of Regulatory Agencies Civil Rights Division ruled in mid-2013 in favor of first grader Coy Mathis using the restroom that corresponds with her gender identity. About six months later, in January 2014, the Maine High Court ruled in a discrimination lawsuit against an Orono elementary school that then fifth grader Nicole Maines, who is a transgender girl, also must be allowed access to school facilities that align

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 59

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 59

with her gender identity. Amidst these decisions, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the School Success and Opportunity Act that ensures transgender student inclusion in the school community, regardless of their gender identity. In response, a coalition of anti-LGBT organizations has joined to repeal the law through a statewide ballot initiative. Once again, the absence of hate, protection against violence, and basic inclusion are not quite the same thing as social justice (Lugg, 2003), although these are important steps on that road.

Queers, Differentiated Citizenship, and the Politics of Public Schooling

We have argued above that societal bias against LGBTQ people, encoded in our laws and policies, directly and indirectly informs the practice and promise of public education in the United States. The current absence of out LGBTQ youth and adults and their allies in the school community is the result of insti- tutionalized forms of enforced invisibility. Those who cannot or will not remain invisible in their workplace or learning environment have been targets of explicit forms of discrimination and violence typically aimed at members of stigmatized groups. More broadly, the school community sits at the vulnerable front lines of anti-LGBTQ campaigns, which are most often framed as a moral panic over the corruption of school-aged children (Herdt, 2009). Until recently, this level of public scrutiny has produced and sustained an unwelcoming if not hostile climate for school students and employees, and their families.

We anticipate that what Lawrence, Nabozny, Windsor, and the other socio - legal turning points noted above mean for U.S. public education is that public schools will eventually have to refrain from being officially homophobic and transphobic. Specifically, concrete forms of employment, parental, and edu- cation discrimination will need to be addressed. “No promo homo” laws that specifically require public school personnel to discuss queerness only in a negative light (e.g., saying that it is illegal, immoral, or spreads disease) should be repealed (Eskridge, 2005), especially in light of both the federal consent decree that the Anoka-Hennepin school district recently signed and the recent Windsor decision involving marriage equality. The justification for these laws should fail judicial scrutiny even at the rational level, given the Supreme Court precedents established in Romer v. Evans (2006) and Lawrence.

Abstinence-only curricula that stress celibacy until nonqueer marriage are probably a bit more durable, although the logical fallacies embedded within them are painfully apparent. First, most nonqueer Americans engage in con- sensual cross-sex sexual activity prior to marriage (Sternberg, 2007). Secondly, many queer Americans are still barred from civil marriage in the United States

60 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 60

(Human Rights Campaign, 2007). Furthermore, many abstinence-only pro- grams seem to be repositories of numerous factual errors and sexual stereotypes, and provide thin covers for religious dogma (see U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, 2004).

Gay-Straight Alliances will continue to fall under political attack, given their perceived heresy by many conservative religious people, but they have proved to be remarkably resilient (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006) and effective in cre- ating safer learning environments (GLSEN, 2007). The case law, as well as the widespread student demand for GSAs, should ensure their continued via- bility, even in community climates that are extremely hostile. The question re- mains as to the legal status of GSAs in middle schools, which at this time are not explicitly protected under the Equal Access Act. Nevertheless, GSAs are largely a marginal part of the public school day and week. While they do pro- vide safe space, particularly for highly stigmatized queer students (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006), GSAs still need to be joined by comprehensive anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies, student nondiscrimination policies, educator profes- sional development, and inclusive curricula if they are to transform typically hostile schools into healthy learning environments.

For queer adults who work in public schools, the outlook is even more complex (Biegel, 2010). At present, only 2 of the 14 states that maintained bars on sodomy have repealed their laws in light of Lawrence. Given the advent of national standards for licensure, as well as sophisticated criminal background checks for public educators, explicit bars on queer educators have vanished—even in states with extant sodomy laws. That said, the “community morals standards” in those states with extant sodomy laws could be construed to push queer educators from their positions. Furthermore, although most states have reversed their bans on same-sex marriage as well as their refusal to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in other states, laws related to queer families—including adoption and fostering of children—remain uneven and unenforced in some locations. Consequently, queer relationships remain legally unrecognized and largely stigmatized. Even in ostensibly progressive states, there is enormous pressure on queer school personnel to remain closeted for fear of igniting a political backlash (DuBoisson, 2006). Justice Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence, quoted at the beginning of this chapter, reflects the feelings of many Americans— perhaps not a majority, but a sizable minority. Consequently, for the near future, queer public school educators will remain largely silent, invisible, and stigmatized, because their identities present a tan- gible threat to their professional licenses and employment security. Employment nondiscrimination policies that explicitly include public school employees will help address this vulnerability.

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 61

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 61

Finally, the majority of sociolegal advances detailed above pertain primarily to gay, lesbian, and bisexual students, their families, and school workers. That is, the bulk of social movement successes have been organized against homo- phobia and heterosexism, and focused on relieving various forms of discrim- ination based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. We applaud these achievements while simultaneously noting the urgent need to address the dis- proportionate levels of stigma, invisibility, discrimination, and violence aimed at gender-nonconforming and transgender youth and adults (Girshick & Green, 2009; GLSEN & Harris Interactive, 2012; Grant, Mottet, Tanis, Harrison, Herman, & Keisling, 2011; Gray, 2009; Greytak, Kosciw, & Diaz, 2009). Gender-nonconforming and transgender youth and adults, some of whom identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, deserve to learn and work in an inclusive environment free from the constraints and pervasive policing of a rigid gender binary (GLSEN & Harris Interactive, 2012; Pascoe, 2007; Thorne, 1993). As noted earlier, the lack of acceptance of gender variance can be traced back to the invention of public schools in the United States. Surveillance and punish- ment of gender variance have been and continue to be common and legal tools used against both gay and straight people in schools. It is time to build on our scholarly knowledge and advocacy efforts related to sexual orientation to build on the emerging sociolegal changes related to gender identity and gender expression.

As with other historically stigmatized populations, the official and hidden public school curricula, as well as the larger political and legal environments, will continue to enforce many norms of differentiated citizenship for queers within the public schools’ walls. This state of affairs is a promising area of in- quiry for researchers who wish to understand not only the experience of queer school workers, students, or families, but also the effects of sexual minority– and gender variance status–based discrimination and related disparities on ed- ucational access, performance, and aspirations.

Scholars interested in the sociolegal context of LGBTQ issues in schooling have a rich literature from which to draw. Key concerns range from the very construction of queerness as a problematic and externalized difference within school governance to the transformation of anti-LGBTQ peer-to-peer violence from an aberration experienced by isolated individuals to an actionable crime and/or civil rights violation. Other scholars may be interested in the relationship among identity, education rights, and social movements, or possible institutional isomorphism found between education and the military when it comes to LGBTQ inclusion. Still others could inquire about the effects of the politics of local control on social change in schools, or the rhetorical deployment of schools as vulnerable places for queer youth— or of schools as vulnerable sites

62 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 62

for the discussion of queer topics. Researchers may wish to trace the spillover effect of sociolegal changes beyond the school community on the school com- munity (and/or vice versa). Comparative education researchers have a bounty of projects to design that ask how and why LGBTQ issues have developed in schools. Scholars within the education field may be particularly interested in the classic sociolegal “gap” question, that is, to what extent laws on the books are enacted on the ground. In other words, how does discretion and social power at multiple levels play into the implementation of hard-won law and policy-based social change? At the same time, it can be asked how the status quo ante is altered, again, with the benefit of discretion and social power, but away from the scrutiny of legal regulation. Education scholars may be uniquely situated (and have the best chance to secure access) to map how law and policy shapes the everyday life and legal consciousness of LGBTQ people in the school community, and how the negative or affirmative regulatory inclusion of LGBTQ issues in schools affects the developmental and learning processes of all students. These are just a small sample of sociolegal research questions and topical areas in education that could be considered. From personnel and student discipline and discrimination policies, to dress codes, to extracurricular offerings, as well as the entire curricula, the public school— as a research site— needs to be thoroughly explored using queer lenses.

Much remains to be studied, and we have offered here only a brief overview of the political, legal, and policy contexts framed by Queer Legal Theory. Given the complex and entrenched nature of schools as hostile learning and work en- vironments, we suggest that education researchers could benefit from cross-dis- ciplinary collaborations with scholars in disciplines such as history, law, sociology, and anthropology. Making public schools less officially hostile for queers and, one day, equitable and affirming environments for all, will require creative con- tributions from across our school communities and universities.

Notes An earlier version of this paper was presented at Denison University in 2007 as part of

the Laura C. Harris “Gendered Borders” series, Department of Education, Women’s Studies Program, and Queer Studies faculty, Denison University. The authors would like to ac- knowledge the contributions of participants in the American Educational Research Associ- ation’s Research Workshop on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research, as well as those of scholars and advocates whose work originally inspired AERA to convene the workshop. Special thanks go to C. J. Pascoe and Joseph G. Kosciw for their helpful feedback on this chapter.

1. An earlier version of this discussion on QLT appeared in Lugg, 2003. Copyright [2003] by [Sage Publications]. Adapted with permission.

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 63

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 63

2. An earlier version of this discussion appeared in Lugg, 2006a and 2006b. Copyright 2006 by Catherine A. Lugg for 2006a; Corwin Press for 2006b. Adapted with permission.

3. The efficacy of such “treatments” has been dismal. See Terry, 1999, to start. Fur- thermore, one of the largest and oldest organizations promoting “change,” Exodus Interna- tional, went out of business in July of 2013—after issuing an apology to LGBT people (see Payne, 2013). Soon thereafter, the first law to ban so-called “conversion therapy” treatment for minors that passed in California was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Lovett 2013). New Jersey also enacted a bill in 2013, and similar bills have been introduced in New York, Massachusetts, and Ohio. The ban in California remains unenforced, while the Liberty Counsel’s appeal was heard by the Supreme Court (Egelko, 2014).

4. Life in prison continues to be the penalty for queer sodomy in Idaho, one of the states that has yet to rescind its sodomy laws.

5. Hardwick’s partner was a married gay man, who was also a North Carolina public school teacher. He pled guilty to a misdemeanor and fled back to North Carolina. See Mur- doch and Price, 2001.

6. An earlier version of this discussion appeared in Lugg, 2006b, copyright 2006 by Corwin Press. Adapted with permission.

7. Dale Carpenter (2012) notes that the actual police report was falsified by one of the arresting officers. It is probable that there was no sexual contact whatsoever between Lawrence and Garner. But the official report reads otherwise, and it has become “the legal record.”

8. The Ninth Circuit recently found in a case involving jury exclusion that sexual ori- entation should be subjected to “heightened scrutiny” (Liptak, 2014), akin to race and gender. It is anticipated that this case and/or others like it will be appealed to the Supreme Court to determine the status of sexual orientation.

9. An earlier version of this discussion appeared in Lugg, 2008. Copyright 2008 by Rowman & Littlefield. Adapted with permission.

10. The term “differentiated citizenship” applies as well to unauthorized students who, despite the Supreme Court’s Plyer v. Doe (1982) ruling that mandates access to public ed- ucation regardless of legal status, are targeted with anti-immigrant discrimination in K–12 schools. In May 2011 the Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to school districts (co-signed by the DOE Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Justice) to re- mind school administrators of this legal responsibility. According to the Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project (Passel, J. S., Cohn, D., & Rohal, M., 2014), 6.9% of stu- dents in K–12 schools in the United States have parents who were unauthorized, and about 1.4% of K–12 students are themselves unauthorized.

References Adelman, M., & Lugg, C. A. (2012). Public schools as workplaces: The queer gap between

“workplace equality” and “safe schools.” Law Journal for Social Justice, 3, 27–46. Alwood, E. (1996). Straight news: Gays, lesbians, and the news media. New York: Columbia

University Press. American Bar Association. (2011). Resolution 107A unanimously approved by the ABA

House of Delegates, February 14, 2011. Retrieved from http://www2.americanbar.org/ sdl/Documents/2011_MY_107A.pdf

64 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 64

American Civil Liberties Union. (2011). Don’t filter me: Web content filtering in schools. Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/dont-filter-me-web-content-filtering-schools

Anderson, J. D. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schools: A political economy of urban education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York: Routledge.

Arriola, E. R. (1998). The penalties for puppy love: Institutionalized violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth. Journal of Gender, Race & Justice, 1, 427–470.

Baca, M. E. (2012, March 25). Anoka-Hennepin school district responds to parents group’s demands. Minneapolis, MN, Star Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/ local/north/144102796.html

Ball, C. A. (2003). The morality of gay rights. New York: Routledge. Bernstein, M., Marshall, A. & Barclay, S. (2009). The challenge of law: Sexual orientation,

gender identity and social movements. In S. Barclay, M. Bernstein, & A. Marshall (Eds.), Queer mobilizations: LGBT activists confront the law (pp. 1–20). New York: NYU Press.

Biegel, S. (2010). The right to be out: Sexual orientation and gender identity in America’s public schools. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Blount, J. M. (2003). Homosexuality and school superintendents: A brief history. Journal of School Leadership, 13(1), 7–26.

Blount, J. M. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender and school work in the twentieth century. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. W. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986). Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. Brantlinger, E. (2003). Dividing classes: How the middle class negotiates and rationalizes

school advantage. New York: Routledge. Brittenham, K. (2004). Equal protection theory and the Harvey Milk High School: Why

anti-subordination alone is not enough. Boston College Law Review, 45, 869–904. Canaday, M. (2009). The straight state: Sexuality and citizenship in twentieth-century

America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Capper, C. A. (1999). Homosexualities, organizations, and administration: Possibilities for

in(queer)y. Educational Researcher, 28(5), 4–11. Carpenter, D. (2012). Flagrant conduct: The story of Lawrence. v. Texas. New York: W.W.

Norton.

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 65

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 65

Case, M. A. (2003). Of “this” and “that” in Lawrence v. Texas. Supreme Court Review, 75– 141.

Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, urban culture, and the making of the gay male world, 1890–1940. New York: Basic Books.

Counts, G. S. (1927). Social composition of boards of education. New York: Arno Press. Cruz, D. B. (1999). Controlling desires: Sexual orientation conversion and the limits of

knowledge and law. Southern California Law Review, 72, 1297–1400. D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths

ages 14–21. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7(3), 433–456. Dayoff, A. D. (2001). Sodomy laws: The government’s vehicle to impose the majority’s

social values. William Mitchell Law Review, 27, 1863–1894. D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities: The making of a homosexual mi-

nority in the United States, 1940–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. De Vise, D. (2007, March 18). The wide spectrum of sex-ed courses: Montgomery veers

toward liberal end on homosexuality. Washington Post, p. C01. DuBuisson, E. (2006). Teaching from the closet: Freedom of expression and out-speech by

public school teachers. University of North Carolina Law Review, 85, 301–348. Eckes, S., & McCarthy, M. (2008). GLBT teachers: The evolving legal protections. American

Educational Research Journal, 45, 530–554. Egelko, B. (2014, February 3). Ban on gay “conversion” therapy on hold during Supreme

Court appeal. SF Gate. Retrieved from http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/ 2014/02/03/ban-on-gay-conversion-therapy-on-hold-during-supreme-court-appeal/

Eisemann, V. H. (2000). Protecting the kids in the hall: Using Title IX to stop student-on- student anti-gay harassment. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 15, 125–161.

Eisenstein, Z. R. (1988). The female body and the law. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Elia, J. P, & Eliason, M. (2010). Discourses of exclusion: Sexuality education’s silencing of sexual others. Journal of LGBT Youth, 7(1), 29–48.

Ephron, D. (2007, March 26). General comment: Peter Pace called homosexual acts “immoral” last week. It wasn’t the first time he’d weighed in on the matter. Newsweek, p. 34.

Erzen, T. (2006). Straight to Jesus: Sexual and Christian conversions in the ex-gay move- ment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Eskridge, Jr., W. N. (1994). Democracy, Kulturkampf, and the apartheid of the closet. Van- derbilt Law Review, 50, 419–443.

Eskridge, Jr., W. N. (1999a). Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the closet. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Eskridge, Jr., W. N. (1999b). Hardwick and historiography (David C. Baum Memorial Lecture on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights). University of Illinois Law Review, 631– 702.

Eskridge, Jr., W. N. (2000). No promo homo: The sedimentation of antigay discourse and the channeling effect of judicial review. New York University Law Review, 75, 1327– 1411.

66 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 66

Eskridge, Jr., W. N. (2001). The Constitution of equal citizenship for a good society: The relationship between obligations and rights of citizens. Fordham Law Review, 69, 1721–1751.

Eskridge, Jr., W. N. (2005). Body politics: Lawrence v. Texas and the Constitution of disgust and contagion. Florida Law Review, 57, 1011–1064.

Fields, J. (2008). Risky lessons: Sex education and social inequality. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Florida Department of Children and Families v. In re: Matter of Adoption of X.X.G. and N.R.G., 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 14014 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2010).

Fraynd, D. J., & Capper, C. A. (2003). “Do you have any idea who you just hired?!?” A study of open and closeted sexual minority K–12 administrators. Journal of School Leadership, 13, 86–124.

Freedom to Marry. (2015). Roadmap to victory. Retrieved from http://www.freedom tomarry.org/states/

Friedman, T. L. (2006). The world is flat: A brief history of the 21st century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Garcia, L. (2012). Respect yourself, protect yourself: Latina girls and sexual identity. New York: New York University Press.

Garland, J. A. (2001). The low road to violence: Governmental discrimination as a catalyst for pandemic hate crime. Law & Sexuality, 10, 1–91.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (2007). Gay-Straight Alliances: Creating safer schools for LGBT students and their allies (GLSEN Research Brief). New York: Author.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (2011). Model school anti-bullying and ha- rassment policy. Washington, DC: Author.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network & Harris Interactive. (2012). Playgrounds and prejudice: Elementary school climate in the United States: A survey of students and teachers. New York: Author.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (n.d.). State maps. Retrieved from http://glsen.org/article/state-maps

Girshick, L., & Green, J. (2009). Transgender voices: Beyond women and men. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Touchstone Books.

Goodman, R. (2001). Beyond the enforcement principle: Sodomy laws, social norms, and social panoptics. California Law Review, 89, 643–740.

Graff, E. J. (2003, March 27). Scalia on gay rights; Breyer on 17th-century poetry; and more on oral arguments in the Texas sodomy case. The American Prospect Online. Re- trieved from http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/03/graff-e-03-27.html

Grant, J. M., Mottet, L., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 67

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 67

Graves, K. (2006, October). Storming a “refuge for practicing homosexuals”: Before the movement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the History of Education Society, Ottawa, Ontario.

Graves, K. (2009). And they were wonderful teachers: Florida’s purge of gay and lesbian teachers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Gray, M. (2009). Out in the country: Youth, media and queer visibility in rural America. New York: New York University Press.

Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Harsh realities: The experiences of transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network..

Harbeck, K. M. (1997). Gay and lesbian educators: Personal freedoms, public constraints. Malden, MA: Amethyst.

Harris, A. P. (1990). Race and essentialism in Feminist Legal Theory. Stanford Law Review, 42, 581–615.

Harris, N., & Dyson, M. R. (2004). Safe rules or gays’ schools? The dilemma of sexual ori- entation segregation in public education. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Con- stitutional Law, 7, 183–218.

Henry, B., & Anderson, M. G. (1994). The disproportionate placement of African American males in special education programs: A critique of the process. Journal of Negro Edu- cation, 63(4), 602–619.

Herdt, G. (Ed.). (2009). Moral panics, sex panics: Fear and the fight over sexual rights. New York: New York University Press.

Hernandez-Truyol, B. E. (2004). Querying Lawrence. Ohio State Law Journal, 65, 1151– 1263.

Hong, A. H. (2001). “There are no gay Koreans.” In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling in- tersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education (pp. 109–111). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Human Rights Campaign. (2007). Marriage/relationship recognition. Retrieved from http://hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/TaggedPage/TaggedPageDisplay.cfm &TPLID=63&ContentID=17353

Human Rights Campaign. (2014a). Marriage equality and relationship recognition laws. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/state_maps

Human Rights Campaign. (2014b). Statewide employment laws and policies. Retrieved from http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/employment_laws_1-2014.pdf Hutchinson, D. L. (1997). Out yet unseen: A racial critique of Gay and Lesbian Legal

Theory and political discourse. Connecticut Law Review, 29, 561–645. Hutchinson, D. L. (1999). Ignoring the sexualization of race: Heteronormativity, Critical

Race Theory and anti-racist politics. Buffalo Law Review, 47, 1–116. Hutchinson, D. L. (2000). “Gay rights” for “gay Whites”? Race, sexual identity, and equal

protection discourse. Cornell Law Review, 85, 1358–1391. Hutchinson, D. L. (2001). “Intersectionality,” “multidimensionality,” and the development

of an adequate theory of subordination. Michigan Journal of Race & Law, 6, 285–317.

68 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 68

Hutchinson, D. L. (2005). The majoritarian difficulty: Affirmative action, sodomy, and Supreme Court politics. Law and Inequality, 23, 1–93

Irons, P. (1999). A people’s history of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin Press. Jackson, J. (2007). Unmasking identities: An exploration of the lives of gay and lesbian

teachers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Johnson, K. (2007, March 17). Utah sets rigorous rules for school clubs, and gay ones may

be target. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/17/ education/17utah.html?ex=1331784000&en=25a20fdf6f61b10b&ei=5090&partner=rss userland&emc=rss

Kairys, D. (1998). Introduction. In D. Kairys (Ed.), The politics of law: A progressive critique (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Karst, K. L. (2003). Law, cultural conflict, and the socialization of children. California Law Review, 91, 967–1028.

Katz, J. N. (1992). Gay American history: Lesbians and gay men in the U.S.A.: A docu- mentary history (Rev. ed.). New York: Meridian.

Katz, M. (1987). Reconstructing American education. New York: Oxford University Press. Keck, T. (2009). Beyond backlash: Assessing the impact of judicial decisions on LGBT

rights. Law and Society Review, 43, 151–185. Kidd, L. O. (2007, February 22). Schools must stop student harassment. Asbury Park Press

(Neptune, NJ). Retrieved March 23, 2007 from www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ article?AID=/20070222/NEWS/702220402/1070/NEWS02 Asbury Park, NJ

Knauer, N. J. (2000). Homosexuality as contagion: From “The Well of Loneliness” to the Boy Scouts. Hofstra Law Review, 29, 403–501.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The expe- riences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2008). Involved, invisible, ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K–12 schools. New York: GLSEN.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

Kozik-Rosabal, G. (2000). “Well, we haven’t noticed anything bad going on,” said the principal. Education and Urban Society, 32(3), 368–389.

Kumashiro, K. (2001). Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kumashiro, K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and antioppressive pedagogy. New York: Routledge-Falmer.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003). Leck, G. (2000). Heterosexual or homosexual: Reconsidering binary narratives on sexual

identities in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 32(3), 324–348.

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 69

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 69

Leslie, C. R. (2000, Winter). Creating criminals: The injuries inflicted by “unenforced” sodomy laws. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review, 35, 102–181.

Leslie, C. R. (2005). The importance of Lawrence in the context of the Supreme Court’s historical treatment of gay litigants. Widener Law Review, 11, 189–220.

Lewis, B. (2003, October 11). Commission bringing laws into 21st century. Washington Times. Available from http://www.washingtontimes.com

Lipkin, A. (2004). Beyond diversity day. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Liptak, A. (2014, January 21). Sexual orientation is no basis for jury exclusion, a federal

appeals court rules. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/ 22/us/sexual-orientation-is-no-basis-for-jury-exclusion-a-federal-appeals-court- rules.html

Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children and Family Services, 377 F.3d 1275, 1290 (Fla. 11th Cir. 2004).

Lovett, I. (2013, August 29). Law banning “gay cure” is upheld in California. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/law-banning-gay-cure- is-upheld-in-california.html

Lowder, J. B. (2012, December 3). Being transgender is no longer a disorder. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/ 2012/12/dsm_revision_and_sexual_identity_gender_identity_disorder_replaced_by_ gender.html

Ludwig, E. K. (2006). Protecting laws designed to remedy anti-gay discrimination from equal protection challenges: The desirability of rational basis scrutiny. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 8, 513–558.

Lugg, C. A. (1998). The religious right and public education: The paranoid politics of ho- mophobia. Educational Policy, 12(3), 267–283.

Lugg, C. A. (2003). Sissies, faggots, lezzies, and dykes: Gender, sexual orientation and a new politics of education? Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(1), 95–134.

Lugg, C. A. (2004). One nation under God? Religion and the politics of education in a post-9/11 America. Educational Policy, 18(1), 169–187.

Lugg, C. A. (2006a, October). A shifting rationale: US law, public schooling, and queer educators. Paper presented at the annual convention of the History of Education Society, Ottawa, Canada.

Lugg, C. A. (2006b). Thinking about sodomy: Public schools, panopticons and queers. Ed- ucational Policy, 20(1–2), 35–58.

Lugg, C. A. (2008). “Why’s a nice dyke like you embracing this post-modern crap?” Journal of School Leadership, 18(2), 164–199.

Luker, K. (2006). When sex goes to school: Warring views on sex— and sex education— since the sixties. New York: W.W. Norton.

Luna, E. (2000). Principled enforcement of penal codes, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4, 515–625.

L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education 189 NJ 381 (2007). MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

70 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 70

Marcus, N. C. (2006). Beyond Romer and Lawrence: The right to privacy comes out of the closet. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 15, 355–436.

McCready, L. (2001). When fitting in isn’t an option, or, why black queer males at a Cali- fornia high school stay away from Project 10. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling in- tersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education (pp. 37–53). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

McCready, L. (2010). Making space for diverse masculinities: Difference, intersectionality and engagement in an urban high school. New York: Peter Lang.

Mickelson, R. A. (2003). When are racial disparities in education the result of racial discrim- ination? A social science perspective. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 1052–1086.

Mohr, R. (1986–1987). Mr. Justice Douglas at Sodom: Gays and privacy. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 18, 43–53.

Murdoch, J., & Price, D. (2001). Courting justice: Gay men and lesbians v. the Supreme Court. New York: Basic Books.

Mustian, J. (2013, July 28). Gays in Baton Rouge arrested under invalid sodomy law: Sheriff’s office sets up park stakeouts to ensnare gay men. The Advocate. Retrieved from http://theadvocate.com/home/6580728-125/gays-in-baton-rouge-arrested

Nabozny v. Podlesny, 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1996). Nasaw, D. (1979). Schooled to order. New York: Oxford University Press. Nesmith, A. A., Burton, D .L., & Cosgrove, T. J. (1999). Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth

and young adults: Social support in their own words. Journal of Homosexuality, 37(1), 95–108.

Oakes, J. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag. Berkeley: University of California Press. Passel, J. S., Cohn, D., & Rohal, M. (2014). Unauthorized immigrant totals rise in 7 states,

fall in 14. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/2014/11/2014-11-18_unauthorized-immigration. pdf

Payne. E. (2013, July 8). Group apologizes to gay community, shuts down “cure” ministry. CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/20/us/exodus-international-shut- down/

Pillow, W. (2006). Teen pregnancy and education: Politics of knowledge, research, and practice. Educational Policy, 20(1), 59–84.

Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Powers, C. (2010). Finding LGBTs a suspect class: Assessing the political power of LGBTs

as a basis for the court’s application of heightened scrutiny. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 17(2), 385–398.

Quintana, N. S., Rosenthal, J., & Krehely, J. (2010). On the streets: The federal response to gay and transgender homeless youth. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Rehder, T. (2001). Discussion and expression of gender and sexuality in schools. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 2(2), 489–509.

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 71

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 71

Robson, R. (2001). Our children: Kids of queer parents and parents and kids who are queer: Looking at sexual minority rights from a different perspective. Albany Law Re- view, 64, 915–948.

Rubin Erdely, S. (2012, February 16). One town’s war on gay teens. Rolling Stone. Retrieved from http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

Ruskola, T. (1996). Minor disregard: The legal construction of the fantasy that gay and les- bian youth do not exist. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 8, 269–331.

Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in White and Latino lesbian, gay and bisexual youth. Pedi- atrics, 123(1), 346-352.

Sears, B., & Mallory, C. (2011). Documented evidence of employment discrimination and its effects on LGBT people. Los Angles: University of California, Los Angeles, Williams Institute.

Seidman, S. (2003). The social construction of sexuality. New York: W. W. Norton. Shilts, R. (1987). And the band played on: Politics, people and the AIDS epidemic. New

York: St. Martin’s Press. Spain, C. R. (2001). An interview with Quincy Greene. In K. K. Kumashiro (Ed.), Troubling

intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive edu- cation (pp. 105–108). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Spring, J. (2004). The American school, 1642–2004. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stein, N. (1999). Classrooms and courtrooms: Facing sexual harassment in schools. New

York: Teachers College Press. Sternberg, J. (2007, March 21). Lies we teach teenagers. TomPaine.com. Retrieved from

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/03/21/lies_we_teach_teenagers.php Stoddard, E. (2007, March 20). Texas is the unlikely home of biggest gay church. Washington

Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/ 03/20/AR2007032000697_pf.html

Szalacha, L. (2003). The research terrain: An overview of the research and scholarship on LGBTQ issues in education. Journal for Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(2), 77–97.

Terry, J. (1999). An American obsession: Science, medicine and homosexuality in modern society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Thomas, K. (1992). Beyond the privacy principle. Columbia Law Review, 92, 1431–1516. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender at play: Girls and boys at school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press. Tooms, A. K. 2007. The right kind of queer: Fit and the politics of school leadership.

Journal of School Leadership 17(5), 601–630. U.S. court upholds same-sex teaching to children. (2007, February 24). Reuters. Retrieved

from www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2434298220070224 Valdes, F. (1995). Queers, sissies, dykes, and tomboys: Deconstructing the conflation of

“sex,” “gender,” and “sexual orientation” in Euro-American law and society. California Law Review, 83, 3–377.

72 sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 72

Valdes, F. (1997). Queer margins, queer ethics: A call to account for race and ethnicity in the law, theory, and politics of “sexual orientation.” Hastings Law Journal, 48, 1293– 1341.

Valdes, F. (1998). Beyond sexual orientation in Queer Legal Theory: Majoritarianism, multidimensionality, and responsibility in social justice scholarship. Denver University Law Review, 75, 1409–1464.

Valdes, F. (2004). Anomalies, warts and all: Four score of liberty, privacy and equality. Ohio State Law Journal, 65, 1341–1400.

Waxman, H. (2004). The content of federally funded abstinence-only education programs. Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform— Minority Staff Special Investigations Division.

Wilchins, R. (2004). Queer theory, gender theory: An instant primer. Los Angeles, CA: Alyson.

Wright, T. (2010). LGBT educators’ perceptions of school climate. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 49–53.

Yoshino, K. (2002). Covering. Yale Law Journal, 111, 769–939. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-

versity Press. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.

sociolegal contexts of lgbtq issues in education 73

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 73

ch03.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 74

Chapter 4

Schools and Children in LGBTQ Families Ryan J. Watson and Stephen T. Russell

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer families are historically new possibilities, and many education systems are unprepared to engage with members of these families. This chapter reviews the extant literature and finds that many of the approximately 7 million LGBTQ families across the United States do not feel supported by their child’s school, although many parents are involved and volunteer at high rates. The chapter also considers strategies to best equip educators and administrators to support LGBTQ families at school, such as the use of inclusive policies and textbooks, encouragement of supportive organizations for LGBTQ people (e.g., Gay-Straight Alliance networks), and interventions to thwart harassment.

Two institutions play the prime roles in the socialization of children:families and schools. They provide the contexts for the vast majorityof daily interactions that shape childhood and adolescence. In early childhood, in particular, the links between these institutions are strong. Parents, in general, are likely to be very well informed about and engaged in their chil- dren’s schools. Although the connections between family and school typically weaken as students grow older, most scholars agree that parents should continue to be involved in the education of their children (Stouffer, 1992). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) families pose a contemporary challenge to these values for parental engagement in schooling. Historically, LGBTQ families are a new possibility, and educational systems are often un- prepared to engage with parents in these families (Bower & Klecka, 2009). Yet there has been little empirical research on such families and their interac- tions with schools. In this chapter we consider what is known about LGBTQ families and schools and suggest some directions for this field of studies.

Not all families are treated equally in the United States; in many jurisdictions there is preferential treatment for heterosexual families in adoption policies, legal statuses, and benefits that emerge from marriage. LGBTQ parents do not have the privileges afforded to heterosexual parents: Same-sex marriages are legal in only a handful of states; child custody laws remain complex and sometimes treat sexual orientation as a relevant factor in determining custody cases; and adoption and foster care by lesbian and gay parents are illegal in some places in the United States (Patterson, 2009).

75

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 75

Public tensions regarding LGBTQ issues, including whether LGBTQ parents and their children even “count” as families, are beginning to play out in the area of education. All families must constantly negotiate how to interact with schools in ways that will be fulfilling for both parents and child, but LGBTQ parents must also be mindful of the potential discrimination that they or their child may face at school. Some lesbian and gay parents report that they are fearful of sending their children to school, where they may experience dis- crimination due to their family status (Berkowitz & Marsiglio, 2007; Richard- son & Goldberg, 2010). Such concerns are compounded by other long-standing inequities in education (Jeltova & Fish, 2005): Lesbian and gay families that identify as multiracial (Berkowitz & Ryan, 2011) or whose children are adopted (James, 2002) may face multiple dilemmas navigating “nontraditional” family statuses with their children’s schools. Further, children of lesbian and gay par- ents may be harassed at high levels compared with their heterosexual peers (Ray & Gregory, 2001) and may have diminished educational aspirations be- cause of hostile school climates (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). One study of high school students recruited through Gay-Straight Alliance clubs found that both heterosexual and LGBTQ students perceived their schools as less safe for stu- dents with LGBTQ parents (Russell, McGuire, Lee, Larriva, & Lamb, 2008). Thus, prejudice toward children with LGBTQ parents is perceived by other students in schools. And yet, despite compromised school experiences and concerns for safety, some recent studies have found that the academic per- formance of children of lesbian and gay parents is similar to that of students with heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2009; Rosenfeld, 2010).

This chapter reviews two decades of research to develop an understanding of the experiences of LGBTQ families in schooling from three vantage points: LGBTQ parents who have children in school; students with LGBTQ parents; and parents of LGBTQ students. We consider how families in each of these groups navigate their nontraditional family status in relation to the children’s schools. The chapter ends with a discussion of the challenges of researching this population and a discussion of findings.

Advances in the Study of LGBTQ Parents Empirical literature that addresses lesbian and gay parents and their experiences with schools has remained underdeveloped over the past decade. We first present basic demographic information about LGBTQ families and their chil- dren. We then turn to schooling and consider the experiences of LGBTQ parents as they interact with their children’s schools; we also review and compare the experiences of their children at school. From both LGBTQ parents and their

76 schools and children in lgbtq families

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 76

children we learn about the risk for teasing and victimization at school, but also the particularly strong school involvement of parents. We then consider the small body of research that compares students with heterosexual parents and students with lesbian and gay parents in the realm of education: The psy- chosocial and academic outcomes are similar for the two groups of children, even though children of lesbian and gay parents experience more teasing and harassment. We then shift attention from specific experiences of parents and students to the small but growing body of scholarship that focuses on educational practices that may create supportive school climates for students with LGBTQ parents. Finally, we consider a small body of research on parents of LGBTQ children; this group of parents is understudied, but their experiences may parallel those of LGBTQ parents and their children in important ways.

Demographic Patterns of LGBTQ Families Research has estimated there to be as many as 7 million lesbian and gay parents (married and unmarried) with dependent children in the United States (Patterson & Freil, 2000). According to the 2000 census, 33% of female and 22% of male same-sex couples reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in their home (Paige, 2005). Using more recent census data, Gates (2010c) reported that there were nearly 650,000 same-sex couples living in the United States in 2010 and that this number has been rising rapidly every year, increasing at three times the rate of population growth (Gates, 2010a). Gates reminds us that it is difficult to count numbers of LGBTQ families be- cause of the limitations of the Census form for identifying LGBTQ couples, the complexity of reporting these same-sex relationships, and the fact that ap- proximately 10% of self-identified same-sex couples are reluctant to identify as such on the Census (Gates, 2010b). Thus, the ways in which LGBTQ families define themselves barely align with federal government categories. And contrary to what most people might expect, the typical lesbian or gay parents raising children in the United States are people of color and live in the South (Smith & Gates, 2001; Walther & Poston, 2004). For example, lesbian/gay families in the South include large numbers of African Americans and adults parenting adopted or foster children who belonged to relatives or are the products of heterosexual marriages.

Lesbian and Gay Parents’ Interactions With Schools Research over the past few decades has indicated that neither these millions of lesbian and gay parents nor their children are fully supported at schools. A

schools and children in lgbtq families 77

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 77

recent study by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) of nearly 600 lesbian and gay parents of mostly fifth-grade students (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008) found that parents generally reported few negative experiences from school personnel, but instead experienced moderate rates of negative ex- periences from other parents (26%) and other students (21%) at school. Another study of over 2,000 lesbian mothers reported similar rates of harassment and discrimination at their child’s school from other parents: 17% (Morris, Balsam, & Rothblum, 2002). However, despite the experiences of harassment faced by both lesbian and gay parents and the children of those parents, the GLSEN study found that the presence of supportive adults at school was associated with higher student academic achievement for children with LGBTQ parents.

Early research pointed to negative experiences at school: Families had to remain continually aware that their nontraditional family status was not well represented in the school systems. In one Australian study, all of the lesbian and gay parents who were interviewed reported that they were concerned about disclosing their family status at school; their children were concerned that disclosure would affect peer relationships (Perlesz et al., 2006). Interviews with lesbian and gay parents confirmed that children had to face that their family status was sometimes represented as deviant within the school system (Casper, Schultz, & Wickens, 1992). A study of 117 prospective and current lesbian and gay parents from Australia (Ray & Gregory, 2001) found that more than two thirds of lesbian and gay parents with children in secondary school reported their children having felt different from other students. Ac- cording to their parents, about 40% of these youth were not taught about issues concerning lesbian and gay parents in school, while 28% of the same youth were bullied or teased.

Perhaps because of concern for their children’s school experiences, recent research indicates that lesbian and gay parents are highly involved in their children’s schools. This was true of the lesbian and gay parents in the GLSEN study; they were more likely to have volunteered for the school than their het- erosexual counterparts and were more likely to attend school events such as Back to School Night (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). Another study found that lesbian and gay parents selected schools that were known for openness to di- versity and multiculturalism, even when the selection process involved spending a great deal of time and energy collecting information about schools. The study also indicated that parents were proactive in communicating with school administrators, teachers, and peers of their children to promote acceptance of their lesbian or gay family. Further, lesbian and gay parents were intentionally more involved in their children’s schools as a strategy to change attitudes about LGBTQ families and become closer to other marginalized families in

78 schools and children in lgbtq families

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 78

the school (Mercier & Harold, 2003). Thus, LGBTQ families appear to be proactive in addressing related family issues at school: Almost half of the par- ents in GLSEN’s sample had reportedly discussed their family composition with school personnel, while two thirds had discussed it with a teacher. Finally, LGBTQ parents often consider strategies for protecting their children because of concerns about possible victimization at school. In a study of California high school students, the students reported less bullying and more safety at school when LGBTQ issues were included in the curriculum (California Safe Schools Coalition, 2006). Yet in the GLSEN study (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008), fewer than a third of lesbian and gay parents and students with lesbian and gay parents reported any curricula that included representations of LGBTQ people or history in the past year. Although 75% of lesbian and gay parents reported that their school had a policy for dealing with harassment, only 42% of those parents indicated that the policy specifically included sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008).

Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents and Their School Interactions Despite lesbian and gay parents’ proactive attempts to connect with teachers and school personnel, studies suggest that children of these parents often ex- perience prejudice or discrimination at school because of their family status. The National Lesbian Family Study collected data on lesbian parents and their children beginning in 1986. This study has produced several relevant findings. For example, almost one fifth of mothers in lesbian-headed families reported that their children encountered homophobia at school (Gartrell et al., 2000). In a follow-up study comparing 27 children of lesbian mothers with 27 children of single heterosexual mothers, the lesbian mothers reported that over a third of their children were teased at school because of the sexual orientation of their parents (Tasker & Golombok, 1997). In the recent GLSEN study, children of lesbian and gay parents reported high rates of anti-LGBTQ comments by peers, but few reported that staff or teachers had intervened in response to these comments or slurs (e.g., “that’s so gay”). Specifically, of children with lesbian or gay parents, half of the sample felt unsafe at school because of a personal characteristic, such as their perceived or actual sexual orientation. More compelling, nearly a fourth of the sample reported feeling unsafe because of their lesbian and gay family status. About 40% of the youth reported being verbally harassed because of their family status, and fewer than half (48%) re- ported incidents of harassment to school personnel (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). These findings are consistent with another study of over 2,000 California high school students, which found that students perceived their schools to be unsafe

schools and children in lgbtq families 79

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 79

for students with LGBTQ parents (Russell et al., 2008). That study showed that LGBTQ students were more likely than heterosexual students to report that their school was unsafe for their schoolmates who had LGBTQ parents. These findings are alarming because it has been shown that victimization of any type destabilizes the learning environment for students and causes division among school staff and students (Jeltova & Fish, 2005).

A long-standing area of speculation is whether children of lesbian and gay couples fare as well as children of heterosexual couples on a range of devel- opmental indicators of adjustment (Patterson, 2009). Given the experiences of prejudice endured by children in the former group, there may be cause for concern for their emotional well-being. However, using nationally represen- tative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Pat- terson (2009) examined 44 adolescents parented by same-sex couples and found that children of same-sex couples were similar to those of heterosexual parents in terms of psychosocial development (Biblarz & Stacey, 2010). Moreover, students with same-sex parents were actually more connected at school, and they did not differ on measures of depression, anxiety, or self-es- teem (Patterson, 2009). Another recent study that used Census data confirms these findings: Children of same-sex couples were found to make normal progress at school compared with their counterparts from most other family structures (e.g., heterosexual mother and father; Rosenfeld, 2010). Thus, de- spite more frequent experiences of prejudice, bullying, and harassment at school, there are no apparent differences in psychosocial and academic ad- justment trajectories between children of lesbian and gay parents and children of heterosexual parents.

Our discussion thus far has focused primarily on lesbian- and gay-parent families; there is very little research on the experiences of bisexual or transgender parents and schools. An exception is the recent book Border Sexualities, Border Families in Schools (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010), which describes the experiences of bisexual and polyamorous families and their negotiations in school systems. Pallotta-Chiarolli reviews strategies that these families employ to keep from falling into the gaps in hetero-dominant schools. Several autobiographical re- flections from bisexual mothers articulate their concern that homophobia is not tackled in the school system for nonheterosexual families. One bisexual mother worried that her son would be unable to cope with the “burden” of having two bisexual parents; this mother was dissatisfied with the scarcity of educational materials on LGBTQ families (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010, p. 107). Pallotta- Chiarolli ultimately calls for a number of educational strategies for including issues of bisexuality at school: validation of sexual diversity by teachers, di- versity programs, and professional development for staff.

80 schools and children in lgbtq families

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 80

Educational Practices Many educators are committed to providing education about diversity for their students; yet embracing diversity and addressing family differences at school can be a challenge (Emfinger, 2007). Although one of the national goals of the education system in the United States is to increase parental involvement, many LGBTQ parents do not feel that they can participate because many of their children’s schools do not embrace them (Fox, 2007). Few teachers have training to learn to understand and support LGBTQ families at school (Fox, 2007); because these families remain invisible in many school systems, teachers may be surprised to realize they are not embracing all forms of diversity (Emfin- ger, 2007). This section reviews contemporary recommendations and programs that aim to create inclusive schools for LGBTQ families.

One way that schools can help lesbian and gay families feel more included is to provide course materials and textbooks that are inclusive of all families and that do not perpetuate negative stereotypes; this is especially relevant in early childhood, when family relations are a common and relevant topic in learning materials. Because heterosexuality is the norm, most schools do not deal with diverse family structures through curricula (Jeltova & Fish, 2005), thus excluding the experiences of LGBTQ families. Moreover, when LGBTQ people are included, they are rarely portrayed as typical people who live everyday lives (Emfinger, 2007). Few textbooks include LGBTQ issues: In one analysis, only a handful of textbooks mentioned LGBTQ families, and those that did included no pictures of LGBTQ families. When LGBTQ topics (such as families) were included, they were often portrayed in ways that rein- forced negative stereotypes or that perpetuated heteronormativity (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008).

Another way to facilitate the inclusion of LGBTQ families in schools is to train teachers on how to create inclusive learning environments. A growing body of literature has examined the inclusion of LGBTQ topics in the content of K–12 curricula; however, recent research indicates that almost half of teacher education programs fail to include topics of sexual orientation (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008). Many LGBTQ parents feel excluded from schoolwide functions (e.g., Mother’s Day celebrations), by the language used to describe family types (e.g., “Mom and Dad,” “nontraditional”), and by other long-standing assumptions about families (e.g., that if a child is adopted she has lived with her family since birth; Fox, 2007). Thus, educators have urged schools and teachers to include issues of diversity in their lesson plans (Fox, 2007; Wolfe, 2006). One educator recommends using guest speakers with diverse experiences, children’s literature on family diversity,

schools and children in lgbtq families 81

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 81

and educational programs and films that teach about diversity and bullying (Wolfe, 2006).

Finally, appropriate organizations and clubs at school are another way to support LGBTQ parents and children. Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) are an example of a potential social support network for these families. GSAs at schools have been linked with more favorable outcomes related to school ex- perience, decreased substance abuse, and improved psychological outcomes for LGBTQ students (Heck, Flentje, & Cochran, 2011; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011). In addition, GSAs can highlight a school’s efforts to be open and aware of LGBTQ issues (Jeltova & Fish, 2005). Although one study found that GSAs were a significant source of support for students with LGBTQ parents, only about a third reported that their school had a GSA or other similar club (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008).

Parents of LGBTQ Students in Schools Although this article focuses on LGBTQ parents and their children, it is im- portant to note another group of interest in studying LGBTQ families and schools: parents of LGBTQ students. A decade ago, a book written from the perspective of a parent of gay sons identified strategies that school personnel can employ to make school safer for LGBTQ youth: stopping derogatory re- marks, allowing discussion on LGBTQ topics, being a role model, including LGBTQ issues in the curriculum, and teaching sensitivity in the use of language (Baker, 2000). Although there is now a growing research literature on the school experiences of LGBTQ youth, including the disparate rates of bullying at school and associated negative outcomes for mental health and achievement (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006), there has been little empirical attention to the role of the (typically heterosexual) parents of LGBTQ students. In one example of the latter, researchers are beginning to explore parent-adolescent relationships and how they affect LGBTQ young people’s mental and behavioral health (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009; Shilo & Savaya, 2011). Parents typ- ically advocate for their children in school, yet no relevant literature investigates the strategies that heterosexual parents might use to support their LGBTQ children at school. There is little research on how parents with LGBTQ children navigate the school context; this is an important area for further inquiry.

Challenges in Research In reviewing the existing literature on LGBTQ families and schooling, we note that the relevant scholarship is still in development. At a basic level,

82 schools and children in lgbtq families

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 82

LGBTQ-parent families challenge long-standing heterosexism and homophobia in education. At the same time, scholarship in this area faces a number of challenges. Depending on their circumstances, many LGBTQ-parent families are vulnerable and thus may not make themselves readily known. Further, only recently have scholars begun to include attention to LGBTQ-parent fam- ilies; there are basic questions about how to identify such families or measure LGBTQ family status, both for parents and for children (Russell, Watson, & Muraco, 2011). Also, most of what we know about LGBTQ families and their interactions with schooling is based on studies for which adults or children self-select their participation; it is unclear how the current knowledge of LGBTQ-parent families and education may be distinct among those most likely to participate in these studies. It is also important to consider how teach- ers’ practices and attitudes toward LGBTQ-parent families impact the ways that these families negotiate the school system.

Finally, little systematic investigation has been done to understand the ex- periences of heterosexual parents with LGBTQ children and their interactions with schools. Research with this population might enhance understandings of barriers as well as strategies and opportunities for challenging heterosexism and homophobia in education. Such research might also highlight the common experiences of LGBTQ parents and heterosexual parents of LGBTQ children, and could offer possibilities for building alliances among parents to advocate for safe and supportive school climates for all students.

Discussion: Promising Directions and Opportunities The small body of relevant scholarship provides a complex image of the issues affecting LGBTQ families and schooling. Children of LGBTQ parents may experience prejudice or victimization because of their family status, and this is a matter of serious concern. And some LGBTQ parents report discrimination in interactions with their children’s schools. Yet studies show that lesbian and gay parents are equally if not more engaged than heterosexual parents in their children’s schools. And despite the discrimination they may face, studies con- sistently show that the children of lesbian and gay parents have typical devel- opment.

A number of topics need further study. First, the small body of existing re- search is based on lesbian and gay parents, and predominantly lesbian-mother families. Of 588 families who participated in the GLSEN study of LGBTQ parents with children in K–12 schooling, only 2% of parents identified as transgender, and only 5% as bisexual— too few for direct comparisons between their experiences and those of lesbian and gay parents (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008).

schools and children in lgbtq families 83

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 83

In-depth studies that consider the interactions of bisexual and transgender parents and their children’s schooling would contribute deeper understanding of parent-school dynamics for all LGBTQ families.

Studies of LGBTQ-parent families, as well as studies of LGBTQ youth in schools, point to a number of important educational policies or strategies that promote safe school climates for all students: clear and inclusive nondiscrim- ination policies; intervention by school personnel to prevent harassment; the presence of GSAs; and inclusion of LGBTQ issues in the curriculum (see Russell, Kosciw, Horn, & Saewyc, 2010). Additional research is warranted on how these school strategies make a difference specifically for LGBTQ parents and their children. In Canada, grassroots models have developed from teachers’ vested interest in providing safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environ- ments for students (Solomon, 2004); these models are grounded in an under- standing that homophobia is seeded in children’s earliest experiences. Such teacher-initiated models are recommended for teachers in the United States.

Finally, a growing number of large-scale federal and regional surveys now include measures that make it possible to identify LGBTQ-parent families (Russell & Muraco, 2012). Although not designed specifically for the study of LGBTQ families and schooling, a number of these studies include education and schooling within their scope and offer possibilities for new studies of LGBTQ families and education. In addition to these data sources, the field of LGBTQ family studies is growing, and there are growing opportunities to bridge the scholarship on LGBTQ families with research on LGBTQ issues in education. Such work has the potential to greatly advance knowledge about not only LGBTQ and but all families as they navigate schooling with and for their children.

References Baker, J. M. (2000). How homophobia hurts children: Nurturing diversity at home, at

school, and in the community. New York: Harrington Park Press. Berkowitz, D., & Marsiglio, W. (2007). Gay men: Negotiating procreative, father, and

family identities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 366–381. Berkowitz, D., & Ryan, M. (2011). Bathrooms, baseball, and bra shopping: Lesbian and

gay parents talk about gendering their children. Sociological Perspectives, 54(3), 329– 350.

Biblarz, T. J., & Stacey, J. (2010). How does the gender of parents matter? Journal of Mar- riage and Family, 72(1), 3–22.

Bower, L. A., & Klecka, C. L. (2009). Lesbian mothers’ bids for normalcy in their children’s schools. The Education Forum, 73(3), 230–239.

84 schools and children in lgbtq families

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 84

California Safe Schools Coalition. (2006). LGBT issues in the curriculum promotes school safety (California Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief No. 4). San Francisco, CA: Author.

Casper, V., Schultz, S., & Wickens, E. (1992). Breaking the silences: Lesbian and gay parents and the schools. Teachers College Record, 94, 109–137.

Emfinger, K. (2007). Rethinking welcoming literacy environments for LGBT families. Childhood Education, 84(1), 24–28.

Fox, R. K. (2007). One of the hidden diversities in schools: Families with parents who are lesbian or gay. Childhood Education, 83(5), 277–281.

Gartrell, N., Banks, A., Hamilton, J., Reed, N., Bishop, H., & Rodas, C. (2000). The National Lesbian Family Study: 2. Interviews with mothers of toddlers. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 362–369.

Gates, G. (2010a). New Census Bureau data shows growth in same-sex couples outpacing population. Los Angeles: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Gates, G. (2010b). Same-sex couples in US Census Bureau data: Who gets counted and why. Los Angeles: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Gates, G. (2010c). United States— Census snapshot 2010. Los Angeles: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B. N. (2011). Offsetting risks: High school gay- straight alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(2), 161–174.

James, S. E. (2002). Clinical themes in gay- and lesbian-parented adoptive families. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 475–486.

Jeltova, I., & Fish, M. C. (2005). Creating school environments responsive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender families: Traditional and systemic approaches for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16(1), 17–33.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The expe- riences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2008). Involved, invisible, ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K–12 schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Macgillivray, I. K., & Jennings, T. (2008). A content analysis exploring lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender topics in foundations of education textbooks.  Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 170–188.

Mercier, L. M., & Harold, R. D. (2003). At the interface: Lesbian-parent families and their children’s schools. Children & Schools, 25, 35–47.

Morris, J. F., Balsam, K. F., & Rothblum, E. D. (2002). Lesbian and bisexual mothers and nonmothers: Demographics and the coming-out process. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 144–156.

Paige, R. U. (2005). Minutes of the meeting of the Council of Representatives July 28 & 30, 2004, Honolulu, HI. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, In- corporated, for the Legislative Year 2004. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ governance

schools and children in lgbtq families 85

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 85

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Patterson, C. J. (2009). Lesbian and gay parents and their children: A social science per- spective. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities (pp. 141–182). Lincoln, NE: Springer.

Patterson, C. J., & Freil, L. V. (2000). Sexual orientation and fertility. In G. Bentley & N. Mascie-Taylor (Eds.), Infertility in the modern world: Biosocial perspectives (pp. 238– 260). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Perlesz, A., Brown, R., McNair, R., Lindsay, J., Pitts, M., & de Vaus, D. (2006), Lesbian family disclosure: Authenticity and safety within private and public domains. Lesbian & Gay Psychology Review, 7, 53–64.

Ray, V., & Gregory, R. (2001). School experiences of the children of lesbian and gay parents. Family Matters (59), 28–34.

Richardson, H. B., & Goldberg, A. E. (2010). The intersection of multiple minority statuses: Perspectives of White lesbian couples adopting racial minority children. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 340–353.

Rosenfeld, M. (2010). Nontraditional families and childhood progress through school. De- mography, 47(3), 755–775.

Russell, S. T., Kosciw, J., Horn, S., & Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students (Social Policy Report). Sharing Child and Youth Development Knowledge, 24(4). Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/spr_24_4_ final.pdf

Russell, S. T., McGuire, J., Lee, S., Larriva, J., & Laub, C. (2008). Adolescent perceptions of school safety for students with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(4), 11–27.

Russell, S. T., & Muraco, J. (2012). The use of representative datasets to study LGBT- parent families: Challenges, advantages and opportunities. In A. E. Goldberg & K. R. Allen (Eds.), LGBT-parent families: Possibilities for new research and implications for practice (pp. 342–356). New York: Springer.

Russell, S. T., Watson, R., & Muraco, J. (2011). The development of same-sex intimate re- lationships. In W. A. Collins & B. Laursen (Eds.), Relationship pathways: From ado- lescence to young adulthood (pp. 215–233). Los Angeles, CA: Guildford.

Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346–352.

Smith, D. M., & Gates, G. J. (2001). Gay and lesbian families in the United States: Same- sex unmarried partner households: A preliminary analysis of 2000 United States Census data. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign.

Solomon, S. (2004). Kids say the funniest things. . . . Anti-homophobia group work in the classroom. Teaching Education, 15(1), 103–106.

Stouffer, B. (1992). We can increase parent involvement in secondary schools. NASSP Bul- letin, 76(543), 5–9.

Tasker, F. L., & Golombok, S. (1997). Growing up in a lesbian family: Effects on child de- velopment. New York: Guilford Press.

86 schools and children in lgbtq families

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 86

Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2011). High school gay-straight al- liances (GSAs) and young adult well-being: An examination of GSA presence, partic- ipation, and perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15(4), 175–185.

Walther, C. S., & Poston, D. L. (2004). Patterns of gay and lesbian partnering in the larger metropolitan areas of the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 41(2), 201–214.

Wolfe, R. B. (2006). Choosing to include gay issues in early childhood teacher preparation coursework: One professor’s journey. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27, 195–205.

schools and children in lgbtq families 87

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 87

ch04.qxp 4/7/15 10:47 AM Page 88

Chapter 5

K–12 Students in Schools Mollie Blackburn and C. J. Pascoe

K–12 students regularly experience homophobia and heterosexism in schools. This chapter attends to LGBTQ K–12 students in particular, focusing on the contexts, cur- ricula, and policies that shape the school experiences of these students. LGBTQ students are at risk for many problems, including expulsion from schools, not because of their individual traits but because of the homophobia, heteronormativity, and trans- phobia that permeate educational environments. Extracurricular initiatives, staff en- gagement, curriculum, and pedagogy are all identified as important factors in the school context for LGBTQ youth. Both formal and informal policy reforms are necessary to improve school context for LGBTQ youth, as is more information to fill existing gaps in research.

All K–12 students regularly experience homophobia and heterosexismin schools, in different ways and to various degrees. Although theseexperiences are not limited to LGBTQ youth, they impact these young people, as well as those perceived to be LGBTQ, most detrimentally. Therefore, this chapter attends to LGBTQ K–12 students, in particular, focusing on the contexts, curricula, and policies that shape the school experiences of these students. Regarding school context, we acknowledge that LGBTQ students are at risk for many problems, including expulsion from schools, not because of their individual traits but because of the homophobia and heteronormativity that permeate educational environments. We also address extracurricular ini- tiatives, such as Gay-Straight Alliances, and supportive staff who positively influence them. Regarding curriculum and pedagogy, we first discuss related needs and problems and then explore LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, anti-bias curriculum, and queer pedagogies as possible solutions to these problems. Fi- nally, we turn our attention to policies and programs, considering both formal and informal ones and noting the significance of comprehensive policies with enumerated language. In each of these sections we discuss not only what we know but also what we need to know, by concluding each section with sug- gestions for future research.

89

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 89

School Context Impact of Heteronormativity LGBTQ youth are not “at risk” simply because of individual-level variables but because of the heteronormativity and homophobia in the environments where they live and grow (Horn, Kosciw, & Russell, 2009). That is, what shapes LGBTQ young people’s chances in life and their educational outcomes, among other things, is not just individual traits but the larger contexts in which they live, including peer cultures (e.g., Poteat, 2008; Poteat, Aragon, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Wichstrom & Hegna, 2003) and school environments (e.g., Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Chesir-Teran, 2003; Szalacha, 2001). In general, the climates of U.S. middle and high schools are unsupportive and unsafe for LGBTQ youth (Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012). School climate is a product of multiple factors, including incidents of bullying and harassment, formal and informal acts of discrimination, structural accom- modations (gendered bathrooms and locker rooms, for example), and policies (anti-bullying, nondiscrimination, etc.). In this section, we discuss homophobia and heteronormativity in schools, ways of improving school contexts, and suggestions for future research. Like many institutions and organizations in the United States, schools are

homophobic and heteronormative, with very few exceptions. The concept of heteronormativity refers to ideologies, practices, and policies that position heterosexuality, heterosexual identity, and heterosexual sexual practices as normal, natural, and desirable (Rodriguez, 2010). Homophobia is the more explicit form of oppression related to LGBTQ youth in schools. Both homo- phobia and heteronormativity negatively impact the well-being of LGTBQ youth. LGBTQ youth often report experiencing harassment, discrimination, and

other negative events in school, often specifically related to their sexual ori- entation, gender identity, and/or how they express their gender. As Wilkinson (2010) points out, such experiences include high levels of homophobic name- calling (Poteat, 2008), verbal and physical harassment (Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Fineran, 2001; Pilkington & D’Augelli, 1995), assault (Bontempo, 2002; D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006), and social exclusion and other interpersonal problems with peers (Pearson, Muller & Wilkinson, 2007; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Heteronormativity can be relatively subtle, conveyed by pervasive symbols

of appropriate gender and sexual relations displayed in classrooms, by peer groups, and in extracurricular activities (Barron & Bradford, 2007; Epstein & Johnson, 1998; Pascoe, 2007). School rituals, formal and informal school

90 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 90

rules, and activities such as sports, pedagogical practices, and interactional practices in schools all enforce heteronormativity (Pascoe, 2007). It can be embedded in the physical environment of a school, in school policy, and in the social organization of the school (Chesir-Teran, 2003). The heteronormative environments of most schools are stigmatizing for LGBTQ young people (Goffman, 1963; Herek, 1998). Wilkinson (2010) argues that these contexts can lead to decreased social-emotional well-being (D’Augelli et al., 2002; Rostosky, Owens, Zimmerman, & Riggle, 2003) and increased externalizing problem behaviors such as fighting (Savin-Williams, 2001) and academic fail- ure (Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Same-sex-attracted adolescents’ risk of emotional distress and problem be- haviors depends in part on the level of heteronormativity in their high school (Wilkinson & Pearson, 2009). Therefore, the educational environment for many queer youth is a context of fear and harassment, often linked to heightened rates of substance abuse and mental health problems— all of which are asso- ciated with higher suicide risks. Schools as Affirming Spaces for LGBTQ Youth However, schools are not uniformly negative spaces for LGBTQ youth (Wilkin- son, 2010). School cultures vary, and how a school’s culture matters in a given student’s life varies as well (Wilkinson, 2010). Educational contexts are often unique to each school and its surrounding community; thus the pervasiveness of heteronormativity within a school may vary (Chesir-Teran, 2003; Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006). Same-sex attraction is stigmatized in some schools, while other schools actively support sexual diversity. For example, attending a school in an urban location appears to buffer the negative effect of same-sex attraction on well-being for adolescent boys (Wilkinson, 2010). In addition, same-sex-attracted girls are more likely than other-sex-attracted girls to fail a course in schools with more religious student bodies as well as in schools where football has a stronger presence (Wilkinson, 2010). Such findings suggest that the high school performance and long-term educational attainment of same-sex-attracted youth may depend on the type of school they attend (Wilkinson, 2010). Research suggests that a number of variables make for a more hospitable

environment for LGBTQ youth on K–12 campuses. Among these are Gay- Straight Alliance clubs (GSAs) and supportive teachers, as well as curricular inclusion, which we discuss in the next section of this chapter. Student-centered organizations such as GSAs facilitate LGBTQ-identified

youth’s well-being, civic engagement, and academic success (see, e.g., Russell, Muraco, Subramanian, & Laub, 2009). GSAs are extracurricular student-led

k–12 students in schools 91

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 91

clubs that often advocate for improved school climate, educate the larger school community about issues pertinent to LGBTQ people, and support LGBTQ students and their allies (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Griffin, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer, 2003; Russell, 2002). The presence of GSAs or similar student clubs has been found to be related to less hostile experiences for LGBTQ youth, including less victimization, greater safety, and greater school connectedness (Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Kosciw, et al., 2012; Lee, 2002; O’Shaughnessy, Russell, Heck, Calhoun, & Laub, 2004; Szalacha, 2003). GSAs serve several purposes for students: education and safety, interpersonal support, and recreation (Griffin et al., 2003). Like other student clubs, they are social spaces where social iso- lation is reduced in a normative context (Herdt, Russell, Sweat, & Marzullo, 2007). Through GSAs, students create a context for developing positive atti- tudes toward themselves and others (Herdt et al., 2007), where marginalized youth are empowered to critique and challenge dominant norms for gender and sexuality (Russell et al., 2009). Variations in political climate and locality affect the likelihood of the presence or absence of a GSA in a given school. GSAs are more likely to be found in suburban and urban schools, in schools located in liberal political areas (such as the West and Northeast), and in wealthier schools (Fetner & Kush, 2007). They are also more likely to be found in states with antidiscrimination laws and with supportive LGBTQ or- ganizations (Fetner & Kush 2007). GSAs also affect the school context. Students in schools with GSAs report

fewer homophobic remarks and less harassment and bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity. They are less likely to miss school because of feeling unsafe and more likely to feel a sense of belonging to their school en- vironment (Kosciw et al., 2012). Further, although only a minority of students participate in GSAs in most schools, several studies have shown that the mere presence of a GSA— not necessarily participation in it— is associated with general school safety (Goodenow et al., 2006; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Szalacha, 2003). One reason that GSAs may make a difference is that they be- come a source of LGBTQ-related resources and support for students at school (Russell, 2010). In 1999 there were fewer than 1,000 GSAs across the country. The number grew to over 4,000 in 2009 (Kosciw, 2010), and has continued to increase more recently (Kosciw et al., 2012). The growing number of schools with GSAs is indicative of the changing school environments in which LGBTQ students learn. In addition to GSAs, staff and faculty allies also make a difference. LGBTQ

youth who have support from teachers and other staff report feeling safer while at school and are less likely to be absent or have other school troubles

92 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 92

than students without support from staff (Kosciw et al., 2012; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Youth who have supportive school personnel also experience greater school connectedness (Diaz, Kosciw, & Greytak, 2010; Kosciw et al., 2012; Murdock & Bolch, 2005). Most of the LGBTQ youth in the National School Climate Survey reported that they knew of at least one school staff member who was supportive of LGBTQ youth; about half knew of six or more (Kosciw et al., 2012). Professional development interventions to increase the supportiveness of school personnel of LGBTQ youth demonstrate promise in improving school climate (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010). Moreover, staff and faculty are yet another way, in addition to GSAs, that students can access LGBTQ resources. This is important because when students report that they know where to go at school for information and support about LGBTQ issues, they also feel safer personally, and they perceive that their schools are safer for LGBTQ and gender-nonconforming students (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004). With this in mind, offering such support should be part of the performance evaluations of school personnel of all sorts. To meet the needs of LGBTQ youth, larger scale and more rigorous studies

need to be done, providing evidence for the variables that positively or nega- tively affect LGBTQ youth’s educational environments. Currently, there are few large-scale studies that assess school climate for LGBTQ students specif- ically, apart from GLSEN’s National School Climate Surveys (i.e., Kosciw, 2010). Few states or localities have such data and no federal government sur- veys address school climate for LGBTQ students (Kosciw, 2010). In addition, the methodology of studies on LGBTQ youth in school needs to be more rig- orous (Kosciw, 2010). While they sometimes follow best practices for research design, they are not intended for distribution beyond a specific campus or for contributing to “general knowledge” (Kosciw, 2010). The results are data that may be useful locally, at a particular time, but are unreliable for assembling anything like a regional or national picture of campus climate for LGBTQ students (Kosciw, 2010). Finally, a variety of topics are not yet covered by large-scale studies (Kosciw, 2010). For example, few large-scale population studies ask about sexual orientation, and none ask about transgender status. (See chapter 10 of the present report for a discussion of what we know from some of the large-scale surveys on issues that could pertain to LGBTQ youth, and the limitations of these instruments.) We have much to learn about populations within LGBTQ communities.

Little research exists on the experiences of youth in rural areas (Kosciw, 2010). A very limited body of research on elementary schools and young chil- dren’s experiences in educational contexts focuses on gender, gender noncon- formity, and family diversity but until recently not on LGBTQ identity (GLSEN

k–12 students in schools 93

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 93

& Harris Interactive, 2012; Kosciw, 2010). More research is needed on the in- tersections among race, gender, class, and sexuality (Kosciw, 2010), particularly with respect to GSAs, which, at least in some contexts, seem to serve primarily White girls (Poteat, Aragon, et al., 2009). Finally, research on the variables that encourage the success of LGBTQ students is lacking as well.

Curricula and Pedagogy GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey has repeatedly found that schools with inclusive curricula are less hostile toward LGBTQ students (Kosciw et al., 2012). It is not known whether inclusive curricula work against hostile climates or less hostile climates allow for inclusive curricula, but there is likely a symbiotic relationship between climate and curriculum. Thus, the issues discussed in the previous section on climate and in this section on cur- riculum are understood as intricately intertwined, even though the sections are separated here for the sake of clarity. Having discussed the importance of climate, above, we now turn our attention to the importance of curricula. LGBTQ-Inclusive Curricula A wide array of scholars (e.g., Graves, 2010; Kosciw, 2010; Rodrigues, 2010) call for curricula that include positive representations of LGBTQ people and related history and events, and that promote increased awareness of LGBTQ- related issues and a general tone of acceptance of LGBTQ people. There are examples of such curricular innovations in elementary school (Cohen & Chas- noff, 1996; Epstein, 2001; Hall, 2010; Letts & Sears, 1998; Schall & Kauff- mann, 2003), middle school (Cohen & Chasnoff, 1996; Hamilton, 1998), and high school (Athanases, 1996; Crocco, 2001; Gonzalez, 2010; Greenbaum, 1994; Hoffman, 1993; Kenney, 2010; Schey & Uppstrom, 2010; Smith, 2010; Russell, 2010). Students who reported that they had been taught about LGBTQ issues at

school said that their school was safer (as compared with the levels of safety reported by students who had not been taught about such topics) and had less social bullying (e.g., in the form of unkind rumors, lies, or ridicule) and less LGBTQ bullying (Russell, Kostroski, McGuire, Laub, & Manke, 2006). As was found with respect to the presence of GSAs in schools, students in a na- tional study who reported having been taught about LGBTQ issues at school reported fewer LGBTQ slurs, fewer incidents of LGBTQ victimization, more safety, and more supportive conversations with teachers at school (Kosciw et al., 2012). Finally, one study showed that teacher sensitivity to LGBTQ issues in HIV education was linked to lower sexual risk-taking for gay males (Blake

94 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 94

et al., 2001). Among the safe schools strategies, curricular inclusion is linked not only to student well-being but also to school climate indicators (Russell et al., 2006; Szalacha, 2003). Moreover, curricular inclusion can be understood as advantageous because

it “prepares students for contemporary democratic society, teaches about a topic that . . . is of interest and importance to many students, and . . . is person- ally meaningful and potentially health-promoting for LGBTQ students, as well as their heterosexual peers” (Lipkin, 2004). And, as Style (1988) argues, education needs to enable the student to look through window frames in order to see the realities of others and into mirrors in order to see her/his own reality reflected. Knowledge of both types of framing is basic to a balanced education which is committed to affirming the essential dialectic between the self and the world. (p. 35)

In other words, including LGBTQ topics and people in curricula allows people who are not LGBTQ to see these topics and people as if through a window, and allows people who are LGBTQ to see topics pertinent to, and people similar to, themselves, as if in a mirror. Still, few LGBTQ students (16.8%) indicate that they are exposed to positive

representations of LGBTQ people, history, or events in their school curricula (Kosciw et al., 2012). This gap between what is called for and what is provided is a result of intense fear of divergent sexualities and genders— homophobia and transphobia— and the related surveillance of classrooms and curricula by people who position themselves as protectors of “innocent” children from anything and anyone beyond heteronormative parameters (Blount, 2010; Kosciw, 2010). Letts and Sears (1999) specifically indicate that heteronorma- tivity is embedded in the very curriculum of school, reinforced by the fact that teachers themselves often operate within heteronormative frameworks (Bower & Klecka, 2009). Sex education curricula in particular, but also curricula more generally, maintain and reproduce gendered, sexualized, raced, and classed inequality (Connell & Elliot, 2009). Scholars recognize three approaches for disrupting such problematic, heteronormative curricula: LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, anti-bias curricula, and queer pedagogy. The LGBTQ-inclusive approach is the one referenced above. The idea is to

teach and learn about significant events in LGBTQ history in social studies, read literature by and about LGBTQ people in language arts classes, and rec- ognize important LGBTQ mathematicians and scientists in those classes. In elementary school classrooms, the idea is to talk about families with same-sex parents in curricular units on families, for example. This approach reflects positivist, essentialist, and even assimilationist paradigms. That is, undergirding

k–12 students in schools 95

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 95

the LGBTQ-inclusive approach are beliefs that there is a set body of knowledge out in the world about people who essentially are (or are not) lesbian, gay, bi- sexual, straight, and/or transgender, and that if accessed, this knowledge would offer a solution to the problem of rejection of LGBTQ people from the main- stream. Although this approach has limitations, it does important work in terms of acknowledging a population that traditionally has been ignored and attending to the material realities of this population. Anti-Bias Approach The anti-bias approach comes out of the field of multicultural education and is grounded in sociopolitical and critical paradigms, that is, mind-sets in which identities and behaviors are understood as being shaped in and by social, cul- tural, and political contexts, not passively, but in collaboration and sometimes in tension with agentive individuals. The aim of this approach is to reduce ho- mophobia and heterosexism by directly addressing it rather than by just incor- porating the experiences of LGBTQ people. Such curricula might look much like LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, but they focus on the struggle of LGBTQ people to negotiate the constraints imposed by a heteronormative environment (Asher, 2005). Queer Approach Distinct from both LGBTQ-inclusive and anti-bias curricula is the approach of queer pedagogy. This approach comes from critical and poststructural par- adigms in which beliefs in any set body of knowledge or essential identities are called into question. Scholars with a queering perspective believe that knowledge and identities are constructed in social, cultural, and political con- texts and are therefore always changing. They reject the idea that being outside the mainstream is a problem and instead argue that being pigeonholed by the mainstream into categories, such as L, G, B, and T, is the problem. Therefore, scholars coming from this perspective value the suspension of such classifica- tions. As Sears (2010) points out, “Although there is an extensive amount of scholarship regarding queer pedagogy, how to teach queerly on subjects ranging from art and history to science and biology at the K–12 level, and the impact of such pedagogy has been poorly documented” (p. xxiv). Still, this approach theorizes related power dynamics in sophisticated ways and challenges edu- cators to do the same. Although these three approaches are promising, scholars point to areas

where more research is needed. Russell (2010) asked, What is it about curricular inclusion that is important? Is it the context or setting in which LGBTQ issues are learned about (such as formal classroom subject-matter instruction, school-

96 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 96

wide programming, visual materials, or informal teacher-student interactions)? Or is the content more important (e.g., lessons in history or English, diversity trainings, school policy programming)? Many scholars underscore the impor- tance of intersecting identities, including but not limited to those shaped by race, class, gender, geographic location, religion, and nationality. Coloma (2010) reminded us to consider how our intellectual, political, and pedagogical interventions and advocacies might not reinforce normalized Western concepts and understandings. Beemyn (2010) and Rodriguez (2010) reminded us to at- tend to the needs of transgender and genderqueer students. Rodriguez also suggested that popular culture plays a significant role in issues related to identity formation, the construction of consciousness, and knowledge produc- tion about LGBTQ youth and is therefore important to address. Answers to these questions and explorations of these topics will help stakeholders in schools focus planning and resources in efforts to craft curricula that will im- prove school climates for LGBTQ and all students.

School Policies and Programs Certain policies have very strong evidence (from multiple studies, multiple methods, multiple study settings, and multiple academic disciplines) docu- menting specific institutional strategies that promote well-being at school for LGBTQ (and all) students. Anti-bullying policies, nondiscrimination policies, and personnel training are among the programs that make a difference in the lives of LGBTQ youth. Inclusive, enumerated nondiscrimination and anti-bullying policies provide

the institutional context for proactive efforts to support LGBTQ students and the institutional backing for school personnel (administrators, staff, and teach- ers) to create and enforce nondiscrimination and anti-bullying measures in protection of these youth (Russell & McGuire, 2008). Comprehensive policies about bullying and discrimination are ones that explicitly state protection based on enumerated personal characteristics, including sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, among others (Kosciw et al., 2012). Research suggests that comprehensive laws and policies are more effective than “generic” laws and policies, that is, those that do not enumerate specific characteristics such as sexual orientation and/or forms of gender identity/expression (Kosciw et al., 2012). When students report that their schools have inclusive policies, they feel safer at school, experience less anti-LGBTQ harassment, and report higher levels of “resilience” (Russell, 2010). These results hold for both LGBTQ and heterosexual students, but the differences are particularly pro- nounced for LGBTQ students (Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008; O’Shaughnessy

k–12 students in schools 97

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 97

et al., 2004; Szalacha, 2003). One study even found that students in schools with comprehensive policies report fewer suicide attempts (Goodenow et al., 2006). State laws about sodomy and the discussion of sexuality in the classroom

continue to affect queer administrators, educators, and students adversely (Lugg, 2006). Twenty-one states ban employment discrimination based on sexual orientation; of those, 13 also ban employment discrimination based on gender identity and expression (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2009). No federal law protects employees or students from discrimination based on actual or perceived gender identity or sexual orientation (North, 2010). But the legal environment is rapidly changing as sodomy laws have been struck down at the federal level and legislation such as the Employment Non-Dis- crimination Act (which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual or gender identity) wind their way through the legislative process. School, district, state, and federal antidiscriminatory policies that explicitly

include sexual orientation, gender expression, and gender identity, such as the proposed federal Safe Schools Improvement Act, are needed (Meyer, 2009). Many states and school districts in the United States have nonenumerated policies, and further research is needed to demonstrate whether indeed they are less effective for establishing school climates free of stigma, discrimination, and harassment on the basis of students’ race, ethnicity, immigrant status, or actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity (North, 2010). We need more research to address the question of why and how enumeration mat- ters (North, 2010), a need primarily addressed only by GLSEN’s National School Climate Surveys. With inclusive policies as a backdrop, the second school safety strategy in-

volves school personnel training. Teachers play an important role in the lives of vulnerable students, including sexual minority students (Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Teacher intervention in abuse is particularly important. Students feel safer when they report that their teachers intervene to stop harassment (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004). Further, a statewide study in Massachusetts showed that students reported a safer diversity climate in schools where teachers were trained in violence and suicide prevention related to the experi- ences of LGBTQ youth (Szalacha, 2003). Although effective staff intervention to counter LGBTQ bias has been found to be related to reduced bullying and harassment of LGBTQ students, research indicates that teachers and staff do not often intervene when hearing homophobic remarks or negative remarks about gender expression, and even remain silent in the face of actual harassment and assault of LGBTQ students (Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Kosciw et al., 2012; Sears, 1992; Smith & Smith, 1998). Given the important role of teachers,

98 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 98

more comprehensive sex education programs and teacher education programs that are relevant to LGBTQ people are needed (Fields, 2008; Fine & McClel- land, 2006; Jackson, in press). Future research on educational policy regarding LGBTQ students needs to

address policy implementation and the effectiveness of policy interventions. Regarding legislation, investigation is needed of how states, particularly those with generic legislation, implement programmatic components of their laws and how they examine how local districts are implementing any changes that would include protections regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. In addition, research is needed to explore the ways that policies are established and enacted in educational settings. What is effective in terms of collaboration, communications, or legislative policy for developing support for inclusive, enumerated policies? Given the variability in state and local legislation and policy regarding LGBTQ school safety in the United States, a better understanding of the strategies that work in different policy settings is needed, along with knowledge of the most effective strategies for working with decision makers in these different contexts.

Conclusion We know that homophobia and heteronormativity in schools create oppressive situations for K–12 LGBTQ students. We know too that GSAs and supportive teachers can interrupt such oppression and thus alleviate the burden of negative contexts. LGBTQ-inclusive curricula, anti-bias curricula, and queer pedagogy can also interrupt homophobic and heteronormative oppression and make schools better places for LGBTQ students. Moreover, comprehensive policies with enumerated language can contribute to creating more positive experiences for LGBTQ students and those perceived to be LGBTQ. Still, we need to know more. We need to continue and extend rigorous research efforts to include intersectional identities, such as the ways that race, class, religion, na- tionality, and geography intersect with gender and sexuality, as well the expe- riences of students in the primary grades. We also need to understand better the obstacles to implementation and ways of overcoming them. In other words, we know how to make schools better for LGBTQ students. Some schools are making related changes, but many are not. We need to understand why and find out what we can do, within and against existing confines, so that schools can become positive places for LGBTQ youth.

k–12 students in schools 99

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 99

References Asher, N. (2005). Antibias curriculum. In J. Sears (Ed.), Youth, education, and sexualities:

An international encyclopedia (pp. 227–229). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Athanases, S. Z. (1996). A gay-themed lesson in an ethnic literature curriculum: Tenth

graders’ responses to “Dear Anita.” Harvard Educational Review, 66(2), 231–256. Barron, M., & Bradford, S. (2007). Corporeal controls: Violence, bodies, and young gay

men’s identities. Youth and Society, 39, 232–261. Beemyn, J. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Education

Research. Unpublished manuscript. Blake, S. M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T., Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T. (2001). Pre-

venting sexual risk behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: The benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools. American Journal of Public Health, 91(6), 940–946.

Blount, J. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. W. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in US schools. New York: Human Rights Watch.

Bontempo, D. E. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 364–374.

Bower, L. A., & Klecka, C. L. (2009). Lesbian mothers’ bids for normalcy in their children’s schools. The Education Forum, 73(3), 230–239.

Chesir-Teran, D. (2003). Conceptualizing and assessing heterosexism in high schools: A setting-level approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3–4), 267– 279.

Cohen, H. S. (Producer) & Chasnoff, D. (Producer/Director). (1996). It’s elementary: Talking about gay issues in school [Film and guide]. (Available from Women’s Educa- tional Media, San Francisco, CA.)

Coloma, R. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Connell, C., & Elliot, S. (2009). Beyond “The Birds and the Bees”: Learning inequality through sexual education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 4(1), 83–102.

Crocco, M. (2001). The missing discourse about gender and sexuality in the social studies. Theory Into Practice, 40(1), 65–71.

D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17(2), 148–167.

Diaz, E. M., Kosciw, J. G. & Greytak, E. A. (2010). School connectedness for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: In-school victimization and institutional supports. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 15–17.

Epstein, D. (2001). Reading gender, reading sexualities: Children and the negotiation of meaning in “alternative” texts. In W. J. Spurlin (Ed.), Lesbian and gay studies and the

100 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 100

teaching of English: Positions, pedagogies, and cultural politics (pp. 213–233). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Fetner, T., & Kush, K. (2007). Gay-straight alliances in high schools: Social predictors of early adoption. Youth & Society, 40(1), 114–130.

Fields, J. (2008). Risky lessons: Sex education and social inequality. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Fine, M., & McClelland, S. I. (2006). Sexuality education and desire: Still missing after all these years. Harvard Educational Review, 76(3), 297–338.

Fineran, S. (2001). Sexual minority students and peer sexual harassment in high school. Journal of School Social Work, 11(2), 50–69.

GLSEN & Harris Interactive. (2012). Playgrounds and prejudice: Elementary school climate in the United States. New York: GLSEN.

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gonzalez, J. (2010). Risk and threat in critical inquiry: Vacancies, violations, and vacuums. In M. Blackburn, C. Clark, L. Kenney, & J. Smith (Eds.), Acting Out! Combating ho- mophobia through teacher activism (pp. 74–87). New York: Teachers College Press.

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 573–589.

Graves, K. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Greenbaum, V. (1994). Literature out of the closet: Bringing gay and lesbian texts and sub- texts out in high school English. The English Journal, 83(5), 71–74.

Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2010). Year One evaluation of the New York City Depart- ment of Education Respect for All Training Program. New York: GLSEN.

Griffin, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (2003). Describing roles that gay-straight alliances play in schools: From individual support to school change. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(3), 7–22.

Hall, M. (2010). Facilitating visibility of LGBTQ issues in public schools: Teacher resistance and teachable moments. In M. Blackburn, C. Clark, L. Kenney, & J. Smith (Eds.), Acting Out! Combating homophobia through teacher activism (pp. 103–113). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hamilton, G. (1998). Reading Jack. English Education, 30(1), 24–43. Herdt, G., Russell, S. T., Sweat, J., & Marzullo, M. (2007). Sexual inequality, youth em-

powerment, and the GSA: A community study in California. In N. Teunis & G. Herdt (Eds.), Sexual inequalities (pp. 233–252). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Herek, G. M. (1998). Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against les- bians, gay men and bisexuals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hoffman, M. (1993). Teaching “Torch Song”: Gay literature in the classroom. The English Journal, 82(5), 55–58.

k–12 students in schools 101

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 101

Horn, S. S., Kosciw, J. G., & Russell, S. T. (2009). New research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Studying lives in context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 863–866.

Jackson, J. M. (in press). Queer(y)ing teacher education: Ignorance, insecurity, and intol- erance. In N. Rodriguez & C. Mayo (Eds.), Queer pedagogies: Theory, praxis, politics. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.

Kenney, L. (2010). Being out and reading queer-inclusive texts in a high school English classroom. In M. Blackburn, C. Clark, L. Kenney, & J. Smith (Eds.), Acting Out! Combating homophobia through teacher activism (pp. 56–73). New York: Teachers College Press.

Kosciw, J. G. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Edu- cation Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). 2005 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). The 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High School Journal (February/March), 13–26.

Letts, W. J., & Sears, J. T. (1999). Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.

Lipkin, A. (2004). Beyond Diversity Day: A Q&A on gay and lesbian issues in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Lugg, C. A. (2006). Thinking about sodomy: Public schools, legal panopticons, and queers. Educational Policy, 20(1), 35–58.

Meyer, E. J. (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and ho- mophobia in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjust- ment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-cen- tered analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 159–172.

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2009). State nondiscrimination laws in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/nondiscrimination_ laws

North, C. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research. Unpublished manuscript.

O’Shaughnessy, M., Russell, S. T., Heck, K., Calhoun, C., & Laub, C. (2004). Safe place to learn: Consequences of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender non-conformity and steps for making schools safer. San Francisco, CA: California Safe Schools Coalition.

102 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 102

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2007). Adolescent same-sex attraction and academic outcomes: The role of school attachment and engagement. Social Problems, 54(4), 523–542.

Pilkington, N. W., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). Victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in community settings. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 34–56.

Poteat, V. P. (2008). Contextual and moderating effects of the peer group climate on homo- phobic epithets. School Psychology Review, 37(2), 188–201.

Poteat, V. P., Aragon, S. R., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Psychosocial concerns of sexual minority youth: Complexity and caution in group differences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(1), 196–201.

Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Willingness to remain friends and attend school with lesbian and gay peers: Relational expressions of prejudice among heterosexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 952–962.

Rodriguez, N. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Edu- cation Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Rostosky, S. S., Owens, G. P., Zimmerman, R. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2003). Associations among sexual attraction status, school belonging, and alcohol and marijuana use in rural high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 741–751.

Russell, S. T. (2002). Queer in America: Citizenship for sexual minority youth. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 258–263.

Russell, S. T. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Edu- cation Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Russell, S. T., Kostroski, O., McGuire, J. K., Laub, C., & Manke, E. (2006). LGBTQ issues in the curriculum promotes school safety (California Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief No. 4). San Francisco: California Safe Schools Coalition. Retrieved from http://www.casafeschools.org/FactSheet-curriculum.pdf

Russell, S. T., & McGuire, J. K. (2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) students. In S. M. & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Changing schools and community organizations to foster positive youth development (pp. 133–158). Ox- ford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramanian, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth empowerment and high school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 38, 891–903.

Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 111– 127.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). A critique of research on sexual-minority youths. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 5–13.

Schall, J., & Kauffmann, G. (2003). Exploring literature with gay and lesbian characters in the elementary school. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(1), 36–45.

Schey, R., & Uppstrom, A. (2010). Activist work as entry-year teachers: What we’ve learned. In M. Blackburn, C. Clark, L. Kenney, & J. Smith (Eds.) Acting Out! Combating

k–12 students in schools 103

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 103

homophobia through teacher activism (pp. 88–102). New York: Teachers College Press.

Sears, J. T. (1992). Educators, homosexuality, and homosexual students: Are personal feel- ings related to professional beliefs? In K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers, and curricula (pp. 29–79). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Sears, J. T. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Smith, J. (2010). Overcoming an identity of privilege to support LGBTQ inclusivity in school. In M. Blackburn, C. Clark, L. Kenney, & J. Smith (Eds.), Acting Out! Combating homophobia through teacher activism (pp. 114–126). New York: Teachers College Press.

Smith, G. W., & Smith, D. E. (1998). The ideology of “fag”: The school experience of gay students. Sociological Quarterly, 39, 309–335.

Style, E. (1988). Curriculum as window and mirror. Retrieved from http://www.wcwonline.org/ SEED/seed-curriculum-as-window-a-mirror

Szalacha, L. A. (2001). The sexual diversity climate of Massachusetts’ secondary schools and the success of the Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(4-A), 1327. (UMI No. 3012938)

Szalacha, L. A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an evaluation of Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students. American Jour- nal of Education, 110(1), 58–88.

Wichstrom, L., & Hegna, K. (2003). Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: A longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(1), 144–151.

Wilkinson, L. (2010). Memorandum for AERA Research Report on LGBTQ Issues in Edu- cation Research. Unpublished manuscript.

Wilkinson, L., & Pearson, J. (2009). School culture and the well-being of same-sex-attracted youth. Gender & Society, 23(4), 542–568.

104 k–12 students in schools

ch05.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 104

Chapter 6

Bullying and K–12 Students Dorothy L. Espelage

Research consistently demonstrates that lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and ques- tioning (LGBTQ) youth experience bullying and harassment in U.S. schools at relatively high rates in comparison to their heterosexual peers. In a recent survey study of over 13,000 students in Grades 7– 12, the results indicated that LGBTQ youth, as compared with straight-identified youth, were at greater risk of suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and victimization by peers and had more unexcused absences from school. However, a study of 23 comprehensive anti-bullying programs aimed at middle and high school students found that none of the programs covered issues of sexual orientation, homo- phobia, sexual harassment, or sexual violence sufficiently to warrant any efficacy (Birkett, Espelage, & Stein, 2008). Thus, it is imperative that studies be conducted to determine if these programs are more effective when they are complemented with dis- cussions about diversity, sexual identity, and gender expression.

Being a target or victim of bullying in U.S. schools has long been rec-ognized as having short- and long-term psychological effects on chil-dren and adolescents (for a review, see Espelage & Holt, 2012). Recent studies support what has been suspected for years. Being a target of bullying can have a major impact on school engagement, achievement, and test scores (Glew, Fan, Katon, & Rivara, 2008). A study of 930 sixth-graders in the first year of middle school found that students who were bullies, victims, or both (bully-victims) showed poorer school adjustment (e.g., with regard to doing well on schoolwork, getting along with classmates, following rules, doing homework) than did their uninvolved peers over three assessments into the end of seventh grade (Nansel, Haynie, & Simons-Morton, 2003).

A large percentage of bullying among students involves the use of homo- phobic teasing or slurs, name-calling, or other victimization (Espelage, Basile, & Hamburger, 2012; Poteat & Espelage, 2005; Poteat & Rivers, 2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth in American schools report being targets of bullying and homophobic victimization more often than straight-identified youth (Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Kosciw, Greytak, & Diaz, 2009). In a recent survey study of more than 13,000 students in Grades 7–12, the results indicated that LGBTQ youth, as compared with straight-identified youth, were at greater risk of suicidal thoughts, suicide at-

105

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 105

tempts, and victimization by peers and had more unexcused absences from school (Robinson & Espelage, 2011, 2012). It stands to reason that the preva- lence of bullying is preventing many talented children and adolescents from achieving their full academic potential. However, some LGBTQ youth are at elevated risk, given the lack of attention to promoting safe school environments with respect to sexual orientation and gender expression. In the following sec- tions, I review the extant research literature and note gaps in the research and in our understanding of bullying among LGBTQ youth.

Prevalence of Bullying Among LGBTQ Youth School-Based Bullying and Harassment Research has consistently shown that sexual minority youth report high rates of peer victimization and bullying in comparison to their straight-identified peers (Robinson & Espelage, 2011). The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) National School Climate Survey of 7,261 middle and high school students found that nearly 9 out of 10 LGBTQ students experienced harassment at school in the past year; nearly two thirds felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation; and nearly a third had skipped at least one day of school in the past month because of safety concerns (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010). Fifty-nine percent of LGBTQ youth reported verbal abuse in high school because of sexual orientation, 24% were threatened with violence, 11% had objects thrown at them, 11% reported being physically as- saulted, 2% were threatened with weapons, and 20% were threatened with being outed (D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002). Individuals who were more “out” during high school or who exhibited less gender-typical be- havior reported more verbal abuse.

Sexual minority youth have been found to be at greater risk for bullying, harassment, and peer victimization than their heterosexual counterparts, even after adjusting for age, race/ethnicity and weight (Berlan, Corliss, Field, Good- man, & Austin, 2010; Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Hanlon, 2004; Poteat, Mereish, DiGiovanni, & Koenig, 2011). As compared with peers, these studies found, sexual minority adolescents were more likely to report being physically threatened, injured with a weapon, and fearful of attending school and of having property stolen or damaged by peers; 33% had been threatened with a weapon at school, as compared with 7% of other youth; 50% reported property damage, as compared with 29% of other youth (Berlan et al., 2010; Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRant, 1998; Robinson & Espelage, 2011). Thus, LGBTQ youth are a particularly vulnerable group in relation to peer victim- ization (Espelage, 2013).

106 bullying and k–12 students

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 106

Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, and Koenig (2008) found that even questioning students who had not decided that they were lesbian, gay, or bisexual were ex- posed more frequently to general peer victimization than were heterosexual peers. Similarly, a British study found that levels of bullying victimization did not vary with sexual orientation identity (Rivers & Noret, 2008). However, they did find differences in the content of the bullying, and also in the psychological maladjustment that resulted from it. In addition to general peer victimization, LGBQ students were teased about their sexual orientation significantly more often than heterosexual peers (Espelage et al., 2008). Eighty-two percent of LGB adults who were bullied reported retrospectively on experiences of mostly homophobic verbal abuse; 60% reported physical assault, and 58% reported teasing (Rivers, 2001). In addition, 59% of participants reported being the victim of rumors and 27% experienced social isolation. The bullying occurred over ex- tended periods, with an average duration of five years. The bullying was perpe- trated by groups of peers rather than by individuals (Rivers, 2001).

Demographic differences have been found in the rates of homophobic ha- rassment. Poteat, Aragon, Espelage, and Koenig (2009) found that among het- erosexual and questioning students, boys reported higher victimization than girls. Levels of victimization were significantly higher for questioning boys than for gay, bisexual, or heterosexual boys. Questioning girls were victimized more than lesbian or bisexual girls, who in turn were victimized more than heterosexual girls. In a national survey of LGBTQ secondary school students, Kosciw, Greytak, and Diaz (2009) found that female youth were less likely to report victimization than male youth, and that gay, bisexual, or questioning male youth were less likely to report victimization than transgender male youth. Finally, older youth were less likely to report at-school victimization based on sexual orientation or gender expression. The authors also found that LGBTQ youth in rural communities and in communities with lower adult ed- ucational attainment faced more hostile school climates. Very little research has been conducted on the victimization experiences of ethnic minority LGBTQ youth; conflicting findings have emerged as to whether they experience dif- ferent rates of victimization than their straight-identified peers (Kosciw et al., 2009; Mustanski, Newcomb, & Garofalo, 2011). One emerging piece of the picture is that ethnic minority lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth report less dis- closure of their sexual orientation than do their ethnic majority lesbian, gay, and bisexual counterparts (Mustanski et al., 2011).

These trends have been found in both national and international samples (Finlinson, Colón, Robles, & Soto, 2008). In a study in England and Wales, 59% of lesbian, bisexual, and gay youth reported being insulted at school, and 41% reported being bullied at school. More specifically, 31.6% described

bullying and k–12 students 107

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 107

being insulted on the basis of sexual orientation, while 17.9% described being bullied on the basis of sexual orientation (Warner et al., 2004). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning adolescents in a Canadian school-based sample re- ported more bullying, peer sexual harassment, and peer physical abuse over a two-month period than did heterosexual students (Williams, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2003). In addition, a British study found significant increases in rates of LGBTQ bullying over two decades: Compared with rates in 1981, youth in 2001 were four times more likely to feel isolated at school, seven times more likely to be teased, and five times more likely to experience verbal abuse (Ellis & High, 2004). It is not clear what contributed to this increase. Technology-Based Bullying Despite the growing interest in cyber-bullying or electronic aggression, very little is known about rates of cyber-bullying among LGBTQ youth. In a recent study conducted by Blumenfeld and Cooper (2010) with 350 self-identified nonheterosexual and 94 “straight ally” participants (ages 11–22 years), 54 re- ported being cyber-bullied in the past month because of their sexual identity or because of their identification with LGBTQ youth. Almost half of the par- ticipants who were cyberbullied reported feeling depressed as a result; 38% were embarrassed, 28% were anxious about simply going to school; and 25% reported having suicidal thoughts. Although these figures are startling, it is important to consider that the sample was limited in size and was limited to LGBTQ youth and straight allies; it is not clear how the rates would differ in a general study population. Ongoing and future national studies on the rates, correlates, and trends associated with cyberbullying need to extend their as- sessments to include self-identified sexual orientation, same-sex and oppo- site-sex attraction, and actual sexual activities with same-sex and opposite- sex partners. It is imperative that we advance the research base on how technology is used to target LGBTQ youth and how face-to-face bullying at school co-occurs with cyberbullying. Summary Overall, it is clear that sexual minority youth are at greater risk for bullying and peer victimization than heterosexual youth. The difference has been theo- rized to be a result of prevailing homophobic beliefs and attitudes, especially during early adolescence (Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010). Many youth are ex- ploring their sexual identity or coming out during middle school, when student attitudes about same sex attraction are less favorable than as students mature (Heinze & Horn, 2009; Horn, 2006; Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009). For example, in a study of middle and high school students, 30% of seventh

108 bullying and k–12 students

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 108

graders, as compared with 10.8% of 12th graders, indicated that they would not remain friends with someone who disclosed being gay (Poteat, Espelage, et al., 2009). Further, 44.5% of seventh graders, as compared with 20.6% of 12th graders, said they would prefer to attend a school where there were no gay or lesbian students. These findings suggest that LGBTQ students are likely to lose sources of support— friends— when they risk disclosing their sexual orientation, especially in early adolescence (Poteat, Espelage, et al., 2009). It appears that as youth enter adolescence and puberty, their bullying tendencies begin to incorporate gendered and sexual content. Individual, peer, and cultural homophobia provide bully perpetrators with easy and vulnerable targets in LGBTQ youth. Homophobic teasing and use of bias-based language was found to be associated with endorsement of sexual prejudices among adolescent populations (Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010). Moreover, general bul- lying has been found to be causally predictive of future homophobic teasing and bullying in a middle school sample (Espelage, Rose, Colbert, Little, & Rao, 2015).

Psychological and Academic Outcomes Peer victimization and homophobic teasing have been found to affect educa- tional and psychological outcomes in LGBTQ youth (D’Augelli et al., 2002; Poteat et al., 2011; Robinson & Espelage, 2011; Warner et al., 2004). A study by the California Safe Schools Coalition (CSSC) and the 4-H Center for Youth Development (2004) examined bullying based on actual or perceived sexual orientation. Bullied students, as compared with students who were not bullied, reported more grades at or below C (24% versus 17%) and more frequent ab- senteeism (27% versus 7%). Other studies have documented as many as 72% of bullied LGBTQ children playing truant or sick to avoid at-school victim- ization (Birkett et al., 2009; Rivers, 2000).

In addition to the educational costs endured by victimized LGBTQ adoles- cents, studies have documented more substance abuse, depression, and suici- dality among these students than among heterosexual students (Birkett et al., 2009; Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Espelage et al., 2008; Poteat, Espelage, et al., 2009). In a sample of youth bullied for their perceived or actual sexual orientation, 45% seriously considered suicide and 35% developed a plan for suicide in the year prior to the survey (CSSC & 4-H Center for Youth Devel- opment, 2004). D’Augelli et al. (2002) found that 9% of the variance in mental health of LGB high school students was accounted for by victimization. Bul- lying victimization has been found to mediate the relation between gender- role nonconformity and suicidality in gay male adolescents (Friedman, Koeske,

bullying and k–12 students 109

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 109

Silvestre, Korr, & Sites, 2006). This relation was present at all grade levels but was strongest at the middle school level. In addition, bullied LGBTQ stu- dents were twice as likely to engage in risky behaviors (CSSC & 4-H Center for Youth Development, 2004). Some demographic differences have been found. Homophobic victimization was found to be related to suicidality for LGBTQ White youth, but not for LGBTQ youth of color (Poteat et al., 2011).

An examination of the protective factors that can buffer LGBTQ youth from negative outcomes is warranted. Psychological outcomes for LGB, het- erosexual, or questioning high school students exposed to bullying and homo- phobic attitudes were found to depend on the social system in their environment (Espelage et al., 2008; Safren & Heimberg, 1999). Some research has begun to document variables in the individual, peer, family, and school contexts that may protect LGBTQ youth from the negative consequences of peer victim- ization. For example, family support and self-acceptance have been found to mediate the relation between victimization and mental health in LGBTQ youth (Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1995; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009) and have inspired projects like the Family Acceptance Project to facilitate re- silient families (Ryan, 2009).

School-level variables have also been found to play an important role in the psychosocial adjustment of victimized LGBTQ youth. A study by Poteat et al. (2011) with a high school sample found that suicidality and school be- longing mediated the relations between homophobic victimization and reported grades, truancy, and belief in the importance of graduating. Although, homo- phobic bullying had negative effects on school belonging for all groups, a positive school climate was found to moderate the association between bullying and psychological consequences, including depression, suicidality, and drug use in several studies (Birkett et al., 2009; Espelage et al., 2008; Poteat et al., 2011). Adolescents attending schools with LGB support groups (e.g., Gay- Straight Alliances, or GSAs) have been found to report lower rates of victim- ization at school and suicide attempts (Goodnow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Heck, Flentje, & Cochran, 2011). These adolescents were also less likely to miss school because of concerns for physical safety than those at- tending a school without a GSA (Walls, Kane, & Wisneski, 2010). The behav- iors of the individuals at the schools also affected LGBTQ youths’ psychosocial adjustment. At-school victimization and perceptions of teacher and staff support were found to predict suicidal behaviors (Goodnow et al., 2006). However, although a majority of teachers are aware of homophobic bullying, most report being either unable or unwilling to address the phenomenon (Meyer, 2008, 2009; Warwick, Aggleton, & Douglas, 2001).

110 bullying and k–12 students

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 110

School-Based Bullying Prevention: Frameworks and Approaches A multitude of school-based bullying prevention and intervention programs and frameworks are available for use in K–12 settings, but relatively few have been systematically evaluated. These programs range from simple one-time efforts (theatrical productions, guest speakers, musical performances) to com- prehensive school-wide frameworks (such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports; see Ross & Horner, 2009; Ross, Horner, & Stiller, 2008) and comprehensive programs that address bullying through social-emotional learn- ing instruction (e.g., Steps to Respect and Second Step; see Committee for Children, 2001, 2008).

Whole-school or primary-grades preventive interventions for bullying have slowly been introduced over the past few decades, following the introduction of the Norway-based Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP; Olweus, Limber, & Mihalic, 2000) and Steps to Respect: A Bullying Prevention Program (STR), which was designed to help students build supportive relationships with one another through social-emotional learning instruction (Committee for Children, 2001). Although widely implemented in America, the OBPP has extremely limited empirical support in U.S. schools, despite consistent efficacy in other countries (Ttofi, Farrington, & Baldry, 2008). In contrast, the STR program is demonstrating positive changes in U.S. schools. STR promotes a whole-school primary- and secondary-level approach to bullying prevention by addressing four factors: school staff, peer group membership or friendships, the individual child, and family. Intervening at multiple levels, the program developers believe, is the most effective way to reduce school bullying. Em- pirical evidence has shown reductions in acceptance of bullying behavior, playground bullying, and argumentative behavior in schools that use STR programs. At the same time, it has demonstrated increases in agreeable inter- actions and perceptions that adults will be responsive to bullying incidents, in comparison with control schools (Frey et al., 2005). More recently, it has demonstrated higher teacher ratings of peer social skills and reductions in ob- served aggression, as well as reductions in incidents where bystander assist the bully in directing aggression toward the victim (Brown, Low, Smith, & Haggerty, 2011; Hirschstein & Frey, 2006; Hirschstein, Edstrom, Frey, Snell, & MacKenzie, 2007). However, it is not clear whether these programs have an impact on the homophobic victimization directed toward LGBTQ youth or if the programs can affect climates that are not supportive of LGBTQ youth.

Some interventions are contraindicated in bullying prevention. What has been learned to date is that zero tolerance policies (policies that provide for punishment regardless of the basis of the problem behavior) are not effective

bullying and k–12 students 111

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 111

in curbing aggressive behaviors (Casella, 2003), and expulsion appears to be equally ineffective (Morrison, Redding, Fisher, & Peterson, 2006). Despite this, Furlong, Morrison, and Greif (2003) noted that most formalized legislation addressing bullying and peer aggression in schools continues to emphasize taking action with bullies to the exclusion of addressing the needs of victims or addressing the larger school climate. For example, many bullying interven- tions have tended to allocate more resources to identifying individual bullies and addressing their behavior than to developing universal programs that ad- dress the entire student body. Interventions that may be effective with other types of violence do not translate to effectiveness with bullying. These include conflict resolution, peer mediation, and group therapy (Espelage, 2012).

Meta-Analytic Studies of Bullying Prevention and Intervention Despite a long history of published studies on what predicts bullying involve- ment in school-age children and adolescents (Espelage, Bosworth, & Simon, 2001; Espelage & Holt, 2001), systematic evaluations of large-scale prevention programs are only now appearing in the literature. In 2008, a meta-analytic investigation of 16 studies published from 1980 to 2004 yielded disappointing results regarding the impact of anti-bullying programs (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava, 2008). This meta-analysis included data from over 15,000 stu- dents (Grades K–12) in Europe, Canada, and the United States. Positive effect sizes were found for only one third of the study variables, which primarily re- flected favorable changes in knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of bullying. No changes were found in actual bullying behaviors. These authors indicated in a tentative fashion that school bullying interventions showed modest evi- dence of enhancing student social competence, self-esteem, and peer accept- ance. In addition, it appears that programs had a positive effect on teachers’ knowledge of effective practices and on the efficacy of their interventions and responses to bullying incidents at school.

Ttofi et al. (2008) simultaneously conducted a larger meta-analysis that in- cluded more studies. In a report for the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, they evaluated 44 bullying intervention studies. Results indicated that bullying and victimization were reduced by 17–23% in schools with in- terventions, as compared with control schools. Ttofi et al. found that reductions in bullying were associated with classroom rules, classroom management, parent training, increased playground supervision, home-school communica- tion, classroom rules, classroom management, and the use of training videos. Further, there was a dosage effect; the more elements included in a program, the greater the likelihood of reducing bullying.

112 bullying and k–12 students

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 112

There is, sadly, a huge gulf between research and practice in bullying pre- vention and intervention. We believe that the next generation of bullying scholarship needs to move beyond an exclusive focus on individual children, attempting instead to change the contextual variables that are promoting bul- lying in our society. Bullying also needs to be addressed by scholars both within and outside education.

None of the studies included in these meta-analyses assessed victimization directed toward LGBTQ youth, and none assessed homophobic teasing and bullying. Thus, it is not clear whether existing programs can reduce homophobic teasing and bullying directed at LGBTQ youth. Given the vulnerability of sexual minority youth, very little research has focused on the effectiveness of generic bullying prevention efforts with subgroups, such as LGBTQ or ethni- cally diverse populations. Generic refers to programs that do not specifically address bias-based bullying (beyond a mention that certain subgroups of indi- viduals can be bullied) such as that related to race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, cultural practices, disabilities, gender expression, or gender. We believe that these programs are failing in large part because they are failing to address a very prevalent form of bullying: that directed toward LGBTQ youth. Adapting bullying prevention programs to address diversity in sexual orientation and gender expression and the use of homophobic epithets that create hostile school environments is a necessary next step.

Because bullying prevention programs do not specifically address LGBTQ youth, educators will need to rely on resources such as those I will describe in this section. Several independent organizations have been concerned with the climate of U.S. schools for LGBTQ and gender-nonconforming youth for decades. Their efforts have been slow to reach the schools because of resistance to discussing sexuality and gender identity within schools and because of the surrounding political landscape. But active steps have been taken to address the issue of bullying and harassment of LGBTQ youth in schools, with increasing attention to preventing widespread discriminatory and prejudiced beliefs.

The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN; www.glsen.org) is a national organization that seeks to end discrimination, harassment, and bul- lying based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in K– 12 schools. GLSEN’s work targets policy makers, educators, community leaders, and students, providing them with the information, skills trainings, and outreach programming to advance their efforts to create safer schools for LGBTQ youth. Some of GLSEN’s programming includes nationwide awareness campaigns such as the National Day of Silence and No Name-Calling Week. In addition, local GLSEN chapters and GSAs organize and educate at the community level. Participants in these chapters are trained to be effective advocates of GLSEN’s

bullying and k–12 students 113

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 113

mission. In combination with its outreach and activism, GLSEN conducts na- tional-level research examining the experiences of LGBT youth, identifying positive and negative practices and policies that affect school environments for LGBT youth, examining the effectiveness of GLSEN’s own programs, and so forth. GLSEN also has a strong online presence through which it creates aware- ness and opportunities for involvement in the organization.

GLSEN has received funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to implement its Safe Space initiative, a school-based program that provides educators with strategies for creating a positive learning envi- ronment for LGBT students, supporting LGBT students beyond academics, and reducing anti-LGBT bias in the larger school population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also funds a similar program called the GLSEN Lunchbox, which provides strategies to address the negative outcomes of anti- LGBT biases in schools.

Other prominent national organizations that include a focus on LGBT issues in schools are Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (www.pflag.org) and the Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org). Current in- tervention and educational programming for LGBT issues include the Respect for All Project (www.groundspark.org) and the Welcoming Schools project (www.welcomingschools.org). The Respect for All Project includes several educational films on LGBT issues in education (It’s Elementary), homophobic bullying (Let’s Get Real), family diversity (That’s a Family!), and gender norms, transphobia, and homophobia (Straightlaced), as well as accompanying cur- ricula, activity guides, and workshops. The Welcoming Schools pilot program was initiated through the Human Rights Campaign to address LGBT issues in elementary schools. It includes lesson plans, professional development for teachers and administrators, and additional educational resources for families.

Conclusion Research consistently demonstrates that LGBTQ youth experience bullying and harassment in U.S. schools at relatively high rates in comparison to their heterosexual peers. However, a study of 23 comprehensive anti-bullying pro- grams aimed at middle and high school students found that none of them cov- ered issues of sexual orientation, homophobia, sexual harassment, or sexual violence beyond mentioning that youth can be victimized because of their presumed or assumed sexual orientation (Birkett, Espelage, & Stein, 2008). Thus, it is imperative that studies be conducted to determine if these programs are more effective when they are complemented with discussions about diver- sity, sexual identity, and gender expression. In addition, parents, teachers, stu-

114 bullying and k–12 students

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 114

dents, and community members need to support legislation funding the im- plementation of anti-bullying policies that specifically include protections based on students’ actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity. Finally, researchers need to continue to study bullying directed at LGBTQ students, especially in the form of ongoing longitudinal national studies and studies that address bullying through technology and social media sites.

References Berlan, E. D., Corliss, H. L., Field, A. E., Goodman, E., & Austin, S. B. (2010). Sexual ori-

entation and bullying among adolescents in the Growing Up Today Study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 366–371.

Birkett, M., A., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. (2009). LGB and questioning students in schools: The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989–1000.

Birkett, M. A., Espelage, D. L., & Stein, N. (2008, August). Have school anti-bullying pro- grams overlooked homophobic bullying? Poster presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Convention, Boston, MA.

Blumenfeld, W. J., & Cooper, R. (2010). LGBT and allied youth responses to cyberbullying: Policy implications. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(1), 114–133.

Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adoles- cent Health, 30, 364–374.

Brown, E. C., Low S., Smith B. H., & Haggerty K. P. (2011). Outcomes from a school- randomized controlled trial of Steps to Respect: A Bullying Prevention Program. School

Psychology Review, 40(3), 423–443. California Safe Schools Coalition & 4-H Center for Youth Development. (2004). A safe

place to learn: Consequences of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual ori- entation and gender non-conformity and steps to making schools safer. San Francisco and Davis, CA: Authors. Retrieved from http://homeless.samhsa.gov/resource/a-safe- place-to-learn-consequences-of-harassment-based-on-actual-or-perceived-sexual- orientation-or-gender-non-conformity-and-steps-for-making-schools-safer-32996.aspx

Casella, R. (2003). Zero tolerance policy in schools: Rationale, consequences, and alterna- tives. Teachers College Record, 105, 872–892.

Chesir-Teran, D. (2003). Conceptualizing and addressing heterosexism in high schools: A setting-level approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 269–279.

Committee for Children. (2001). Steps to Respect: A Bullying Prevention Program. Seattle, WA: Author.

Committee for Children. (2008). Second Step: Student Success Through Prevention Program. Seattle, WA: Author.

D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148–167.

bullying and k–12 students 115

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 115

Ellis, V., & High, S. (2004). Something more to tell you: Gay, lesbian or bisexual young people’s experiences of secondary schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 213–225.

Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying prevention: A research dialogue with Dorothy Espelage. Prevention Researcher, 19(3), 17–19.

Espelage, D. L. (2013). Bullying and sexual violence: Definition, prevalence, outcomes, and moderators. In Rivers, I., & Duncan, N. (Eds.), Bullying: Experiences and discourses of sexuality and gender (pp. 31–44). London: Routledge.

Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B. W. (2008). Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What in- fluence do parents and schools have? School Psychology Review, 37, 202–216.

Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., & Hamburger, M. E. (2012). Bullying experiences and co- occurring sexual violence perpetration among middle school students: Shared and unique risk factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 60–65.

Espelage, D. L., Bosworth, K., & Simon, T. R. (2001). Short-term stability and prospective correlates of bullying in middle-school students: An examination of potential demo- graphic, psychosocial, and environmental influences. Violence and Victims, 16, 411– 426.

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(3), 123– 142.

Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. K. (2012). Understanding and preventing bullying and sexual harassment in school. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner, APA educational psychology handbook: Vol 2. Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 391–416). Washington, DC: American Psy- chological Association.

Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. A., Colbert, C. L., Little, T. D., & Rao, M. A. (2015). Longitudinal associations between bullying perpetration and homophobic name-calling perpetration in middle school. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Finlinson, H. A., Colón, H. M., Robles, R. R., & Soto, M. (2008). An exploratory study of Puerto Rican MSM drug users: The childhood and early teen years of gay males and transsexual females. Youth & Society, 39, 362–384.

Frey, K. S., Hirschstein, M. K., Snell, J. L., Edstrom, L. V., MacKenzie, E. P., & Broderick, C. J. (2005). Reducing playground bullying and supporting beliefs: An experimental trial of the Steps to Respect program. Developmental Psychology, 41, 479–491.

Friedman, M. S., Koeske, G. F., Silvestre, A. J., Korr, W. S., & Sites, E. W. (2006). The im- pact of gender-role nonconforming behavior, bullying, and social support on suicidality among gay male youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38, 621–623.

Furlong, M. J., Morrison, G. M., & Greif, J. L. (2003). Reaching an American consensus: Reactions to the special issue on school bullying. School Psychology Review, 3, 456– 470.

Garofalo, R., Wolf, R., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J., & DuRant, R. (1998). The association between health risk behaviours and sexual orientation among a school-based sample of adoles- cents. Pediatrics, 101, 895–902.

116 bullying and k–12 students

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 116

Glew, G. M., Fan, M., Katon, W., & Rivara, F. P. (2008). Bullying and school safety. The Journal of Pediatrics, 152, 123–128.

Goodnow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573–589.

Hanlon, B. M. (2004). 2003 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey results. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.

Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B. N. (2011). Offsetting risks: High school gay- straight alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 161–174.

Heinze, J. E., & Horn, S. S. (2009). Intergroup contact and beliefs about homosexuality in adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 937–951.

Hershberger, S. L., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psychology, 31, 65–74.

Hirschstein, M. K., Edstrom, L. V. S., Frey, K. S., Snell, J. L., & MacKenzie, E. P. (2007). Walking the talk in bullying prevention: Teacher implementation variables related to initial impact of the Steps to Respect program. School Psychology Review, 36, 3–21.

Hirschstein, M. K., & Frey, K. S. (2006). Promoting behavior and beliefs that reduce bul- lying: The Steps to Respect program. In S. Jimerson & M. Furlong (Eds.), The handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 309–323). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Horn, S. S. (2006). Heterosexual adolescents’ attitudes and beliefs about homosexuality and gay and lesbian peers. Cognitive Development, 21, 420–440.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Who, what, where, when, and why: Demographic and ecological factors contributing to hostile school climates for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 976–988.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN. Retrieved from http://www.siecus.org/ index.cfm?fuseaction=Feature.showFeature&featureID=1938

Merrell, K. W., Gueldner, B. A., Ross, S. W., & Isava, D. M. (2008). How effective are school bullying intervention programs? A meta-analysis of intervention research. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 26–42.

Meyer, E. J. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers’ (non)interventions. Gender & Education, 20(6), 555–572.

Meyer, E. J. (2009). Gender, bullying, and harassment: Strategies to end sexism and ho- mophobia in schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Morrison, G. M., Redding, M., Fisher, E., & Peterson, R. (2006). Assessing school discipline. In S. R. Jimerson & M. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: From research to practice (pp. 211–220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mustanski, B., Newcomb, M. E., & Garofalo, R. (2011). Mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A developmental resiliency perspective. Journal of Gay & Lesbian

bullying and k–12 students 117

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 117

Social Services: The Quarterly Journal of Community & Clinical Practice, 23(2), 204– 225.

Nansel, T. R., Haynie, D. L., & Simons-Morton, B. G. (2003). Theassociation of bullying and victimization with middle school adjustment. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 45–61.

Olweus, D., Limber, S. P., & Mihalic, S. (2000). The Bullying Prevention Program: Blue- prints for violence prevention (Vol. 10). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Pre- vention of Violence.

Poteat, V. P., Aragon, S. R., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Psychosocial concerns of sexual minority youth: Complexity and caution in group differences. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 196–201.

Poteat, V. P., & DiGiovanni, C. D. (2010). When biased language use is associated with bullying and dominance behavior: The moderating effect of prejudice. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1123–1133.

Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relation between bullying and homo- phobic verbal content: The Homophobic Content Agent Target (HCAT) Scale. Violence and Victims, 20, 513–528.

Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Willingness to remain friends and attend school with lesbian and gay peers: Relational expressions of prejudice among heterosexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 952–962.

Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., DiGiovanni, C. D., & Koenig, B. W. (2011). The effects of general and homophobic victimization on adolescents’ psychosocial and educational concerns: The importance of intersecting identities and parent support. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 597–609.

Poteat, V. P., & Rivers, I. (2010). The use of homophobic language across bullying roles during adolescence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 166–172.

Rivers, I. (2000). Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support for Learning, 15, 13–18.

Rivers, I. (2001). Retrospective reports of school bullying: Stability of recall and its impli- cations for research. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19, 129–142.

Rivers, I., & Noret, N. (2008). Well-being among same-sex- and opposite-sex-attracted youth at school. School Psychology Review, 37, 174–187.

Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequities in educational and psychological out- comes between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational Researcher, 40, 315–330.

Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying explains only part of LGBTQ-hetero- sexual risk disparities: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 309–319.

Ross, S., & Horner, R., (2009). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(4), 747–760.

Ross, S., Horner, R., & Stiller, B. (2008). Bully prevention in positive behavior support. Eu- gene, OR: Educational and Community Supports. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/ common/pbisresources/publications/bullyprevention_ES.pdf

118 bullying and k–12 students

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 118

Ryan, C. (2009). Supportive families, healthy children: Helping families with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender children. San Francisco: Family Acceptance Project, San Francisco State University.

Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346–352.

Safren, S. A., & Heimberg, R. G. (1999). Depression, hopelessness, suicidality and related factors in sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 859–866.

Ttofi, M. M., Farrington, D. P., & Baldry, A. C. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to re- duce school bullying. Stockholm: Swedish Council for Crime Prevention, Information, and Publications.

Walls, N. E., Kane, S. B., & Wisneski, H. (2010). Gay-straight alliances and school expe- riences of sexual minority youth. Youth and Society, 41, 307–332.

Warner, J., McKeown, É., Griffin, M., Johnson, K., Ramsay, A., Cort, C., & King, M. (2004). Rates and predictors of mental illness in gay men, lesbians and bisexual men and women: Results from a survey based in England and Wales. British Journal of Psychiatry, 185, 479–485.

Warwick, I., Aggleton, P., & Douglas, N. (2001). Playing it safe: Addressing the emotional and physical health of lesbian and gay pupils in the U.K. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 129–140.

Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler. D., & Craig, W. (2003). Questioning and sexual minority adolescents: High school experiences of bullying, sexual harassment and physical abuse. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 22, 47–58.

bullying and k–12 students 119

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 119

ch06.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 120

Chapter 7

LGBTQ Student Achievement and Educational Attainment

George L. Wimberly, Lindsey Wilkinson, and Jennifer Pearson

In this chapter we discuss research on LGBTQ students’ academic achievement and some school climate factors and school experiences that may affect their achievement. A review of the literature reveals that LGBTQ students in middle and high school may be hindered by negative school experiences that weaken their academic achievement. LGBTQ students in highly supportive school environments have higher grade point averages than those students in less supportive environments. Despite a negative school environment and somewhat poor school achievement, many LGBTQ students tend to report similar or even higher educational expectations than their peers. Beyond the K–12 and postsecondary school experiences, we examine research on LGBTQ ed- ucational attainment and earnings as adults.

Two key indicators of school success are student achievement and overalleducational attainment. Student success is often measured by the gradesstudents earn, the courses they take, and the standardized test scores they achieve. In college, student achievement continues to be important as it relates directly to what students will experience as they move into graduate studies and careers. LGBTQ students may face many challenges that can ham- per their achievement and academic success in school. Much of the current literature speaks to the difficulties that LGBTQ students may face in school at the K–12 level (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, 2009; Robinson & Espelage, 2011). Many LGBTQ students attend schools where they confront bullying and harassment from their peers that limit their forming strong rela- tionships with other students and taking advantage of the school resources that can help them to succeed academically. Often these students lack attach- ment to the school, to their teachers, and to their peers. LGBTQ students may participate in few school-related activities because of fear of harassment, stigmatization associated with their sexual orientation or gender expression, an overall low sense of belonging in the school environment, and limited en- gagement with their studies (D’Augelli, 1992; D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006). These challenges, similar to those experienced by other marginalized groups, may limit or restrict LGBTQ students’ school achievement.

121

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 121

In this chapter we discuss research on LGBTQ students’ academic achieve- ment and some of the school experiences and school climate factors that may affect their achievement. The student achievement research focuses primarily on high school course taking and grades earned. We discuss this achievement as it is connected at the individual level to students’ attitudes toward school and engagement in their studies and at the institutional level to the schools’ climate. In college, many LGBTQ students continue to face a hostile campus climate and personal challenges, but some may find the college years a time to explore new academic opportunities and develop their interests (Rankin et al., 2010). Beyond the K–12 and postsecondary school experiences, we examine research on LGBTQ educational attainment and adult earnings. We begin at the K–12 level, explore students’ transition to postsecondary education, and then discuss the lifelong educational attainment among the LGBTQ population. As education is an essential element of the status attainment and achievement process, we also examine income of LGBTQ adults as it is connected to their overall educational attainment, job search, and workplace experiences.

K–12 Grade Point Average and Course Taking In education research, students’ self-reports of grades are a common measure of their achievement, as this information is often included on surveys and questionnaires in which students are asked to participate. Research analysis of multiple studies suggests that self-reported grades accurately reflect actual grades for students with high ability and high grade point averages. However, some researchers question the accuracy of self-reported grades, as some studies show that students with lower grades tend to overestimate their achievement (Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005). For an accurate measure of student achieve- ment, many studies use actual high school transcript data that provide a detailed report of courses taken, grades earned, standardized test scores, and attendance.

Studies that examine self-report of grade point average (GPA) in middle and/or high school among LGBTQ students show mixed results. Analysis of the Add Health data, which operationalizes sexual orientation as sexual at- tractions to the same and/or opposite sex, shows that same-sex-attracted girls have lower self-reported GPAs than their opposite-sex-attracted peers, but this effect is not strong. Surprisingly, in this study same-sex-attracted boys do not differ from their peers on self-reported GPA (Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). In the same study, some of the overall difference in GPA by sexual at- traction may be attributed to the low GPA among boys with sexual attractions to both sexes. This suggests that bisexuality may somehow impact school per- formance in a different way than exclusive same-sex or other-sex attraction.

122 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 122

However, an analysis of self-report of grades versus the actual grades re- ported on students’ transcripts can yield inconsistent results. Analysis of Add Health data that incorporates information from students’ high school transcripts shows that boys and girls who report same-sex romantic attraction leave high school with lower grades than their opposite-sex-attracted peers. In this study, same-sex-attracted girls earned an overall GPA of 2.63, compared with 2.74 for their other-sex attracted peers. This GPA pattern was consistent yet stronger for boys: Same-sex-attracted boys earned, on average, a GPA of 2.09, while other-sex-attracted boys earned a GPA of 2.45 (Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007). However, when controlling for factors such as emotional distress, sub- stance use, and school attachment, same-sex-attracted girls no longer exhibited a disadvantage in GPA relative to their other-sex-attracted peers. This was not the case for same-sex-attracted boys, as the statistically significant difference in GPA between same-sex-attracted and other-sex-attracted boys remained after controlling for risk factors and school attachment. Research using Add Health data also suggests that same-sex-attracted boys are more likely than their other-sex-attracted peers to fail a course during high school (Pearson et al., 2007; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001) and that, similar to results for GPA, it may be boys who are romantically attracted to both boys and girls who ex- perience more disadvantage relative to those experiencing only same-sex or opposite-sex attractions (Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001).

Importantly, low grades and course failures in high school may limit or prevent students from advancing to courses beyond the basic requirements (Allensworth, Correa, & Ponisciak, 2008). Although there are not precise dropout rates for LGBTQ students, one study estimates that almost one third of LGBTQ students drop out of high school, compared with a national average of about 8% (Bart, 1998). And while GPA and course failure alone are important measures of school success, taking rigorous academic courses such as Algebra II, chemistry, and advanced foreign language in high school is a good indicator of preparation for college. Analysis of the Add Health data reveals that same- sex-attracted girls are less likely than opposite-sex-attracted girls to complete Algebra II and that boys with same sex-attractions are less likely than boys with opposite-sex-only attractions to complete both Algebra II and chemistry (Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007). Because LGBTQ students are less likely to take these rigorous courses that will prepare them for the future, they may be less competitive for college and other postsecondary education and training. At the same time, it is possible that LGBTQ youth make different de- cisions about course-taking relative to their heterosexual and gender-normative peers because these youth have different occupational interests and expectations (Badgett & King, 1997; Blandford, 2003; Hewitt, 1995).

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 123

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 123

Studies that include interviews and narrative discussions with LGBTQ stu- dents suggest that not all of these students experience academic disadvantage in high school and that their grades may vary based on their school environment. In some cases LGBTQ students report that they excelled in school, may have been known for their high grades, and had a generally positive high school experience (McCready, 2010; Pascoe 2007). These students did not let a less- than-supportive school climate hinder their academic achievement, often ex- celling in their coursework and graduating high school with many academic, athletic, and social honors. Yet some students report that a negative school cli- mate marred by bullying, harassment, isolation, and discrimination caused their grades to suffer. Some of these students report skipping school often, failing to engage in their courses, and in some cases, dropping out of high school altogether.

Students’ underperformance in high school can limit their chances for suc- cess in college or other postsecondary education. In today’s idea-, service-, and technology-driven economy, most U.S. students will need some form of postsecondary education or postsecondary training to secure and maintain a job. Losing segments of the future workforce because of inadequate preparation will create an added burden to society. It is also a waste of talented young people who can offer a wide range of skills to the workplace. Thus, it is im- portant to examine further why we might see such disparities in achievement and course-taking among LGBTQ students. K–12 School Experiences To explain some LGBTQ students’ lower academic achievement, researchers have examined students’ school engagement, the amount of social support they receive, their connection to the school, the school climate, and other areas. Studies that focus specifically on LGBTQ students find that GPA is positively correlated with teacher support, peer support, and a sense of be- longing in a school environment (Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014; Murdock & Bolch, 2005). LGBTQ students in a highly supportive environment have higher GPAs than LGBTQ students in less supportive school environments. On the other hand, discipline problems, personal school LGBTQ victimization, and school ex- clusion are negatively correlated with GPA among LGBTQ students (Murdock & Bolch, 2005).

Research suggests that the high school performance and long-term educa- tional attainment of LGBTQ youth may depend on the type of school they at- tend. Adolescents experiencing same-sex sexuality fare better when attending schools in urban areas and schools with lower levels of student religiosity and

124 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 124

less emphasis on hyper-masculine sports such as football (Wilkinson & Pearson, 2009). These differences are likely due to differences in school climate, as LGBTQ youth who attend large, urban schools with more low-income and racial/ethnic minority students report lower levels of victimization and fewer missed days of schools for safety reasons (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimr, 2006). Additional factors related to a more positive school experience for LGBTQ youth include a higher percentage of college-bound students (Szalacha, 2003) as well as regional location of the school, as youth in schools located in the South and Midwest are more likely to hear homophobic language and ex- perience harassment related to sexual orientation than those in schools located in the West or Northeast (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). Gay-Straight Alliances, ed- ucators supportive of LGBTQ students, LGBTQ-inclusive curricular resources, and anti-bullying policies also have been found to reduce hostile school expe- riences for LGBTQ youth (Goodenow et al., 2006; Kosciw, Greytak, & Diaz, 2009; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). Such findings suggest that the high school performance and long-term educational attainment of LGBTQ youth may depend on the type of school these youth attend, as differences in school achievement may reflect LGBTQ students’ attachment to school and school victimization experiences.

In studies looking only at LGBTQ-identified students, those students who report a high level of harassment and school victimization because of their sexual orientation report an overall GPA of 2.8, compared with 3.3 for students who report a low level of victimization (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). Among all students, those who feel safe at school are likely to have a higher GPA than those who do not feel safe, and LGBTQ students are not an exception. Other research shows that among LGBTQ students who earn mostly A’s, 31% report that they feel safe at school; yet among similar students who earn mostly B’s and C’s, only 23% report that they feel safe at school (Clarke & Russell, 2009). LGBTQ students report that their main reason for dropping out of high school is constant bullying and harassment from other students (American Psychological Association, 2012). In further research, over 50% of LGBTQ students reported that they felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, and nearly one third had skipped a day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe (Kosciw et al., 2012; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). While excessive truancy and chronic absences can contribute to any student’s low GPA and poor school achievement, the combi- nation of discomfort in school, constant harassment, and attendance problems may contribute to LGBTQ student’s leaving school temporarily or dropping out altogether. When youth are missing from school they may be prone to get into trouble and end up in the juvenile justice system. Studies show that 15%

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 125

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 125

of students held in juvenile detention centers are LGBTQ and many are held on truancy charges (Irvine, 2010).

Inappropriate and abusive behavior from students can be exacerbated by teach- ers, counselors, and other educators who have negative feelings or prejudice toward LGBTQ students. Teachers and educators often turn a blind eye to ha- rassment and bullying behavior directed toward LGBTQ students (Pascoe, 2007). Over one third of LGBTQ students report that their school staff did nothing after they reported an incident of harassment or assault. Even worse, over 60% of LGBTQ students report that their teachers or other school staff make homophobic remarks or biased remarks about gender expression (Kosciw et al., 2012). These factors combined may cause some LGBTQ students to feel alienated from the school environment, further weakening the likelihood that these students will fully engage in their studies and perform at their highest potential.

Studies show that some LGBTQ students may have a limited sense of en- gagement in their schools (Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007). Many LGBTQ students report that they feel social isolation in school and thus may also suffer from low self-esteem or depression, and may be more likely to contem- plate suicide (D’Augelli, 1998). Many schools have made strides to create a sense of community for LGBTQ students by forming Gay-Straight Alliance organizations and other student organizations that celebrate LGBTQ identity and cater to these students’ needs (Kosciw et al., 2009, 2010; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). However, these student organizations may be most prevalent in middle-class suburban schools and do not reach all LGBTQ stu- dents. Some qualitative work suggests that students in urban and rural schools, which African American, Latino, and other students from racial and ethnic minority groups are more likely to attend, report little or no connection with these student organizations and that LGBTQ student groups in more racially diverse schools may cater primarily to White students (McCready, 2010). Ad- ditional quantitative survey research confirms that LGBTQ students from racial and ethnic minority groups face unique challenges in schools: These students are more likely than non-Latino White students to report feeling unsafe and to have experienced harassment in school, especially when attending majority-White schools (Diaz & Kosciw, 2009; Kosciw et al., 2012). However, there is some evidence that LGBTQ minority and rural students are beginning to develop supportive communities through social media such as Facebook and Twitter (Gray, 2009; Russell & McGuire, 2008; Woodland, 1999).

LGBTQ students’ K–12 school experiences may be linked to their educa- tional attainment and income later in life. In a study of gay men’s educational attainment and earnings, Barrett, Pollack, and Tilden (2002) connect the age that men debut as gay or “come out” to their educational outcomes. This re-

126 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 126

search shows that men who decide that they are gay during or before high school are less likely to complete college or earn an advanced degree than their peers who adopt a gay identity later in life. Similar reduced educational achievement was found for men who engaged in homosexual activity before or during high school. Recent research using a nationally representative sample of young adults suggests that some men who first experience same-sex sexuality in adulthood have more success in college than their heterosexual peers (Ueno, Roach, & Peña-Talamantes, 2013).

These findings suggest that the cost of discrimination encountered early in life, particularly the high school years, is an important component in reducing educational attainment. This speaks to the importance of students’ K–12 school experiences in shaping their later postsecondary education and earnings. We further discuss these postsecondary experiences and earnings issues later in this chapter. Student Resilience Some LGBTQ students may show a high level of resilience and emerge from a less-than-supportive school climate with high grades, high student achieve- ment, and high educational expectations (Russell, 2005; Ueno et al., 2013) Some of these students may experience bullying, harassment, and other factors associated with a negative school climate, yet may find something to “hold onto” in the school environment, such as their course work, athletics, or other social clubs and extracurricular activities, including empowerment through participation in Gay-Straight Alliances (Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009). Research suggests that some LGBTQ students find areas in school in which they excel and to which to devote their effort and attention (Davis, 1999). For some students, their sexual orientation appears to be a tan- gential characteristic that is outweighed by their academic achievements, ath- letic skills, or racial and ethnic identity (Monteiro & Fuqua, 1995; Pascoe, 2007; Sears, J., 1995). Such students may gain the support of their teachers, families, and peers through these activities and thrive academically in school. However, there is little research or empirical evidence that reflects to what ex- tent these students embrace an LGBTQ identity or are “out” to their family, peers, and classmates; thus, additional research is needed to examine factors related to resilience among LGBTQ youth in schools.

Despite a negative school environment and somewhat poor school achieve- ment, many LGBTQ students report similar or even higher educational ex- pectations than their peers. Over 90% of LGBTQ high school students plan to attend college, and about 50% plan to earn a graduate degree (Kosciw et al., 2009; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). In contrast, data from a na-

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 127

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 127

tional study of all high school students reveals that only about 70% of high school students plan to go to college and about 33% expect to complete a graduate/professional degree (Ingels & Dalton, 2013; see also Ingels & Dalton, 2008; Ross et al., 2012). Students’ educational expectations are a key factor in determining how they make educational plans, set career goals, and take the steps to make their goals a reality.

Although there is some research linking K–12 student achievement with LGBTQ status, much of this literature is limited to the now aging Add Health data, or is part of larger school climate studies, case studies, or individual nar- ratives. There is vast opportunity for further research in this area that scholars and researchers can be encouraged to pursue and that K–12 schools and com- munities can be open to receiving. Many, if not most, K–12 school-based studies focus on some element or form of student achievement, such as grades, standardized test scores, aptitude, or related areas. These studies often distin- guish students by gender and grade level as well as racial and ethnic group. Further research is needed that would include the category of LGBTQ status among these groups, to gain a more complete understanding of LGBTQ stu- dents’ achievement.

Campus Climate in Higher Education Student achievement in college can take multiple forms beyond grades, such as engaging in intellectual activities, completing specialized training, and par- ticipating in campus organizations related to students’ academic and career goals. Among college students, large-scale studies using National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data show that there are no meaningful differences observed between LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ students in parental education levels, transfer status, athletic participation, or self-reported grades (Gonyea & Moore, 2007; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2011). This research also finds no difference between LGBTQ college students and their non- LGBTQ peers in the amount of academic challenge they report in their college experiences. However, it is important to note that in the NSSE research, aca- demic challenge is measured as participating in study-abroad programs and foreign language courses. Other measures of academic engagement and chal- lenge that focus on students’ grades, achievement, and performance may be strong indicators of their overall college experience.

Much of the research on LGBTQ college students focuses on issues of en- gagement in academic and campus-based activities. This research suggests that LGBTQ students who are “more out” are more likely to participate in ac- ademic enrichment programs and activities such as foreign language course

128 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 128

taking, study abroad, and engagement in courses that emphasize diversity (Gonyea & Moore, 2007; National Survey of Student Engagement, 2011). Among the possible explanations for this increased participation in campus activities may be that these activities provide a safe place for openly LGBTQ students to express themselves and develop leadership skills on campus (Renn, 2007; Renn & Bilodeau, 2005). Still, the “less out” students engage in these activities less than the “straight” students as well, although the effect may be trivial in magnitude. Another possible explanation for the difference may be that personal openness is related to engaging in tasks that require a student to be self-assured and willing to take intellectual risks.

This research has some limitations. In large-scale data sets such as NSSE, schools have the option of including questions about sexual orientation and LGBTQ status and, of course, students have the option of not responding to these questions. Including an optional question about LGBTQ status in the University of California system’s Statement of Intent to Register has caused some controversy among campus administrators and policy makers in Cali- fornia (Gordon, 2012). School administrators fear asking students questions about their sexual identity to protect their student privacy. On the other hand, other schools argue that such information can guide counseling services and support to LGBTQ students across the campus.

Despite their intellectual engagement and participation in campus activities, LGBTQ students (out or not) are more likely than their straight peers to describe their college campus as hostile and rate their campus environment less positively. Some research suggests that most LGBTQ college students re- port some form of harassment or discrimination on campus (D’Augelli, 1994; Rankin et al., 2010). This hostile environment, which often includes verbal insults, homophobic remarks, or violence, may limit college students’ ability to reach their full academic potential.

Hostility toward LGBTQ issues presents itself in several forms on college campuses. From the 1940s through the 1960s, college students who were caught engaging in homosexual acts were often expelled from the university. In some cases there were students who had spent four or more years at a uni- versity, were in good academic standing, but were denied their degrees because of their perceived homosexuality. These were usually young men who were thought to be mentally ill and a danger to the campus because of their homo- sexuality. Students were also denied professional certifications such as teaching licenses because of their homosexual activity (Dilley, 2002). As we see in Chapters 2 and 9 of this report, the teaching profession has a long history of unfairly dismissing LGBTQ workers and denying them the right to teach or work in K–12 school systems.

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 129

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 129

Like high schools (Russell & McGuire, 2008), colleges and universities have begun enacting policies and practices aimed at protecting the rights and safety of sexual minorities. Studies on campus climate have focused on the perceptions and experiences of sexual minorities, perceptions about sexual minorities, and policies and programs designed to improve the experiences of sexual minorities on campus (Renn, 2010). Campus climate surveys are be- ginning to emerge, and guides to campuses that are most LGBTQ friendly have been published (Windmeyer, 2006).

As in the K–12 research, in higher education research LGBTQ student achievement is often associated with school climate. In qualitative studies using interview data with LGBTQ college students, many students indicate that a positive campus climate contributed to their academic success (Rankin et al., 2010). LGBTQ students also report that being on a campus that celebrates and respects LGBTQ students and their issues improves their well-being and overall academic achievement. For example, interviews with Black gay males found that having a strong and supportive peer network and strong peer rela- tionships contributed to these students’ staying in college (Strayhorn, Blake- wood, & DeVita, 2010).

Across most studies of LGBTQ college students, it is clear that a positive campus climate in which the students are engaged in their studies, have social outlets such as clubs, sports, or other activities, and have a community to con- nect with— be it gay or straight— can contribute to students’ academic success. It is through this success that LGBTQ students go on to become adults who pursue and develop careers and ultimately contribute to society in their pro- fessional and personal lives. Studies of general student populations (Tinto, 1993) and of some specific groups such as racial and ethnic minority students and first-generation college students (Tinto & Engle, 2008) show that a positive and supportive campus climate increases student achievement as measured by persistence through college and overall graduation rates. However, there is limited rigorous and scientific research that focuses specifically on LGBTQ students. Additional research is needed to understand students’ college expe- riences and how these experiences affect postsecondary achievement. One must keep in mind potential differences in the experiences of LGBTQ students in K–12 in comparison with those in college, as by the time most students are admitted to and enter college they have strong academic skills and have shown that they have the ability to succeed in school. Also, college students, given their adult status, may have greater flexibility in accessing LGBTQ support systems outside of their local school context, and many LGBTQ youth migrate to cities and college towns as a way to explore their sexual and gender identities in a more tolerant and diverse environment (Annes & Redlin, 2012).

130 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 130

Educational Attainment and Earnings Among the LGBTQ Population

The long-term effects of student achievement are often reflected in adults’ ed- ucational attainment, occupational status, and income and overall earnings. Higher levels of educational attainment are associated with higher earnings and enhanced employment status for both different-sex and LGBTQ-couple households. Media images in the news, movies, and popular television pro- grams depicting gays and lesbians living in affluent gay ghettoes in major cities have helped to paint a picture of education, high income, and prosperity among the LGBTQ population (Badgett & King, 1997). However, these images and information are often anecdotal, do not reflect scientific research, and are not generalizable to the U.S. LGBTQ population. Much of the knowledge on education, income, and overall social class of LGBTQ people has been limited to these media-driven stories. However, expanded research from the General Social Survey (GSS) as well as the U.S. Census and other national data sets gives a clearer picture of the experiences of LGBTQ people and households, including their levels of education and income.

Some data suggest that LGBTQ adults have more years of education, on average, than the general population. Analysis of GSS data (1988–1996) reveals that 23.7% of gay men have earned college degrees and 13.0% of gay men have completed graduate or professional education. Slightly fewer married straight men have completed college or graduate study. Among married straight men, 17.0% have college degrees and 10.3% have graduate education. Among lesbian women, 25.0% have college degrees and 13.9% have postcollege ed- ucation; comparable rates for married women are 16.0% and 6.1%, respectively. Analysis of 1990, 2000, and 2010 Census data shows similarly high levels of educational attainment among LGBTQ households (Antecol, Jong, & Stein- berger, 2008; Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, 2013).

Research on the amount of money earned by LGBTQ people varies across data sets as well as by how LGBTQ people are defined. The National Survey of Family Growth shows that lesbian and bisexual women have higher poverty rates than heterosexual women, 24% versus only 19%; however, gay and bi- sexual men have the same poverty rate (13%) as other men (Albelda, Badgett, Schneebaum, & Gates, 2009). U.S. Census data reveal that among LGBTQ households with low levels of education, poverty rates are significantly higher or nearly twice as high as those in different-sex couple households, and the LGBTQ couples are more likely to receive food stamps and other public as- sistance than are their heterosexual peers (Badgett, Durso, & Schneebaum,

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 131

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 131

2013; Mallory, Sears, Hasenbush, & Susman, 2014). This educational attain- ment link to poverty is particularly strong among female same-sex-couple households, as one third of such households are in poverty. Among those who hold an associate’s degree or higher, the poverty rate falls to about the same level for all couple types.

In addition, U.S. Census data show that lesbian couples are more likely to live in poverty than gay male couples or different-sex married couples. Poverty rates are even higher among African American same-sex couples and couples living in rural areas (Badgett, Durso, & Schneebaum, 2013). In many ways, the income of lesbian women may reflect the broader income disparities and status of women in the workplace. Across education levels, women tend to have lower household incomes than men. Poverty statistics overwhelmingly show that women and their children are largely overrepresented, with 1 in 3 women living in poverty or on the brink of poverty (Shriver & Center for American Progress, 2014).

In one of the earliest studies on LGBTQ earnings using the 1989–1991 GSS data, Badgett (1995) defines lesbians, gays, and bisexuals as individuals having more same-sex sexual partners than opposite-sex sexual partners since age 18. Using this definition, the analysis shows that gay and bisexual male workers earned from 11% to 27% less than heterosexual male workers with the same work experience, education, occupation, marital status, and region of residence. Moreover, evidence from this study suggests that lesbian and bi- sexual women earned less than heterosexual women, but this result is not con- sistent across all definitions of LGBTQ.

Black, Makar, Sanders, and Taylor (2003) provide a similar analysis using GSS data from 1988 to 1996. They find that the effect of sexual orientation on earnings depends to some degree on the definition of sexual orientation used. One general finding in their work confirms Badgett’s earlier finding for men: Gay men appear to earn substantially less than other men with equal skills. Lesbian women, however, earn 20% to 35% more than other equally skilled women. More recent findings based on 2000 and 2010 Census data similarly show that most coupled lesbian women earn more than heterosexual women; coupled gay men earn less than their married heterosexual peers but more than their cohabiting heterosexual peers (Antecol et al., 2008; Kastanis & Wilson, 2014; U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

While more research is needed to clarify the relationship between sexual orientation and wages among women, there are theoretical explanations for why lesbians may earn higher wages and spend more time in the workforce than their heterosexual counterparts. Black et al. (2003) argue that lesbians are likely to make career-oriented decisions— such as earning higher academic

132 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 132

degrees or working longer hours— differently than if they were planning on living in a “traditional gender-based household” with a male husband who was the breadwinner. These choices result in higher earnings for lesbians rel- ative to heterosexual women.

When the Black et al. theory for earnings and work is applied to gay men, it suggests that these men recognize early in life that they will not have to sup- port a family and can focus less on their career and make less money than their heterosexual male peers. However, this argument cannot account for the high level of education among gay men. It also fails to account for the large number of gay men who are raising children or supporting families.

These explanations of low earnings and high poverty among LGBTQ people do not account for the possible discrimination and limited opportunities that LGBTQ people may face in the labor market and in the workplace. Several states and major cities, including Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, and Wash- ington, D.C., have passed laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual ori- entation in private-sector employment. Although perceptions may be changing, studies show that many employers discriminate against openly gay men applying for positions. This form of job discrimination is strongest in fields that value stereotypical male traits such as decisiveness, assertiveness, and ambition (Tilc- sik, 2011). Like LGBTQ students in K–12 schools and on college campuses, many people face a hostile work environment because of their sexual orientation. Studies show that between 16% and 68% of LGBTQ workers report experi- encing some form of discrimination or harassment in the workplace that can result in less prestigious occupations and lower wages than attained by their heterosexual peers (Badgett, 1995; Badgett, Donnelly, & Kibbe, 1992; Badgett, Holning, Sears, & Ho, 2007). However, much of the research on LGBTQ job and wage discrimination is rather dated or limited to specific regions, occupa- tions, or samples of individuals (Black et al., 2003; Diaz, Ayala, Bein, Jenne, & Marin, 2001; Kenagy & Bostwick, 2005). Further research is needed on the educational attainment, earnings, and labor market experiences of LGBTQ people to provide a national and comprehensive perspective.

Promising Research Directions Researchers are continuing to study LGBTQ youth in the school context. The work of GLSEN researchers and others who study LGBTQ students is prom- ising in that there are now data available about the K–12 school experiences of these youth. Future waves of data collection from other national data sets, particularly those sponsored by the federal government, such as Add Health, should continue to be expanded to include questions about students’ LGBTQ

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 133

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 133

status. The value of these school-based data collections is that they can be connected to students’ high school transcripts, thus allowing researchers to track courses taken, course grades, grade point averages, standardized test scores, and other measures of student achievement. This will greatly expand the knowledge we have about the schooling experiences of LGBTQ students, as well as about our ability to compare the experiences of LGBTQ students with those of straight students.

Another potential resource for understanding the educational experiences of LGBTQ youth is the federally funded Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Every two years, this survey asks high school students a variety of questions about health, sexual behavior, nutrition, drug and alcohol use, and smoking. Currently, states are allowed to decide whether they want to include any questions about sexual orientation. Twelve states and nine large school districts include a question about same-sex sexuality on their YRBS surveys. More states could potentially add such questions, as well as questions assessing school achievement.

In recent years there have been some promising steps to obtain information about LGBTQ issues from national college student surveys. Although questions about students’ own sexual orientation are optional for the college-level data collections, including some iterations of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) freshman college student survey and all iterations of the NSSE, adding such a question has been considered on the national level. This is a step in the right direction, as the CIRP and the NSSE include questions about students’ college major, scores on college entrance exams such as the ACT and SAT, high school grade point average, and other student achievement measures. These surveys also include questions about how much education students expect to complete and their confidence of earning specific grades in courses. Although met with some controversy, some colleges are now consid- ering asking about LGBTQ status on college admissions applications in order to identify students’ needs before they arrive on campus. Including this infor- mation can potentially expand the knowledge we have of LGBTQ students, as researchers could link students’ sexual orientation to their high school tran- scripts and later to their college academic records.

Additional promising research directions helping to explain LGBTQ edu- cational attainment come from Census data using studies of same-sex house- holds. The Census (American Community Survey) provides a comprehensive look at where these households are located, their demographic characteristics, and the educational attainment and income of household members. Some of this information was first revealed in the 1990 Census, and was expanded in 2000; thus, researchers are now analyzing and reporting data from the 2010

134 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 134

Census, which provides the most comprehensive picture of LGBTQ households ever collected and available to researchers. Other national and local data col- lections related to the workplace and status attainment could also begin iden- tifying LGBTQ respondents, and would thus open the door for researchers to examine LGBTQ career experiences and status attainment over time.

References Albelda, R., Badgett, M. V. L., Schneebaum, A., & Gates, G. J. (2009). Poverty in the

lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Allensworth, E., Correa, M., & Ponisciak, S. (2008). From high school to the future: ACT preparation— Too much, too late. Consortium on Chicago School Research, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=124

American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42.

Annes, A., & Redlin, M. (2012). Coming out and coming back: Rural gay migration and the city. Journal of Rural Studies, 28, 56–68.

Antecol, H., Jong, A., & Steinberger, M. (2008). The sexual orientation wage gap: The role of occupational sorting and human capital. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 61(4), 518–543.

Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726–739.

Badgett, M. V. L., Donnelly, C., & Kibbe, J. (1992). Pervasive patterns of discrimination against lesbians and gay men: Evidence from surveys across the United States. Wash- ington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

Badgett, M. V. L., Durso, L. E., & Schneebaum, A. (2013). New patterns of poverty in the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Badgett, M. V. L., Holning, L., Sears, B., & Ho, D. (2007). Bias in the workplace: Consistent evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Badgett, M. V. L., & King, M. (1997). Lesbian and gay occupational strategies. In A. Gluckman & B. Reed (Eds.), Homo economics: Capitalism, community, and lesbian and gay life (pp. 73–86). New York: Routledge.

Barrett, D. C., Pollack, L. M., & Tilden, M. L. (2002). Teenage sexual orientation, adult openness, and status attainment in gay males. Sociological Perspectives, 45(2), 163– 182.

Bart, M. (1998). Creating a safer school for gay students. Counseling Today, 26, 36–39. Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian

population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. De- mography, 37(2), 139–154.

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 135

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 135

Black, D. A., Makar, H. R., Sanders, S. G., & Taylor, L. J. (2003). The earnings effects of sexual orientation. Industrial and Labor Relations, 56(3), 449–469.

Blandford, J. M. (2003). The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 56(4), 622–642.

Clarke, T. J., & Russell, S. T. (2009). School safety and academic achievement (California Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief No. 7). San Francisco: California Safe Schools Coalition. Retrieved from http://www.casafeschools.org/FactSheet7final.pdf

D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’ experiences of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 383–395.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Lesbian and gay male development: Steps toward an analysis of lesbians’ and gay men’s lives. In B. Greene & G. Herek (Eds.), Contemporary per- spectives in gay and lesbian psychology (pp. 118–132). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1998). Developmental implications of victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 187–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Interper- sonal Violence, 21(11), 1–21.

Davis, J. E. (1999). Forbidden fruit: Black males’ constructions of transgressive sexualities in middle school. In W. J. Letts IV & J. T. Sears (Eds.), Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue about sexualities and schooling (pp. 49–60). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Diaz, R. M., Ayala, G., Bein, E., Jenne, J., & Marin, B. V. (2001). The impact of homophobia, poverty, and racism on the mental health of Latino gay men.  American Journal of Public Health. 91, 927–932.

Diaz, E. M., & Kosciw, J. G. (2009). Shared differences: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students of color in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Dilley, P. (2002). 20th-century postsecondary practices and policies to control gay students. Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 409–431.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (2009). The experiences of lesbian, gay, bi- sexual and transgender middle school students (GLSEN Research Brief). New York: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Gonyea, R., & Moore, J., III. (2007, November–December). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and their engagement in educationally purposeful activities in college. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY.

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other social factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 573–589.

Gordon, L. (2012, March 30). California state colleges weigh asking students about sexual orientation. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/ 30/local/la-me-uc-gay-20120330

136 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 136

Gray, M. L. (2009). Out in the country: Youth, media, and queer visibility in rural America. New York: New York University Press.

Hewitt, C. (1995). The socioeconomic position of gay men: A review of the evidence. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54(4), 461–479.

Ingels, S. J., & Dalton, B.W. (2008). Trends among high school seniors, 1972–2004. Wash- ington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Ingels, S. J., & Dalton, B. (2013). High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09) First Follow-up: A First Look at Fall 2009 Ninth Graders in 2012. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Irvine, A. (2010). We’ve had three of them: Addressing the invisibility of lesbian, gay, bi- sexual and gender non-conforming youths in the juvenile justice system. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 19(3), 675–701.

Kastanis, A., & Wilson, B. (2014). Race/ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic wellbeing of individuals in same-sex couples. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Kenagy, G. P., & Bostwick, W. B. (2005). Health and social service needs of transgender people in Chicago. International Journal of Transgenderism, 8(2/3), 57–66.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2008). Involved, invisible, ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K– 12 schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Who, what, where, when, and why: Demographic and ecological factors contributing to hostile school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 976– 988.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kuncel, N., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point av- erages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82.

Mallory, C., Sears, B., Hasenbush, A., & Susman, A. (2014). Ensuring access to mentoring programs for LGBTQ youth. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

McCready, L. T. (2010). Making space for diverse masculinities: Difference, intersectionality, and engagement in an urban high school. New York: Peter Lang.

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 137

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 137

Monteiro, K. P., & Fuqua, V. (1995). African-American gay youth. In G. Unks (Ed.), The gay teen: Educational practices and theory for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents (pp. 159–188). New York: Routledge.

Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjust- ment in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-cen- tered analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 159–172.

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2011). Fostering student engagement campuswide: Annual results 2011. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2007). Adolescent same-sex attraction and academic outcomes: The role of school attachment and engagement. Social Problems, 54(4), 523–542.

Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.

Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer identified college student leaders and activists. Journal of College Student Development, 48(3), 311–330.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. (2005). Queer student leaders: An exploratory case study of identity development and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student involvement at a Midwestern research university. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(4). 49–71.

Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequalities in educational and psychological outcomes between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 315–330.

Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., Kewal Ramani, A., Zhang, J., Kristapovich, P., & Manning, E. (2012). Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Russell, S. T. (2005). Beyond risk: Resilience in the lives of sexual minority youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(3), 5–18.

Russell, S. T., & McGuire, J. K. (2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) students. In S. M. & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Changing schools and community organizations to foster positive youth development (pp. 133–158). Ox- ford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth empowerment and high school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 891–903.

Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 111–127.

138 lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 138

Sears, J. (1995). Black-gay or gay-black? Choosing identities and identifying choices. In G. Unks (Ed.), The gay teen: Educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay, and bi- sexual adolescents (pp. 135–157). New York: Routledge.

Shriver M., & Center for American Progress. (2014). Executive summary. In O. Morgan & K. Skelton (Eds.), The Shriver report: A woman’s nation pushes back from the brink. Washington, DC: Palgrave Macmillan.

Strayhorn, T. L., Blakewood, A. M., & DeVita, J. M. (2010). Triple threat: Challenges and supports of Black gay men at predominantly White campuses. In T. L. Strayhorn & M. C. Terrell (Eds.), The evolving challenges of Black college students: New insights for practice and research (pp. 85–103). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publications.

Szalacha, L. A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an evaluation of Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students. American Jour- nal of Education, 110, 58–88.

Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117(2), 586–626.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V., & Engle, J. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students, Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

Ueno, K., Roach, T. A., & Peña-Talamantes, A. E. (2013). The dynamic association between sexual orientation and educational attainment. Advances in Life Course Research, 18(2), 127–140.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). 2012 American Community Survey 1-year data file. Washing-

ton, DC: Author. Wilkinson, L., & Pearson, J. (2009). School culture and the well-being of same-sex-attracted

youth. Gender & Society, 23(4), 542–568. Windmeyer, S. L. (2006). The advocate college guide for LGBT students. New York:

Alyson. Woodland, R. (1999). I plan to be a 10: Online literacy and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students. Computers and Composition, 16(1), 73–87.

lgbtq student achievement and educational attainment 139

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 139

ch07.qxp 4/7/15 10:48 AM Page 140

Chapter 8

Higher Education Kristen A. Renn

This chapter summarizes extant literature on LGBTQ issues in higher education, de- scribing key studies in the area and raising new questions for research. As in K –12 schools, the numbers of LGBTQ postsecondary students, faculty, and administrators are difficult to estimate. There are, however, bodies of literature that build visibility, assess campus climate, and theorize about changing constructions of LGBTQ identities. These studies can be used to inform policy, practice, and curriculum in higher education.

Postsecondary education research is typically divided into the categoriesof students (experiences, outcomes, demographics, development), faculty(preparation, tenure, satisfaction), administrative leaders (career tracks, leadership styles), organizations (cultures, structures, change), governance and finance (state oversight, boards of trustees, faculty governance), policy (national, state, institutional), and teaching/learning (curriculum, pedagogy, technology). Arguably, LGBTQ issues do not extend into all of these areas, although certainly there are LGBTQ people involved in all aspects of higher education. Higher education research related to LGBTQ people has evolved in tandem with activist movements, following trends seen in research on other groups that have faced discrimination (e.g., people of color, women).

Overall, knowledge of LGBTQ issues/people in higher education falls into three main categories: 1. Visibility. Narratives and descriptive studies that establish the presence of

LGBTQ people on campuses 2. Campus climate. Studies of LGBTQ people’s perceptions and experiences,

others’ perceptions of LGBTQ people, and policies and programs related to LGBTQ people or issues

3. Changing constructions of LGBTQ identities. Studies of identity that are typically about students and rooted in psychological approaches to identity and identity development

Renn (2010) analyzed the field of LGBTQ research in higher education and concluded that the category that has received, by far, the largest amount of re-

141

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 141

search attention is students, their identities, and their development (see Marine, 2011, for a summary). Faculty, administrators and staff, policy, and teaching and learning are far less well explored. Queer theory is not a common theoret- ical approach to studying higher education, although it is used in a few studies (Abes, 2008; Abes & Kasch, 2007; Talburt, 2000). Among the L-B-G-T-Q components, most studies examine gay and/or lesbian experience; some focus across lesbian, gay, and bisexual; a few examine bisexuality alone (e.g., King, 2011); and a small but growing body of literature addresses transgender iden- tities and experiences (Beemyn, Curtis, Davis, & Tubbs, 2005; Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Bilodeau, 2005, 2009; Pusch, 2005). Campus climate studies often group sexual orientation and gender identity under lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT); the Q (typically for queer) is included for some campuses. Studies of campus climate and other LGBTQ issues can be used to inform policy, practice, and curriculum in higher education.

Key Studies in the Area Visibility Studies There are no accurate estimates of the numbers of LGBTQ people in higher education, although one national study of college student health alcohol use (Carpenter, 2008) reported that 3.8% of men and 4.7% of women described themselves as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Given the dearth of accurate information on how many people in higher education are LGBTQ, educators and scholars need to rely on a body of historical and contemporary visibility studies that establishes awareness of this population. Authors in this area often use quali- tative methods, especially narrative inquiry. Sometimes the narratives lack analysis or theoretical backing, yet they serve the purpose of demonstrating that LGBTQ people are in fact participating in higher education. The narratives tell of discrimination and invisibility, but also of creating or finding supportive communities on and off campus.

Beginning in the 1990s, edited volumes of narratives by and about LGBTQ youth and college students (e.g., Heron, 1994; Howard & Drukman, 2000; Windmeyer, 2005; Windmeyer & Freeman, 2001) formed a foundation for making their experiences visible. Although these collections of personal stories rarely used what might be called “rigorous” social scientific methods of sam- pling, data collection, and analysis, they were critical in establishing a voice for LGBTQ college students. A small number of empirical studies (e.g., D’Augelli, 1992; Lopez & Chism, 1993; Love, 1999; Rhoads, 1997)—typically single-campus studies, usually qualitative— supplemented the autobiographical accounts. At the same time, scholars established a smaller but informative lit-

142 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 142

erature about lesbian and gay faculty (e.g., Bensimon, 1992). Personal narra- tives (e.g., Garber, 1994; Mintz & Rothblum, 1997) and qualitative studies (McNaron, 1997; Tierney, 1994, 1997) of individual faculty raised the visibility of gay and lesbian academics. Outside the research literature, various media (e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed) have provided addi- tional visibility with coverage of lesbian, gay, and bisexual college and uni- versity presidents, transgender faculty, and LGBTQ student movements. Campus Climate Studies Studies of campus climate focus on three areas: (a) LGBTQ people’s percep- tions and experiences; (b) others’ perceptions of LGBTQ people and their ex- periences; and (c) policies and programs designed to improve the academic, living, and work experiences of LGBTQ people on campus. Tierney and Dilley (1998) noted that the 1990s were marked by campus climate studies on cam- puses large and small, and although such studies are no longer a mainstay of LGBTQ campus literature, they have remained a common practice (Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker, & Robinson-Keilig, 2004; Sanlo, Rankin, & Schoenberg, 2002). Climate studies provide baseline data on experiences of and attitudes about LGBTQ people and have often been used to provide evidence for creat- ing, improving, or expanding LGBTQ programs and services (Sanlo et al., 2002). They also serve a symbolic function within the organization— signaling that LGBTQ campus climate matters to someone.

Since the 1990s, the Internet and online survey software have enabled ge- ographically broad data collection. Rankin (2003) pioneered the large, multi- campus study of campus climate, and Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, and Frazer completed the National College Climate Survey in 2010. They relied on e- mail contact lists and open calls for participation; although the sample is not “scientific,” it is the largest to date on the topic of LGBTQ climate in higher education. A total of 5,149 survey questionnaires were completed by students, staff members, faculty, and administrators representing 50 states and all Carnegie Basic Classifications of institutional types. The following are key results of this nationwide survey: 1. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents experienced significantly greater

harassment and discrimination than their heterosexual allies; 2. Transgender respondents experienced higher rates of harassment than cis-

gender men and women; and 3. Multiple minorities (i.e., LGBTQ people who are also people of color) ex-

perienced multiple forms of oppression.

higher education 143

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 143

Table 1 summarizes findings on eight survey items for students, faculty, and administrators of all racial backgrounds.

The Rankin et al. (2010) study set a new standard for comparing climate across campuses. National studies of K–12 school climate and experiences of LGBTQ youth have been available for several years (see Kosciw, 2004; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006; Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008), but information on higher education lagged behind prior to the 2010 report. Although the report brought bad news regarding campus climate, it supplied a much-needed base- line for comparison with later studies as well as a way for institutions to com- pare themselves with peer institutions.

Efforts such as the National College Climate Survey (Rankin et al., 2010) to standardize data on LGBTQ campus climate represent a step forward from single-campus studies by creating a broad national picture. Nevertheless, sin- gle-campus studies remain an important tool for assessing climate and sup- porting policy and programmatic change when indicated. They are typically based on assumptions and research designs drawn from sociology, psychology, and policy analysis. For example, a campus climate study might focus on ex- periences of individuals and their perceptions (psychological), on intergroup relationships (sociological), or on enactment of policies that support LGBTQ people (policy analysis). Many campus climate studies combine these ap- proaches. Single-campus self-studies predominate and serve the essential func- tion of informing campus policies and programs. Climate studies provide baseline data on the experiences of and attitudes about LGBTQ people and are often used to provide evidence for the need to create, improve, or expand LGBTQ programs and services (Sanlo et al., 2002). A number of full-time

144 higher education

Table 1. Percentages of Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual Respondents and Transgender Respondents Reporting Particular Experiences Related to Campus Climate

Lesbian, Gay, or Transgender Experiences Reported Bisexual Respondents Respondents Was target of derogatory remarks 61% 63% Felt deliberately ignored or excluded 47% 61% Felt intimidated or bullied 30% 40% Felt isolated or left out when working in groups 20% 32% Feared for own physical safety 13% 18% Feared getting a bad grade because of a hostile classroom 11% 15% environment (students)

Experienced harassment in classroom (students and faculty) 42% 55% Experienced harassment in public or while walking on campus 52% 65% Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the responses to all survey items came from faculty, administrators, and students. This table summarizes conclusions from Rankin et al. (2010).

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 144

professionals in the area of LGBTQ campus resources reported that campus climate studies were instrumental in the creation and/or expansion of their of- fices (Sanlo et al., 2002), and individual campus climate reports have fulfilled other instrumental and symbolic roles over time.

These field-initiated and field-based studies, often led by administrators in student affairs or other departments, are not designed to fit the criteria of so- called scientific research. They sometimes follow best practices for research design, but they are not intended for distribution beyond the campus or as contributions to general knowledge. Yet they make up a substantial portion of inquiry into the lives and experiences of LGBTQ people in higher education and provide an important foundation for knowledge in the field.

Changing Conceptions of LGBTQ Identities and Experiences The fastest-growing area in LGBTQ studies is that of identities and identity development. There is now a substantial literature on lesbian, gay, and bisexual college student identities, but very little has been written on transgender students or on LGBTQ students with specified backgrounds, identities, or experiences (e.g., students of color, students with disabilities, or students who are from working-class families or are first-generation college students) that intersect with LGBTQ identities . Since the 1990s, LGBTQ research has expanded from studies about how individuals come to understand themselves as LGBTQ people (see D’Augelli, 1994; Cass, 1979; Rhoads, 1994; Savin-Williams, 1990; Troiden, 1979) to, increasingly, subtopics such as spirituality, student leadership, career development, and disabilities (e.g., Abes, 2011; Harley, Nowak, Gas- saway, & Savage, 2002; Love, Bock, Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005; Renn, 2007; Tomlinson & Fassinger, 2003). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities have been effectively normalized and made visible in the field of college student de- velopment. And studies of LGBTQ students of color (e.g., King, 2011; Patton, 2011; Patton Davis & Simmons, 2008; Strayhorn, Blakewood, & DeVita, 2008) are bringing the normalization and visibility agenda to a more diverse population, demonstrating both the presence of LGBTQ students of color on campus and the particularities of their identities and identity development. Latino/a, American Indian, and Asian American students are not yet well represented in this litera- ture. Transgender student identities and LGBTQ identities among faculty and administrators remain underresearched. Studies of LGBTQ Student Identities Bilodeau and Renn (2005) compared stage models of sexual-orientation identity development (e.g., Cass, 1979; Savin-Williams, 1990; Troiden, 1979) to life span

higher education 145

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 145

and other nonlinear models (e.g., D’Augelli, 1994; Fox, 1995; Rhoads, 1994). They pointed out that the former— created before 1990—provide a clear, positivist conception of development as movement from less to more complex ways of un- derstanding self and society; and the latter— created since 1990—account more effectively for the contexts and processes of identity development. Bilodeau and Renn (2005) also noted that few of the stage models were based on empirical samples of youth and college students; more of the nonlinear approaches were based on such samples. Ethnographic exploration of gay college student experi- ences and identities (e.g., Dilley, 2002a, 2002b; Rhoads, 1994) were an important conceptual and methodological bridge from the earlier, psychological, stage- based research to more recent context-based work. Few of these studies deal with diversity of race, ability, or social class within LGBTQ identities or com- munities; and White, able-bodied, and middle-class are assumed norms.

Although researchers continue to conduct a fair number of traditional psy- chological and sociological studies of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identity de- velopment, the more innovative recent and ongoing work incorporates queer theory as a framework for design, analysis, and interpretation. Queer theory enables a more contextual, less categorical examination of development that considers the mutual influences of multiple, fluid identity domains (e.g., race, social class, ability, religion, nationality). Working in the areas of epistemo- logical development, intersectionality (i.e., intersections of identity domains, such as race and gender, and developmental domains, such as epistemology and psychosocial identity), and queer theory, Abes (2009, 2011; Abes & Kasch, 2007) embraces the complexity and inherent contradictions of studying the unstable concept of identity without further reifying identity categories and the construction of normal-against-queer. Her work enables new ways of thinking about policies, programs, and curriculum that might best support stu- dent learning and development.

The study of transgender students is at a similar point: Ongoing, postposi- tivist explorations of transgender student experiences provide valuable evidence in support of the ongoing visibility and normalcy agenda, while a few scholars employ postmodern and queer perspectives to provide theoretical depth to the study of gender identity, genderism, and higher education. The inclusion of a transgender category on a few general surveys of college students (e.g., Longer- beam, Inkelas, Johnson, & Lee, 2007) provides researchers with data from a random sample, as opposed to the convenience and/or snowball samples most often used to recruit participants in studies of transgender individuals (e.g., Beemyn & Rankin, 2011).

Bilodeau (2005, 2009), Pusch (2005), and McKinney (2005) went beyond postpositivism to incorporate queer approaches to gender in their studies of

146 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 146

transgender college students. Although these four studies draw on small sam- ples, they provide models for the potential of queer theory to open the study of gender and gender identity beyond the common focus on creating trans- gender-friendly facilities such as restrooms, locker rooms, and residence halls (see Beemyn et al., 2005). Queer theoretical approaches such as that taken by Bilodeau (2009) allow for an examination of genderism—“a social system of structural inequality with an underlying assumption that there are two, and only two genders” (Bilodeau, 2009, p. 54)—which makes campuses unsafe for trans students and for cisgender women and men who do not conform to expectations of masculinity. Queering theoretical approaches open research on student identities to new perspectives and possibilities that cannot be achieved through postpositive campus climate studies or policy analyses. Studies of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Student Experiences Two national survey studies— rare examples of large-scale surveys of college students that ask for information on sexual orientation— provide evidence of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (not transgender) student experiences on campus. The first, the 2004 National Study of Living-Learning Programs (Longerbeam et al., 2007), which allowed for secondary data analysis on lesbian, gay, and bisexual student experiences— serves as a model for large-scale surveys. The overall data set includes responses from 23,910 students from 34 institutions in 24 states and the District of Columbia. In this study, 4.0% of respondents indicated lesbian, gay, or bisexual identity, and 15, too few to include in sta- tistical analyses, indicated transgender identity. The second study (Carpenter, 2008), addressing college outcomes and sexual orientation, used the Harvard School of Public Health’s College Alcohol Study, which gathered behavioral data for 40,000 students, including gender of sexual partners, from which the author inferred sexual orientation. The author included, among other findings, that gay men have higher GPAs than their heterosexual peers.

Augmenting these two national data sets that include LGB identity, in 2008 the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment instrument began asking for gender (female, male, transgender) and sexual orientation (heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual, unsure). The original survey, used from 2000 to 2008, did not include such items, but data collected from 2008 forward will build an increasingly robust foundation for studies of sexual orientation, gender identity, and student health outcomes. The 2013 national data report indicated that 5% of male respondents and 2% of female respondents replied “Gay/Lesbian” for sexual orientation, 2% and 4% “Bisexual,” and 2% of both sexes reported “Unsure”; a total of 0.2% of respondents replied “Trans- gender” for gender (65% replied “Female,” 33.8% “Male”) (American College

higher education 147

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 147

Health Association, 2013, p. 56). Scholars have just begun to publish analyses of the many physical and mental health variables in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity of respondents in the full national data set. For example, McElroy and Jordan (2014) found that only one in three lesbian or bisexual women in college met national health guidelines for physical activity. Studies of LGBTQ Faculty: Experiences and Identities Studies of LGBTQ faculty, staff, and executive leaders are not as prevalent as studies of students. Those that exist, however, have more often used postmod- ern, critical, and/or queer theory than positivist or postpositivist approaches. The 1990s and early 2000s saw a minor burst of literature that provided insight into the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual academics and administrators, often by field (e.g., in sociology, Taylor & Raeburn, 1995; in psychology, Liddle, Kunkel, Kick, & Hauenstein, 1998; in education, Sears, 2002) or fo- cused on women (e.g., Rothblum, 1995). Like the campus climate surveys for students, these studies relied on categorical definitions of lesbian, gay, and bi- sexual to provide empirical evidence for the need to improve disciplinary, de- partmental, and institutional climate for faculty members and administrators.

Some studies approach LGBTQ faculty experiences using queer theory or a combination of queer and other postmodern lenses on identity and identity construction. Tierney’s (1997) Academic Outlaws: Queer Theory and Cultural Studies in the Academy is an early example, focused not solely on faculty identities but extending into gay and lesbian/queer studies as well. Talburt’s (2000) Subject to Identity: Knowledge, Sexuality, and Academic Practices in Higher Education, a poststructural, interpretive ethnographic study of three lesbian faculty members, stands as the strongest example to date. Talburt ne- gotiated the paradox of researching something (identity) that exists only as it is constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed. Talburt’s contribution is es- pecially marked as it presses the field to take seriously the ways that identities are fluid and contextually bound yet have real consequences for careers in teaching and research.

The status and visibility of transgender higher education faculty are such that no studies focus on them and they are only incidentally included in the re- search literature (e.g., mentions of “LGBTQ faculty”). Occasional legal cases make the news (e.g., “Transgender Professor Runs Afoul of ‘Ideals,’” 2007), as do stories of individual faculty members’ gender transitions (e.g., “Trans- gender Professor Causes a Stir,” 2008; Wilson, 2005). Autobiographical ac- counts offer, at present, the most insight into the transgender faculty member’s experience (see Boylan, 2003; Ladin, 2012).

148 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 148

Evidence-Based Conclusions Based on my analysis of the body of LGBTQ higher education literature, I conclude the following five points, which have support in empirical and nar- rative forms: 1. Campus climate for LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff remains chilly, if

not downright hostile. LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff report harassment and discrimination (Rankin et al., 2010). At 44% of institutions, benefits (e.g., health insurance, access to on-campus housing, facilities use) are not available for same-sex partners on an equal basis with married heterosexual partners (see College and University Professional Association for Human Resources, 2011). Campus-to-campus climate measurements differ, which hinders researchers’ ability to make claims about the national picture, but these studies are useful for determining institutional policies and programs that support inclusive environments for learning, teaching, and work (Brown et al., 2004; Rankin et al., 2010).

2. Genderism affects all members of a community, not only those who are transgender. Expectations about conformity to norms constrain gender ex- pression of all students (see Bilodeau, 2009; Marine, 2011; Patton, 2011).

3. Policies, programs, and services do not currently serve the needs of trans- gender people on campus. There is a need for gender-inclusive public ac- commodations (e.g., residence halls, locker rooms, restrooms), transition- related policies (e.g., for name and gender changes in databases and public listings and name changes for publishing faculty in the reappointment, promotion, and tenure process), and nondiscrimination policies (Beemyn et al., 2005; Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Bilodeau, 2009; Marine, 2011; McKinney, 2005; Pusch, 2005).

4. College and university campuses are a site of identity exploration for LGBTQ students. Opportunities to undertake academic, personal, social, and leadership activities related to sexual orientation and gender identity are important to psychosocial development (Abes, 2011; Abes & Kasch, 2007; Bilodeau & Renn, 2005; Dilley, 2002b; Longerbeam et al., 2007; Patton, 2011; Patton Davis & Simmons, 2008; Renn, 2007).

5. College students’ LGBTQ identities intersect in meaningful ways with racial, ethnic, religious, gender, and other identities (Abes, 2011; Abes & Kasch, 2007; Patton, 2011; Patton Davis & Simmons, 2008; Renn, 2007; Strayhorn et al., 2008).

higher education 149

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 149

Discussion and Examples of Promising Research Directions and Opportunities

Overall, the state of LGBTQ research in higher education is mixed. Some areas, such as campus climate and college student identities, have been well researched; others, such as policy and faculty issues, would benefit from ad- ditional inquiry. The quality of extant research is varied, with small-sample, single-campus qualitative studies predominating. Individual campus climate surveys often rely on samples obtained through LGBTQ e-mail groups or social media and thus risk underrepresenting experiences of people who do not know about or have chosen not to participate in such groups or media. Yet campus climate surveys remain critical for identifying and meeting local needs for policies, programs, and services. Queer theory is infrequently used in studies of LGBTQ issues in higher education, but could be valuable in efforts to address seemingly intractable problems (see Renn, 2010).

Conducting statistical studies of LGBTQ students, faculty, and administra- tors involves substantial challenges. Commonly used national data sets— for example, from the 30-year longitudinal Cooperative Institutional Research Program (University of California, Los Angeles), the National Survey of Stu- dent Engagement (Indiana University), the Beginning Postsecondary Student Survey (U.S. Department of Education), and the Survey of Earned Doctorates (National Science Foundation)—do not include variables that allow for analysis of LGBTQ issues in higher education. Research Methods LGBTQ scholarship in higher education could benefit from attention to research design and methods. Regardless of theoretical approach or research paradigm (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods), existing studies of LGBTQ issues in higher education too frequently rely on convenience samples, limited data, and unsophisticated data analysis and/or interpretation. Collecting random samples of LGBTQ people for quantitative studies and purposeful, criterion- based samples for qualitative studies can be difficult; and accurately defining the complete LGBTQ population from which one is drawing a sample is nearly impossible. But higher education scholars, unlike their colleagues study- ing K–12 education, have the advantage of dealing almost exclusively with non-minors, so no parental consent is required for students to participate in research and one barrier to drawing a sample is eliminated. Higher education researchers use several longitudinal national data surveys on students and their experiences; one strategy to increase access to data on LGBTQ students would be to start including demographic questions on sexual orientation and

150 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 150

gender identity in these surveys. Samples for qualitative studies of LGBTQ students could be improved by relying less on recruitment through campus LGBTQ centers and student organizations and more on screening surveys that ask behavioral as well as identification questions.

Beyond a core group of established scholars who study or have studied LGBTQ issues in higher education (e.g., Elisa Abes, Genny Beemyn, Anthony D’Augelli, Patrick Dilley, Kristen Renn, Susan Talburt, William Tierney), grad- uate students conduct a substantial subset of the research. Certainly graduate students are capable of conducting skillful inquiry, although they are constrained by time and resources in ways that often make national samples or longitudinal qualitative designs unfeasible. Some graduate students may be more sophisti- cated than their faculty mentors in knowledge of queer theory, research-en- hancing technologies, and new analytic approaches. Encouraging partnerships between generations of scholars studying LGBTQ issues may be an especially fruitful way to leverage the resources, time, and experience of established re- searchers while maximizing the contributions of emerging scholars. Educational Practice and Inquiry Examining the research on LGBTQ issues in higher education leads me to offer three recommendations for practice and inquiry. First, we should recognize that campus climate studies remain a key tool in the work of assessing LGBTQ people’s experiences and perceptions, and other people’s perceptions of them. Surprisingly few campuses have conducted follow-up studies to compare progress (if any) since their initial campus climate reports. However, the emer- gence of standardized tools for studying LGBTQ campus climate may facilitate reexaminations, following a decade in which hundreds of institutions have es- tablished nondiscrimination policies, domestic partner benefits, and LGBTQ campus resource centers. Evidence (Rankin et al., 2010) suggests that in spite of these changes, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and especially transgender students continue to face discrimination, harassment, and violence. Changes, if any, in faculty experiences may be harder to assess, since the experiences of faculty were not as well documented in the first place.

Another area in need of attention from education researchers is the place of queer theory and LGBTQ studies in the postsecondary curriculum. Queer theorists of K–12 curriculum and pedagogy offer examples (e.g., Britzman, 1995; Kumashiro, 2001, 2002; Pinar, 1998) on which higher education schol- ars could build. A limited number of scholars in other disciplines offer addi- tional resources for understanding LGBTQ/queer issues in postsecondary contexts (e.g., in anthropology, Lewin & Leap, 2002; in the humanities, social sciences, and history, Lovaas, Elia, & Yelp, 2006). These efforts, if

higher education 151

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 151

expanded, would enrich knowledge and theory about LGBTQ issues in higher education curriculum.

Specifically, there is a need for research on courses and academic programs in LGBT/queer studies. Tierney’s (1997) foundational examination of queer theory and cultural studies in the academy is now over a decade old in a field that has changed much in that time. There has been no recent attempt to syn- thesize information on the place of LGBTQ/queer studies in higher education curriculum and academic programs. I submit that understanding how LGBTQ/queer studies courses and programs evolve within institutions is valu- able for people outside those institutions who seek to create such programs and also for people who want to understand the intellectual history of the field. Intersections With Other Critical Issues in Education Finally, I raise four additional issues that need greater attention in LGBTQ re- search on higher education in the next decade. First is the transition from high school to college. As in many other areas of education scholarship, the bifur- cation of K–12 and postsecondary education does a disservice to the overall research enterprise, to knowledge synthesis, and to the people studied: students, faculty, leaders, and parents. LGBTQ identities and issues extend across the gulf that currently exists between K–12 and higher education research. Whether one considers particular liabilities (increased risk of homelessness, depression, substance abuse) or assets (resilience, creativity, epistemological development) of LGBTQ identity, the transition from high school to college could be a time of particular interest. Attention to buffering the stressors to LGBTQ youth and maximizing the advantages of LGBTQ identity and resilience could facil- itate efforts to increase college degree completion (Dervarics, 2009).

A second key area of intersection is that between higher education research and research on preservice teachers and administrative leadership preparation. Higher education scholars know something about college students— which most preservice teachers are— and about adult learning; and that knowledge can be used to enhance the graduate programs that prepare future education faculty, school principals, and superintendents. Using what is known about students’ perspectives on learning about LGBTQ and other social justice issues could benefit teacher and administrator education programs, and understanding how undergraduate and graduate education programs address LGBTQ issues could benefit higher education scholars. LGBTQ issues could provide a meaningful point of connection between teacher educators and higher education scholars.

A third critical point of intersection is that of LGBTQ issues with educational and public policy. Studies of how policies on bullying, employment discrimi- nation, same-sex marriage, and domestic partner benefits affect educational

152 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 152

outcomes, achievement, and public employment could provide important data for educational and public policy decisions. I recommend a pre-K-to-20 approach— including organizations, students, families, and employees.

Finally, the research areas of globalization and internationalization of higher education are ripe for an infusion of LGBTQ issues. The internationalization of higher education— increases in the presence of international students and scholars in the United States, in the number and proportion of U.S. students studying abroad, and in the number of research and teaching partnerships with institutions outside the United States— is an unavoidable force in higher education in the 21st century. Topics in need of research over the next decade include LGBTQ identities and identity development in international compar- ative contexts; higher education policy, curriculum, and programs; and inter- sections of LGBTQ identities with race, gender, class, and religious and cultural identities in higher education (see Coloma, 2006; Mama, 2004; Mayo, 2007). Country-based and international comparative studies of LGBTQ issues in higher education present rich opportunities for expanding theoretical un- derstanding of gender and sexuality, as well as for learning how to improve higher education institutions and systems in the United States. Other areas undoubtedly will emerge as key topics for LGBTQ research in the next decade, but these four are likely to be among the most critical for improving the field.

Questions Raised by Analysis of the LGBTQ Higher Education Literature

My analysis of the literature leads to four key areas for future inquiry: 1. How can K–12 and higher education LGBTQ research be connected? For

example, what questions and data are most useful in looking at student transitions from K–12 to postsecondary education, and who has the capacity and will to lead research in this area?

2. How can university-based scholars of LGBTQ issues in education work most effectively with professionals doing school-based, community-based, and organization-based inquiry? What are the likely effects on and outcomes for each partner (e.g., a pretenure faculty member partnering with a local school principal)?

3. What funding sources are available— or what existing resources can be made inclusive— to conduct research on LGBTQ issues in education? For example, how can questions of sexual orientation and gender identity be included in surveys by the National Science Foundation and the National

higher education 153

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 153

Center for Education Statistics? (Example: National Study of Postsecondary Faculty [NSPOF], which was recently discontinued, included the option “living in a marriage-like relationship” for marital status— an imperfect but reasonable way to indicate that one is neither married nor single. No option was included to indicate the gender of a spouse-like partner, which limited the survey’s utility for identifying lesbian and gay respondents, but the wording nevertheless provided a better choice than married, single, divorced, or widowed.)

4. As higher education, in particular, becomes increasingly globalized, what are the effects on LGBTQ people? And what influences will LGBTQ people have on globalization? How does policy work in a global context, for example when U.S. LGBTQ students study abroad, or when U.S. insti- tutions have branch campuses in areas where LGBTQ rights are different from those in the United States, such as New York University in Abu Dhabi)?

Conclusion Research on LGBTQ issues in higher education has led to substantial changes in policy and to normalization, on many campuses, of an LGBTQ student presence. Campus climate studies continue to provide information essential to decreasing discrimination and harassment. It can no longer be said that there is a “gap in the literature” on lesbian, gay, and bisexual student identities in general, although there is more to learn about transgender student experiences and identities and about how race, class, religion, and ability intersect with sexual orientation and gender identity development and expression on campus. Studies of LGBTQ faculty and administrators would add to the literature on equity in the academic workplace, and there is more to learn about LGBTQ issues in the higher education curriculum. Advances in research methods, par- ticularly in sampling strategies, will improve the quality of LGBTQ research in higher education Education researchers have a solid foundation on which to build, despite the many questions not yet answered.

References Abes, E. S. (2008). Applying queer theory in practice with college students. Journal of

LGBT Youth, 5(1), 57–77. Abes, E. S. (2009). Theoretical borderlands: Using multiple theoretical perspectives to

challenge inequitable power structures in student development theory. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 141–156.

154 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 154

Abes, E. S. (2011). Exploring the relationship between sexual orientation and religious identities for Jewish lesbian college students. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 15(2), 205– 225.

Abes, E. S., & Kasch, D. (2007). Using queer theory to explore lesbian college students’ multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 48(6), 619– 636.

American College Health Association. (2008). National College Health Assessment. Hanover, MD: Author.

Beemyn, B., Curtis, B., Davis, M., & Tubbs, N. J. (2005). Transgender issues on college campuses. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender identity and sexual orientation: Research, policy, and personal perspectives. New Directions for Student Services, 111 (pp. 49– 60). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender people. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bensimon, E. M. (1992). Lesbian existence and the challenge to normative constructions of the academy. Journal of Education, 174(3), 98–113.

Bilodeau, B. L. (2005). Beyond the gender binary: A case study of two transgender college students at a Midwestern research university. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 29–44.

Bilodeau, B. L. (2009). Genderism: Transgender students, binary systems, and higher ed- ucation. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag.

Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications for practice. In R. L. Sanlo (Ed.), Gender identity and sexual orienta- tion: Research, policy, and personal perspectives. New Directions for Student Services, 111 (pp. 25–40). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boylan, J. F. (2003). She’s not there: A life in two genders. New York: Broadway. Britzman, D. P. (1995). Is there a queer pedagogy? Or, stop reading straight. Educational

Theory, 45, 151–165. Brown, R. D., Clarke, B., Gortmaker, V., & Robinson-Keilig, R. (2004). Assessing the

campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) students using a multiple perspectives approach. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 8–26.

Carpenter, C. S. (2008). Sexual orientation and outcomes in college, Economics of Education Review. 28(6), 693–703. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.010

Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homo- sexuality, 4, 219–235.

College and University Professional Association for Human Resources. (2011). 2011 Com- prehensive survey of college and university benefits programs: Survey fact sheet. Re- trieved from http://www.cupahr.org/surveys/files/benefits2011/Benefits11_Survey_Fact_ Sheet.pdf

Coloma, R. S. (2006). Putting queer to work: Examining empire and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(5), 639–657.

D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). Lesbian and gay male undergraduates’ experiences of harassment and fear on campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(3), 383–395.

higher education 155

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 155

D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dervarics, C. (2009, March 31). Obama agenda focuses on degree completion. Diverse Issues Online. Retrieved from http://www.diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/ article_12435.shtml

Dilley, P. (2002a). 20th century postsecondary practices and policies to control gay students. Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 409–431.

Dilley, P. (2002b). Queer man on campus: A history of non-heterosexual college men, 1945–2000. New York: Routledge.

Fox, R. (1995). Bisexual identities. In A. R. D’Augelli & C. J. Patterson (Eds.), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan (pp. 48–86). New York: Oxford University Press.

Garber, L. (Ed.). (1994). Tilting the tower: Lesbians teaching queer subjects. New York: Routledge.

Harley, D. A., Nowak, T. M., Gassaway, L. J., & Savage, T. A. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students with disabilities: A look at multiple cultural minorities. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 525–538.

Heron, A. (Ed.). (1994). Two teenagers in 20: Writings by gay and lesbian youth. Los An- geles: Alyson Publications.

Howard, K., & Drukman, S. (Eds.). (2000). Out and about on campus: Personal accounts by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students. Los Angeles: Alyson Pub- lications.

King, A. R. (2011). Environmental influences on the development of female college students who identify as multiracial/biracial-bisexual/pansexual. Journal of College Student Development, 52(4), 440–455.

Kosciw, J. G. (2004). The 2003 National School Climate Survey: The school-related expe- riences of our nation’s lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender youth. New York: GLSEN.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The expe- riences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2001). Troubling intersections of race and sexuality: Queer students of color and anti-oppressive education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Kumashiro, K. K. (2002). Troubling education: Queer activism and anti-oppressive edu- cation. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ladin, J. (2012). Through the door of life: A Jewish journey between genders. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Lewin, E., & Leap, W. L. (2002). Out in theory: The emergence of gay and lesbian anthro- pology. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

156 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 156

Liddle, B. J., Kunkel, M. A., Kick, S. L., & Hauenstein, A. L. (1998). The gay, lesbian, bi- sexual psychology faculty experience: A concept map. Teaching of Psychology, 25(1), 19–25.

Longerbeam, S. D., Inkelas, K. K., Johnson, D. R., & Lee, Z. S. (2007). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual college student experiences: An exploratory study. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 215–230.

Lopez, G., & Chism, N. (1993). Classroom concerns of gay and lesbian students: The in- visible minority. College Teaching, 41(3), 97–103.

Lovaas, K. E., Elia, J. P., & Yelp, G. A. (2006). LGBT studies and queer theory: New con- flicts, collaboration, and contested terrain. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.

Love, P. G. (1999). Cultural barriers facing lesbian, gay, and bisexual students at a Catholic college. Journal of Higher Education, 69(3), 298–323.

Love, P. G, Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 193–209.

Mama, A. (2004). Knowledge, culture, identity. Paper presented at UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Global Seminar. Paris, December 8–9, 2003. Retrieved from http://unescoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001833/183323e.pdf

Marine, S. B. (2011). Stonewall’s legacy: Bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender students in higher education (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 37, No. 4). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mayo, C. (2007). Queering foundations: Queer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender educational research. Review of Research in Education, 31, 79–94.

McElroy, J. A., & Jordan, J. N. (2014). Sufficiently and insufficiently active lesbian, bisexual, and questioning female college students: Sociodemographic factors among two age cohorts. Women’s Health Issues, 24(2), e243–e249. doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.whi.2013.12.003

McKinney, J. S. (2005). On the margins: A study of the experiences of transgender college students. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 63–76.

McNaron, T. A. H. (1997). Poisoned ivy: Lesbian and gay academics confronting homo- phobia. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Mintz, B., & Rothblum, E. (Eds.). (1997). Lesbians in academia: Degrees of freedom. New York: Routledge.

Patton, L. D. (2011). Perspectives on identity, disclosure, and the campus environment among African American gay and bisexual men at one historically black college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 77–100.

Patton Davis, L. P., & Simmons, S. (2008). Exploring complexities of multiple identities of lesbians in a Black college environment. Negro Educational Review, 59(3–4), 197–215.

Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (1998). Queer theory in education. New York: Routledge. Pusch, R. S. (2005). Objects of curiosity: Transgender college students’ perceptions of the

reactions of others. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3(1), 45–62. Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A

national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

higher education 157

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 157

Rankin, S., Weber, G., Blumenfeld, W., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 state of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual & transgender people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.

Renn, K. A. (2007). LGBT student leaders and queer activists: Identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer-identified college student leaders and activists. Journal of College Student Development, 48 (3), 311–330.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: State and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 3(2), 132–141.

Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The struggle for a queer identity. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.

Rhoads, R. A. (1997). Implications of the growing visibility of gay and bisexual male stu- dents on campus. NASPA Journal, 34(4), 275–286.

Rothblum, E. D. (1995). Lesbians in academia. NWSA Journal, 7(1), 123–130. Sanlo, R. L., Rankin, S., & Schoenberg, R. (Eds.). (2002). Our place on campus: Lesbian,

gay, bisexual, transgender services and programs in higher education. Westwood, CT: Greenwood.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1990). Gay and lesbian adolescents. Marriage and Family Review, 14, 197–216.

Sears, J. T. (2002). The institutional climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual education faculty: What is the pivotal frame of reference? Journal of Homosexuality, 43(1), 11–37.

Strayhorn, T. L., Blakewood, A. M., & DeVita, J. M. (2008). Factors affecting the college choice of African American gay male undergraduates: Implications for retention. Na- tional Association of Student Affairs Professionals Journal, 11(1), 88–108.

Talburt, S. (2000). Subject to identity: Knowledge, sexuality, and academic practices in higher education. Albany: SUNY Press

Taylor, V., & Raeburn, N. C. (1995). Identity politics as high-risk activism: Career conse- quences for lesbian, gay, and bisexual sociologists. Social Problems, 42(2), 252–273.

Tierney, W. G. (1994). Self and identity in a post-modern world: A life story. In D. McLaugh- lin & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Naming silenced lives: Personal narratives and the process of educational change (pp. 119–134). New York: Routledge.

Tierney, W. G. (1997). Academic outlaws: Queer theory and cultural studies in the academy. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Tierney, W. G., & Dilley, P. (1998). Constructing knowledge: Educational research and gay and lesbian studies. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 49–72). New York: Routledge.

Tomlinson, M. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2003). Career development, lesbian identity devel- opment, and campus climate among lesbian college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(6), 845–860.

Transgender professor causes a stir on return to Yeshiva U. (2008, September 8). Chronicle News Blog. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/news/article/5103/transgender-professor- causes-a-stir-on-return-to-yeshiva-u

Transgender professor runs afoul of “ideals” at Christian university. (2007, February 6). Chronicle News Blog. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/news/article/1614/ transgender-professor-runs-afoul-of-ideals-at-christian-university

158 higher education

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 158

Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity acquisition. Psychi- atry, 42, 362–373.

Wilson, R. (2005, October 7). Second sex. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(7), A10. Windmeyer, S. L. (Ed.). (2005). Brotherhood: Gay life in college fraternities. New York:

Alyson Books. Windmeyer, S. L., & Freeman, P. W. (Eds.). (2001). Secret sisters: Stories of being lesbian

and bisexual in a college sorority. New York: Alyson Books.

higher education 159

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 159

ch08.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 160

Chapter 9

School Workers Jackie M. Blount

Through history, one powerful mission of education in the United States has been the formation of students’ gender and sexual identities. A primary means of accomplishing this is by controlling who is hired for school work and what responsibilities are assigned to them. This chapter briefly outlines how that process has played out with LGBTQ teachers and other educators.

The ranks of educators always have included persons who have desiredothers of the same sex or who have transgressed conventional gender norms— despite the fact that until recently there was barely any mention of them in scholarship about teachers, school administrators, college faculty and staff, and other school workers. Historically, educators who might identify today as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) likely preferred this silent treatment, given that they typically risked losing their chosen pro- fession were their identities or desires to be known publicly. LGBTQ educators have responded to a range of historical and social contexts designed to restrict their presence in the field by employing a number of adaptive strategies, such as wearing strictly gender-normed apparel, switching pronouns when discussing personal matters, avoiding mention of one’s personal life, affecting hyper- masculine or hyper-feminine demeanors, remaining silent rather than discussing one’s identity if different from the sex assigned at birth, using coded language to find and communicate with one another, or performing so exceptionally well that school communities might endeavor to look the other way. Conversely, however, educational changes occasionally have swept across the country with the effect of creating safe places that not only allowed gender-transgressing or same-sex-desiring people to find places in schools but actually nurtured them. For example, when women teachers spread westward across the United States, by necessity they sometimes lived in their schoolhouses or teacherages, usually with other women teachers. In rural and urban areas alike, communities of women teachers lived together, and some enjoyed romantic relationships with one another. The story of LGBTQ educators, then, is a complex one replete with secrecy, with fear about how gender and sexual norms will pass from one generation to the next, with moments of opportunity and praxis, and

161

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 161

finally, with an open call to acknowledge our existence and better understand our circumstances. Why have LGBTQ educators largely been left out of the historical record?

In the Victorian era, same-sex desire generally was considered unspeakable. The topic simply did not appear in works describing educators. The same was true of individuals whose gender identities differed from the sex assigned them at birth. Not until the early 20th century did sexuality and gender ex- pression became a focus of scientific interest, when sexologists used terms such as homosexual, deviant, invert, or lesbian to describe persons at the center of this new research. Exhaustive studies cataloged cases of women who passed as men, men who engaged in sexual relations exclusively with other men, and persons born with seemingly indeterminate sex-specific traits. Very little of this scholarship affected education research of the time, however, except for the occasional work decrying the supposed influence of “spinster” (i.e., lesbian) teachers on their students. Although there was growing concern that many among the nation’s unmarried women teachers might be lesbians, the widespread benefit of having a large pool of inexpensive and relatively well-educated teachers dulled any sense of urgency to alter school employment practices. Besides, discussing the matter publicly was viewed by most as a bit unseemly, though a few studies approached the subject obliquely by extolling the particular benefits that married women teachers might bring to the work. By the Cold War era, however, a glut of potential teachers allowed schools to

scrutinize the ranks. In a “homosexual panic” that spread from downsizing mil- itary units to governmental institutions and finally to schools, communities quietly purged educators who were thought to be homosexual or who transgressed gender norms, which was thought to connote homosexuality. Typically, the purges were described euphemistically in newspapers or in sealed court pro- ceedings. They were rarely mentioned in educational scholarship of the time. The silence came to an end in the 1970s as the fledgling gay liberation

movement spawned public demonstrations and annual pride parades in which a few teachers mustered the courage to march, though sometimes with paper bags over their heads. A powerful and deafening backlash followed immedi- ately, in the form of nationally publicized referenda on gay rights that specif- ically placed lesbian and gay teachers at the center of discourse. Critics such as Anita Bryant and John Briggs argued that “militant homosexual teachers” intended to recruit children into the “homosexual lifestyle.” Despite the lack of credible research, then or now, linking same-sex desire with pedophilia, the insinuation of a link proved to be a potent tactic for galvanizing political con- stituencies and raising money. Notwithstanding the high decibel levels of the campaigns, the education research published at the time largely ignored edu-

162 school workers

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 162

cators who desired persons of the same sex, displayed unconventional gender identities, and/or identified as transgender. Researchers did not view such ed- ucators as subjects worthy of study; moreover, those educators would have had to put their careers at risk even to volunteer as research participants. Em- ployment discrimination against gay, lesbian, transgender, and gender non- conforming educators was rampant— and there was little legal recourse. By the 1980s and 1990s, pioneering gay and lesbian academic activists had

created niches in higher education where scholars organized and pursued re- search on sexuality and gender identity. Historians, psychologists, sociologists, and scholars in a variety of fields published significant and groundbreaking work, such as John D’Emilio’s seminal history, Sexual Politics, Sexual Com- munities, 1940–1970: The Making of a Sexual Minority (1983). In general, however, education researchers continued to avoid the study of LGBTQ edu- cators. With the longstanding taboo on the topic in education, researchers were likely to find their work marginalized and career-limiting for tenure con- sideration. The LGBTQ-related work produced during the 1980s and 1990s primarily concerned meeting the needs of LGBTQ youth, who confronted multiple threats such as bullying, homelessness, AIDS, substance abuse, os- tracism, alienation, and the temptation of suicide. Beyond the inattention of education researchers over the past century, other

complex factors have exacerbated the difficulties of LGBTQ education re- search. First of all, for LGBTQ persons, defining terms that encompass who we are is difficult. Notions of sexuality and gender are ever-shifting targets, and they are intimately intertwined. As an example of transient notions of sexuality, men in the early 20th century were not necessarily considered ho- mosexual or deviant if they were passive partners in male-male sexual acts, whereas later in the century, they were. Similarly, because middle-class White women of the Victorian era were ideally thought to have little, if any sexuality or sexual desire, female-female sexual acts were inconceivable to some; but that view shifted dramatically within a few decades. Notions of gender and sexuality historically have been intertwined as well, with difficult-to-delineate boundaries. During the Cold War, for instance, women who dressed in men’s clothes might automatically have been considered lesbians— and local laws in many parts of the country even compelled their arrest. Essentially, gender transgression was construed as including same-sex desire. The meanings of terms that we as education researchers use to describe our

areas of focus have shifted as well. In conducting research, should we use terms as they were employed historically— because terms both reflect and shape lived realities? Should we use contemporary terms to describe historical persons, be- haviors, and identities? Or should we find some other negotiated stance? For

school workers 163

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 163

example, during the late 1800s and early 1900s, some researchers described a “third sex.” Persons encompassed by this term do not neatly translate into con- temporary categories. Another illustration is the word homosexual. Early in the 20th century, persons who sexually desired others of the same sex might have used that term to describe their own behavior. By mid-century, the term generally had come to signify an identity. But by late century, individuals hostile to persons with same-sex behaviors or identities used the term as disparagement. Are we looking at identities, behaviors, both, or something else? During

the 20th century, the term homosexual shifted from describing behaviors in which one might engage to describing an expression of the person one might be. As we seek to understand what happens over an expanse of time, such shifts make it difficult to define what lies at the center of analysis.

Research About LGBTQ Educators Over Time Early 20th Century During the late 19th and early 20th century, there was no explicit research on educators who desired others of the same sex or who defied gender norms. Nonetheless, researchers and governmental officials were quite concerned about changing trends in school employment by sex and, to a lesser degree, marital status. As women rushed into the classroom following the Civil War, a series of reports tracked their eventual monopoly in the field (Blount, 1998; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1965; Strober & Lanford, 1986). The authors of much of this research were concerned primarily about revealing women’s rap- idly increasing dominance of teaching. Biennial reports of the U.S. government also typically tallied numbers and percentages of male teachers who were married and, in some cases, included the number of their children. These data tended to be used to argue that male teachers deserved higher salaries, pre- sumably to assist them in supporting their families (Blount, 1998). The men who remained in teaching then became the subject of scholarship

aimed at understanding whether women’s overwhelming presence in the field somehow emasculated their male students. The author of a 1903 study famously reported that to “develop a virile man,” there should be more male teachers. Otherwise, “the boy in America is not being brought up to punch another boy’s head or to stand having his own punched in a healthy and proper manner. . . . There is a strange and indefinable feminine air coming over the men; a tendency towards a . . . sexless tone of thought” (Armstrong, 1903/1969, p. 13). Concern extended beyond the plight of boys, however. A variety of reports described how the changed nature of teaching— with its decreased salaries, increased oversight by new classes of administrators with ever-greater posi-

164 school workers

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 164

tional authority, and reduced need for substantial intellectual engagement— supposedly appealed to women while repelling men. Some writers went so far as to question the masculinity of men who chose to remain in the classroom. A steady drumbeat of articles, reports, and books encouraged men to move into the more manly realm of school administration, work that quickly was configured to appeal to individuals wishing to earn higher salaries as well as to enjoy greater power and social position, work that, as one writer expressed it, required “red blood, hard muscle, virile speech, [and] manly manners” (Blount, 2005, p. 26). Between the Wars Women won national suffrage in 1920, in no small part due to the highly or- ganized and effective political pressure exerted by hundreds of thousands of relatively well-educated women teachers around the country (Blount, 1998, pp. 61–90). Most of these women teachers were single, partly because of re- strictions on the employment of married women who might face conflicts be- tween “two masters” and partly due to choice or other circumstances. Because of teaching, for the first time large numbers of women could live independently of their families, earn their own income, and enjoy a measure of earned re- spectability and influence in their communities. With newly won political power in the form of the vote, though, many began to fear that women were gaining too much. It was in this context that a movement brewed in which critics charged that “the movement among women towards their own liberation . . . has been accompanied by a marked development of the homogenic passion among the female sex” (Carpenter, 1912, pp. 72–73). Several studies in the 1920s and 1930s described a connection between newfound successes of women in the public sphere and a tendency to remain unmarried. Women pro- filed in Who’s Who in America were far more likely to be single, for example, than those in the general population. So, too, were women inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. Katharine Bement Davis, who began her career as a teacher, later conducted an extensive Rockefeller Foundation–funded study, Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women (1929/1972), in which she surveyed 1,000 married and 1,200 unmarried college-educated women. Teachers and superintendents accounted for over half of the single women in her sample, so prevalent were they in the workforce. Of the single women she studied, almost half described having had either intense sexual or emotional relationships with other women (pp. 247, 263). While Davis portrayed these results in a positive manner, others increasingly

came to view single women educators as somehow sexually suspect, as lesbians, as “old maid teachers . . . [who were] the scarecrow in the educational

school workers 165

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 165

field” (Blount, 2005, p. 73). An National Education Association (NEA) report argued that married women should be allowed to teach in order to “remove the ‘old-maid school teacher’ cliché which is so distasteful to many teachers and so injurious to the morale of many of the younger members of the profes- sion” (NEA, 1942, p. 61). Another writer simply explained that the work of teaching needed to change so as not to cause so many women to become “queer” (Blount, 2005, p. 76). Accompanying this fear of “queer” teachers was a growing sentiment to keep seemingly homosexual teachers, male or fe- male, from influencing their students to become homosexual, too. Willard Waller, in his classic work The Sociology of Teaching (1932), insisted that “nothing seems more certain than that homosexuality is contagious.” The best way to protect students, he contended, was to keep seemingly homosexual ed- ucators out of schools in the first place by scrutinizing their “carriage, man- nerisms, voice, speech.” Essentially, he implied that unmarried status and cross-gender traits seemed to connote homosexuality (pp. 147–149). Cold War When World War II veterans returned to civilian responsibilities, education work changed on several fronts. First, mounting pressure to get rid of single women and instead to hire married women teachers culminated in a national wave of policy changes in the years immediately following the war. Not only did married women displace single women teachers; their numbers increased steeply and in far greater percentages than their representation in the general workforce (Blount, 1998, pp. 104–105). In one generation, teaching changed from the work of single women to the work of married women. On a second front, returning male veterans needed jobs, but most could not

envision entering what had come to be known as “women’s work.” School of- ficials sought to entice men to teaching by offering them salary supplements for coaching athletic teams and promising a fast track to administrative work with its higher salaries and seeming masculine appropriateness. During these years, women who had served as county superintendents in Midwestern and Western states were quickly displaced by men (Blount, 1998). Similarly, men began taking elementary principalships as women saw their representation in the work drop from 56% in 1950 to only 4% in 1960 (National Council of Ad- ministrative Women in Education, 1965). School boards wanted not just men to run the schools but, notably, masculine men. A gloating official described a particular administrator they had been lucky enough to hire: “The man selected could not be labeled as an effeminate being. He was a former collegiate athletic hero. His physique was comparable to any of the mythical Greek gods. He was truly the ultimate in manliness. The last, but not least in importance of his

166 school workers

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 166

personal characteristics, was the fact that he was married” (Leonard, 1946, pp. 21–22). Indeed, board members wanted to hire married men, preferably with children, to lead their schools. A 1952 report on the superintendency from the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) happily claimed that 97.3% of all male urban superintendents were married, in contrast with only 69% of men in the general population. However, the same report in- dicated that among women superintendents, one woman was married for every five who were single, widowed, or divorced (AASA, 1952). Clearly, opposing standards prevailed. On a third front, schools began to search for and purge their ranks of sus-

pected homosexual teachers. These purges followed in parallel with purges in the military as it sought to downsize after the war. Homosexual communities had gained greater visibility in urban centers during the war as large, transient populations of persons sought to work in military-related industries or the military itself— most of which existed in single-sex facilities or communities. Furthermore, Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin’s landmark report on Sexual Be- havior in the Human Male was published in 1948, and what was expected to be a dry tome suddenly became a much-discussed national bestseller. One of the best known findings of the study concerned the much greater than antici- pated extent of men’s same-sex sexual activities: about half of all men expressed some erotic attraction to other men— and at least one-third had reached orgasm with men. The 1953 companion volume, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard), revealed its own surprises, including a finding that 19% of women aged 40 or older had experienced some intentional sexual contact with other women. Among those who never married, the rate rose to 24%. At first, these findings simply stimulated much interested discussion. However, only two years after Kinsey et al.’s study on the human male, a Senate committee, much in sympathy with Senator Joseph McCarthy, produced an inflammatory report entitled “Employment of Homo- sexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government” (1950/1975). The committee urged governmental agencies to do all in their power to rid their ranks of sus- pected homosexuals, who were thought to be security risks and sources of moral contagion. Such fears spread quickly. That same year, the nationally popular magazine Coronet published what editors called “a significant survey of the entire subject [of homosexual teachers in schools] as it endangers the youth of America— the most comprehensive such survey ever to be published in a national magazine” (Major, 1950, p. 101). In the years that followed, law enforcement groups around the country

worked with school officials to launch investigations into supposed networks of homosexual teachers. The most infamous of these was Florida’s Johns

school workers 167

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 167

Committee, profiled exhaustively in Karen Graves’ groundbreaking and im- portant book And They Were Wonderful Teachers: Florida’s Purge of Gay and Lesbian Teachers (2009). Graves describes how the Johns Committee identified teachers, systematically grilled and threatened them, and eventually revoked their professional credentials. Dozens of schoolteachers and faculty at Florida’s public universities eventually lost their jobs and disappeared from view— but many more who remained, in Florida as well as around the country, absorbed the threat and toed the line. And in a final turn, the work of school administra- tion came to incorporate the policing of boundaries of acceptable sexuality and gender presentation— of school workers and students. After Stonewall The now-famous Stonewall Riots of 1969 signaled the beginnings of a fully visible movement around the country for gay liberation. Although LGBTQ persons and allies hit the streets to campaign for equal employment, housing, and other legal rights as well as to celebrate and enjoy their identities, public attention quickly focused on perhaps the most vulnerable subgroup in the movement: educators. Karen Harbeck, in her remarkable, pioneering book Gay and Lesbian Educators: Personal Freedoms— Public Constraints (1997), traces those years in which a few teachers, who lost their jobs because of their status as gay men or lesbians, chose to break with the past by publicly con- fronting their dismissals and mounting full legal challenges. In what became a series of high-profile cases, terminated teachers won the legal support of the ACLU. Peggy Burton (Oregon), John Gish (New Jersey), Joseph Acanfora (Maryland), and James Gaylord (Washington) initiated their legal challenges in 1971 or 1972. After protracted court proceedings, unfortunately none of these teachers was permitted to return to the classroom; however, each one achieved legal breakthroughs that, taken together, helped strengthen the posi- tions of other lesbian and gay teachers around the country. Their cases also at- tracted the attention of the NEA and the AFT, each of which eventually went on record in support of the rights of lesbian and gay educators— meaning that they would provide vitally needed legal support as well. In a number of com- munities, lesbian and gay educators even formed their own associations to fight for their rights and share information. And, of course, some gay, lesbian, and bisexual teachers and teacher groups participated in Stonewall-commem- orating annual pride parades. The sudden heightened visibility of gay and lesbian educators caught the

attention of Anita Bryant, who in 1977 sought to overturn recently won gay rights measures in Miami by evoking the specter of “homosexual teachers” preying on schoolchildren or otherwise encouraging them to become homo-

168 school workers

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 168

sexual. Her message, unsupported by facts, resonated with many citizens in South Florida— and around the country— as she took her campaign to national audiences through television shows such as Jim Bakker’s The PTL Club and Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. Bakker and Robertson both marveled at the un- precedented amount of viewer mail that resulted from her appearances, and the equally unprecedented amount of funding that rolled in to support Bryant’s “Save Our Children Campaign.” Ambitious politicians around the country took note and soon incorporated Bryant’s themes into their plans, most notably John Briggs, a California legislator with gubernatorial aspirations (Harbeck, 1997; Blount, 2005). Briggs planned to become a viable candidate for governor by campaigning

against homosexuality, specifically against homosexual teachers in the class- room. He introduced a bill in the state legislature to prohibit homosexuals from teaching, but, as he anticipated, the measure failed. He then took the matter to the public by introducing Proposition 6, a referendum on whether lesbians and gay men— and their allies— should be allowed to teach in schools. When Briggs succeeded in gathering enough signatures to initiate the referen- dum, it appeared that his supporters had an overwhelming advantage in the state. Lesbian and gay activists were used to organizing political events locally, but not at the scale necessary to mount a credible statewide counteroffensive. And lesbian and gay teachers and their allies, the persons targeted by Prop 6, faced a particularly vexing challenge: They needed to defend themselves, but by doing so they would almost certainly lose their jobs should the referendum succeed. Nevertheless, lesbian and gay teachers and their allies organized and put themselves on the line. A powerful and diverse coalition of grassroots gay and lesbian rights organizations emerged, employing brilliant strategies, in- vesting countless volunteer hours, and making friends around the state. In the end, the newly energized and organized movement succeeded in defeating Briggs’s handiwork— and it succeeded, as well, in becoming a nationwide force to be reckoned with (Blount, 2005, pp. 131–155). From the late 1970s through the mid-1990s, the fortunes of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, and, in some cases, transgender educators began to shift. Although many communities and states, freshly sensitized about the existence of LGBTQ educators, resisted employing them to the extent possible or ostracized or oth- erwise punished them when their presence was discovered, other localities began to grant LGBTQ educators a small measure of respect, if not full em- ployment rights. It was during these years that a few LGBTQ educators began to speak publicly about their experiences. Some were interviewed for news- papers, magazines, and a small number of books. In 1985 Eric Rofes published an account of his activism on behalf of LGBTQ teachers: Socrates, Plato, and

school workers 169

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 169

Guys Like Me: Confessions of a Gay Schoolteacher. In 1988, members of a lesbian collective released a set of stories describing their experiences in the classroom: The Lesbian in Front of the Classroom: Writings by Lesbian Teach- ers (Sidaway, Hart, Rosa, Parmeter, & Stein). And in 1994, Kevin Jennings published an anthology of first-person accounts by LGBTQ teachers: One Teacher in 10: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories. During the 1980s and 1990s, however, public attention shifted from LGBTQ

educators to the plight of LGBTQ students, particularly as the AIDS epidemic ripped through gay communities, threatening to claim youth as well. In 1987, the NEA Representative Assembly watched a video feed of Ryan White, a high school student with hemophilia who had contracted AIDS through a transfusion, as he described the ostracism he endured on account of having a frightening disease associated primarily with gay men. In the same year, the NEA Representative Assembly approved a resolution that gave the association’s full support for the development of counseling for school students that affirmed LGBTQ identities, rather than the more traditional approach of denying or re- pressing them. Then in 1989, a much-publicized federal report documented that “gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30 percent of completed youth suicides annually. . . . The root of the problem of gay youth suicide is a society that discriminates against and stigmatizes homosexuals while failing to rec- ognize that a substantial number of its youth has a gay or lesbian orientation” (Gibson, 1989, p. 110). Over the next decade, the center of concern about LGBTQ issues in schools shifted to students and away from school workers. But LGBTQ school workers continued to contribute by serving as faculty ad- visors for student Gay-Straight Alliances, which proliferated rapidly around the country during the late 1990s and early 2000s. Many of these school work- ers also were members of a national organization that, not surprisingly, changed its name from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Teachers Network to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), signaling a broader focus, not to mention a decreased emphasis on teachers.i Groups within the NEA en- gaged in similar work.

Contemporary Research From the overview provided in the previous section, it is clear that until recently, little research has focused explicitly on the experiences and working conditions of LGBTQ educators. However, as I described earlier, some research done ostensibly for other purposes has illuminated important aspects of the lives and work of these educators, if only indirectly. For example, the studies

170 school workers

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 170

on the superintendency that AASA published periodically over the past century proudly documented the disproportionately high percentage of married men holding the top local school office— a result that can tell us much today about the extent to which school boards have been unwilling to hire single men, or, for that matter, single women. When we see that contemporary AASA studies show similar results, a pattern becomes clear. Over the past two decades, however, a rapidly growing body of research

on LGBTQ educators has emerged. Much of it has, of necessity, focused on the crucial issue with which LGBTQ educators still must contend: to what de- gree will one be “out” in the classroom? Pat Griffin addressed this issue directly in her 1992 piece “From Hiding Out to Coming Out: Empowering Lesbian and Gay Educators.” The same year, Madiha Didi Khayatt released Lesbian Teachers: An Invisible Presence, in which she detailed the kinds of decisions lesbian teachers in her extensive qualitative study needed to make to negotiate the treacherous terrain of largely homophobic work environments. Rita Kissen interviewed over one hundred lesbian and gay school workers in various kinds of positions for her 1996 study The Last Closet: The Real Lives of Lesbian and Gay Teachers. In this volume, she probed how these school workers reconciled (or did not reconcile) their identities with the demands made of them at work. More recently, Janna (Jackson) Kellinger published a number of important studies describing how queer teachers manage their sometimes dichotomous identities (2006, 2007, 2009). In Unmasking Identities: An Exploration of the Lives of Gay and Lesbian Teachers (2007), she closely followed the experiences of nine lesbian and gay teachers as they made sense of their instructional responsibilities. She tracked the strategies they employed, including striving toward exceptional performance in the hope that it would shield them from backlash. Finally, Therese Quinn and Erica Meiners took a more activist-oriented ap-

proach to looking at the work of queer teachers in their 2009 book Flaunt it! Queers Organizing for Public Education and Justice. So, too, did Mollie Black- burn, Caroline Clark, Lauren Kenney, and Jill Smith in Acting Out! Combating Homophobia Through Teacher Activism, which also appeared in 2009. In this study, teachers from a variety of districts formed an inquiry group devoted to challenging oppressive conditions in schools for LGBTQ persons and allies— and also to engaging in activism to create something better. In the end, far more research needs to be conducted— from a variety of dif-

ferent perspectives and methodologies— on the experiences and conditions of LGBTQ educators. Perhaps now a few more educators feel secure enough about keeping their jobs and handling any social repercussions that we will see a bur- geoning scholarship in the years ahead. And perhaps now we will see enough

school workers 171

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 171

interest among education researchers that promotion and tenure committees will value this work and granting agencies will support it. The work is important in and of itself. It is also significant because one of the most central and powerful missions of education is the formation of students’ gender and sexual identities, whether or not the process is explicitly acknowledged. And still, one of the most powerful elements in the implementation of that mission is the selection and regulation of the school workers with whom students engage.

Note 1. This organization started as a support group for independent school teachers with

the acronym GLISTEN, for “Gay, Lesbian Independent School Teachers Network.” Later, it changed its name to the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Teachers Network (GLSTN) and finally, to GLSEN.

References American Association of School Administrators. (1952). Thirtieth yearbook: The American

school superintendency. Washington, DC: Author. Armstrong, H. (1969). Reports of the Mosely Educational Commission to the United States

of America. New York: Arno Press and New York Times. (Original work published 1903)

Blackburn, M., Clark, C., Kenney, L., & Smith, J. (2009). Acting out! Combating homo- phobia through teacher activism. New York: Teachers College Press.

Blount, J. M. (1998). Destined to rule the schools: Women and the superintendency, 1873– 1995.Albany: State University of New York Press.

Blount, J. M. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school work in the twentieth century. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Carpenter, E. (1912). The intermediate sex: A study of some transitional types of men and women. New York: Mitchell Kennerley.

Davis, K. B. (1972). Factors in the sex life of twenty-two hundred women. New York: Arno Press and New York Times. (Original work published 1929)

D’Emilio, J. (1983). Sexual politics, sexual communities, 1940–1970: The making of a sexual minority. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide: Vol. 3. Prevention and intervention in youth suicide (pp. 110– 142). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Graves, K. (2009). And they were wonderful teachers: Florida’s purge of gay and lesbian teachers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. In K. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students and curricula (pp. 167–196). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

172 school workers

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 172

Harbeck, K. (1997). Gay and lesbian educators: Personal freedoms— public constraints. Malden, MA: Amethyst Press.

Jennings, K. (1994). One teacher in 10: Gay and lesbian educators tell their stories. Los Angeles: Alyson.

Jackson, J. (2006). “Removing the masks: Considerations by gay and lesbian teachers when negotiating the closet door.” Journal of Poverty, 10(2), 27–52.

Jackson, J. (2007). Unmasking identities: An exploration of the lives of gay and lesbian teachers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.

Jackson, J. (2009). “Teacher by day. Lesbian by night”: Queer(y)ing identities and teaching. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 6(2), 52–70.

Khayatt, M. D. (1992). Lesbian teachers: An invisible presence. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., & Martin, C. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadel- phia: W. B. Saunders.

Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W., Martin, C., & Gebhard, P. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

Kissen, R. (1996). The last closet: The real lives of lesbian and gay teachers. New York: Praeger.

Leonard, V. E. (1946). No man’s land. American School Board Journal (September), 21–22. Major, R. (1950). New moral menace to our youth. Coronet (September), 101–108. National Council of Administrative Women in Education. (1965). Needed: More women

in school administration. Senior Scholastic Teachers’ Edition, 86 (April 8), 1. National Education Association. (1942). Marriage as related to eligibility. NEA Research

Bulletin, 20 (March), 60–61. Quinn, T., & Meiners, E. (2009). Flaunt it! Queers organizing for public education and

justice. New York: Peter Lang. Rofes, E. (1985). Socrates, Plato, and guys like me: Confessions of a gay schoolteacher.

Boston: Alyson. Sidaway, C., Hart, E., Rosa, M., Parmeter, S., & Stein, A. (1988). The lesbian in front of

the classroom: Writings by lesbian teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: McNaughton and Gunn. Strober, M., & Lanford, A. (1986). The feminization of public school teaching: Cross-sec-

tional analysis, 1850–1880. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 11(2), 212–235.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1965). Statistical history of the United States from colonial times to the present. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Senate Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments. (1975). “Employ- ment of homosexuals and other sex perverts in government.” In L. Parr (Ed.), Govern- ment versus homosexual. New York: Arno Press. (Reprint of 1950 report from U.S. Senate, 81st Congress 2nd Session, Committee on Expenditures in the Executive De- partments)

Waller, W. (1932). The sociology of teaching. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

school workers 173

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 173

ch09.qxp 4/7/15 10:49 AM Page 174

Chapter 10

Use of Large-Scale Data Sets and LGBTQ Education

George L. Wimberly

Large-scale data sets offer a wealth of information that expands our understanding of LGBTQ school experiences at the individual level and explores how school structure affects these experiences. Federal and state governments and other organizations reg- ularly collect information on a wide range of attitudes, behaviors, opinions, experiences, and individual- and institutional-level characteristics through surveys, interviews, and other large-scale data collections. This chapter provides a brief overview of some of the leading large-scale data sets that researchers and scholars currently use and could potentially increase use of to expand knowledge on LGBTQ issues in education research.

Large-scale data sets are a significant resource used to study lesbian,gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) educational issues.Many of these data sets provide comprehensive information on school populations and include responses and information that researchers can employ to identify LGBTQ students and describe these students’ school experiences and behaviors, as well as study their academic achievement and educational and workplace outcomes. Large-scale data sets often contain information ob- tained through surveys and interviews from large and generally representative samples of people, institutions, or groups. The data can be examined through both simplistic and elaborate statistical analysis and can be presented in figures, tables, and graphs for multiple audiences. Many of the existing large data sets allow researchers to study LGBTQ-related topics such as child learning and development; developmental factors affecting sexual minority youth; the impact of harassment and victimization on educational achievement and morale; and psychological effects of social stigma on self-esteem, academic achievement, and/or workplace productivity for students and teachers. Fur- thermore, some of these data sets can be used to examine the impact of school policies or programs in providing a safe school environment and fostering success. Analyzing public opinion and policy preferences by education level and school experiences across a wide range of LGBTQ issues are among the many other topics ripe for exploration with large-scale data sets.

175

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 175

This chapter describes and discusses several large-scale national and state data sets that provide a glimpse of LGBTQ students’ school and educational experiences and behaviors, give information about public attitudes and opinions toward LGBTQ issues by educational level, and provide demographic infor- mation on household family type and structure (see Table 1). It focuses on two types of large-scale data sets: (a) student- and school-level data, and (b) general U.S. population data at either the individual or household level. Some of these data sets focus specifically on student- and school-level experiences at one time point (cross-sectional data) or follow students across several years (longitudinal data). Other data sets focus solely on LGBTQ-identified students or include questions to identify same-sex behavior, attraction, or household structure; yet others contain information on the general student population. Still other data sets focus on the general adult population and their opinions and experiences surrounding LGBTQ issues. Whether cross-sectional or lon- gitudinal, and whether they sample by sexual orientation or not, these data sets provide information about the school experiences, the educational context, and/or the effect of educational outcomes.

This chapter begins with a description of the various questions and methods that the developers of large-scale data sets use to capture LGBTQ status. It

176 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

Table 1. Large-Scale National and State Data Sets With LGBTQ Data

Survey Instrument Participants School- and Student-Focused Data Sets Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network Students in Grades 6–12 (GLSEN) National School Climate Survey (NSCS)

Campus Pride National College Undergraduate and graduate students, Climate Survey (NCCS) faculty members, university staff, and

administrators National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) Undergraduate students National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health Students in Grades 7–12 (Add Health) / Adolescent Health and Academic Achievement Study (AHAA)

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System Students in Grades 7–12 (YRBSS) General Population–Focused Data Sets Individual-Level Data Sets General Social Survey (GSS) Adults ages 18 and older National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) Individuals ages 15–44

Household-Level Data Sets U.S. Census / American Community Survey (ACS) Households

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 176

then presents an in-depth overview of several of the leading large-scale data sets that researchers are using and could potentially use to examine LGBTQ issues in education; the chapter also highlights some of the significant findings these data yield on LGBTQ educational issues and discusses the strengths and limitations of the data sets. It concludes with recommendations for developing future large-scale data sets.

Item Structure to Identify LGBTQ Status The large-scale data sets discussed in this chapter ask different questions and use various questions to capture LGBTQ status, sexual orientation, or sexual minority label. Appendices A–C give an overview of the different items that are used to identify and classify LGBTQ status across and within the various survey instruments. These items address four areas: (a) sexual identity, (b) sexual behavior, (c) romantic or sexual attraction, and (d) household structure or living arrangement.

The sexual identity questions tend to address how people describe their sexual orientation or see themselves as sexual individuals. The response categories across the survey instruments vary greatly and include choices such as heterosexual, lesbian, gay, lesbian or gay, bisexual, questioning, queer, or unsure. In many cases the response lists do not contain every pos- sible category for identifying LGBTQ status, nor are the categories mutually exclusive, because the respondent can select multiple categories. Often listed within the sexual identity questions are items about transgender status, the “T” in LGBTQ. The National School Climate Survey (NSCS), discussed in further detail in this chapter, is one of the few adolescent-focused studies that identify transgender people. It specifically gives respondents the choice to identify beyond traditional male and female categories and identify as transgender, transgender male-to-female, and transgender female-to-male. Other items capture how “out” the respondents are or how others perceive their LGBTQ status.

Survey items addressing sexual behavior to classify LGBTQ status often address the gender(s) of one’s sexual partner(s), at what age or time period the last sexual contact occurred, and the nature of the sexual contact. Other survey items ask specifically about gender of those one is romantically or sexually attracted to and in some cases the degree or extent of the attraction. House- hold-level surveys include items about the relationships and genders of resi- dents. The sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and household structure item re- sponses are sometimes linked to respondents’ own gender to capture same-sex relationships or LGBTQ status.

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 177

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 177

Some surveys rely solely on items from one sexual area to capture LGBTQ status; other studies use a combination of all areas. This often leaves researchers to decide how they will define and describe LGBTQ status in their studies. There does not appear to be consensus on sexual categories. Researchers may use responses to these items to determine individuals’ LGBTQ status, yet there is a great deal of variation across what these items imply. For example, a person who has a same-sex attraction may have a very different school and educational experience than someone who identifies as gay or lesbian. Also, research shows that there are people who have same-sex behavior and attraction but may not identify as lesbian or gay; this is particularly the case in many racial and ethnic minority communities (Smith, 2012).

An issue across much of the research on LGBTQ people, and particularly in studies using large-scale data sets, is how to report the data. In much of the research, LGBTQ or sexual minority youth are “lumped” together or perceived as one broad category. Furthermore, survey questions that identify LGBTQ status often change across years, iterations, and survey data collection waves of a large-scale data set. Thus, researchers must use caution when reporting trends and interpreting findings. It is clear from some of the findings discussed in this chapter that disaggregating large-scale data sets by sexual identity, be- havior, attraction, and living arrangement can be very valuable and contribute to our understanding of the school experiences of LGBTQ youth. This will help to lay the foundation to create “big data” resources that link some stu- dent-level data sets that collect information such as student grades and test scores, attitudes toward school, and parent and teacher evaluations, with other similar data sources as well as with school- and community-level data. The potential wealth of data available could add new knowledge and methods to understanding LGBTQ youth and their school experiences.

School- and Student-Focused Data Sets National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) data set can be used to address a broad range of research questions and policy issues on LGBTQ educational issues. Add Health is a nationally representative study that explores the causes of health-related behaviors of adolescents in Grades 7 through 12 and the outcomes they experience as young adults. It examines how social context— families, friends, peers, schools, neighborhoods, and communities— influences adolescents’ health and risk behaviors. The Add Health study has followed teens into young adulthood with four in-home in- terviews, the most recent in 2008, when the sample was between the ages of

178 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 178

24 and 32. Initially launched in 1994 under a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Add Health is the largest, most comprehensive survey of adolescents ever undertaken. Data at the individual, family, school, and community levels were collected in two waves between 1994 and 1996. Then in 2001 and 2002, Add Health respondents participated in follow-up interviews in a third wave to investigate the influence that ado- lescent experiences have in young adulthood. Add Health combines longitudinal survey data on respondents’ social, economic, psychological, and physical well-being with contextual data on the family, neighborhood, community, school, friendships, peer groups, and romantic relationships, thereby providing unique opportunities to study how social environments and behaviors in ado- lescence are linked to health and achievement outcomes in young adulthood.

The Adolescent Health and Academic Achievement (AHAA) study expands the Add Health data to include detailed information on students’ educational achievement, course-taking patterns, curricular exposure, and educational con- texts within and between schools. The AHAA study links Add Health survey data to the high school transcripts of Add Health respondents to provide further information about students’ high school experiences. The AHAA data set is a highly valuable resource for researchers that can be used to address many questions relating to the health, development, and education of students during adolescence and into young adulthood.

Add Health is one of the few nationally representative data sets (N = 20,745) that include items about high school students’ same-sex sexual behaviors, ro- mantic attractions, and sexual identity in young adulthood. An important strength of the Add Health data is the ability to measure multiple dimensions of same-sex sexuality over multiple waves. Same-sex sexuality in adolescence can be measured using questions from the Wave I and Wave II surveys that address romantic attractions and romantic and sexual relationships, as well as questions from Wave IV that address sexual contact before the age of 18 (see Appendix A, Table A-1). Same-sex sexuality in adulthood can be measured using questions from the Wave III and IV interviews that address romantic at- traction, romantic and sexual relationships, sexual contact, and sexual identity. Measures of same-sex romantic attraction in adolescence are based on questions from the Wave I and Wave II in-home interviews that asked respondents whether they had ever had a romantic attraction to a female and to a male. Student responses to these questions can be matched to the students’ own gender to determine same-sex, opposite-sex, and both-sex romantic attractions in adolescence. Additional questions in the Wave I and Wave II surveys asked respondents to identify their romantic and sexual relationships (past and current) and the sex of each partner listed. Same-sex sexual contact in adoles-

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 179

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 179

cence and adulthood can be assessed using Wave IV survey data. Finally, in both Waves III and IV, respondents were asked to indicate their sexual identity (see Figure 1). These various dimensions of same-sex sexuality can be used to categorize LGBTQ status for analysis purposes.

Researchers have used the Add Health/AHAA data to examine several as- pects of LGBTQ students’ education and school experiences during middle school, high school, and into young adulthood, studying the impact of the school culture on the individual’s social-emotional well-being. Some of the key findings from these studies suggest that LGBTQ students are at a greater risk for depressive symptoms than their straight peers; this risk is higher in nonurban schools and in schools where traditional hypermasculine sports such as football dominate and strong religious traditions are prevalent (Russell,

180 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

Add Health Measures of Same-Sex Sexuality Adolescence Have you ever had a romantic attraction to a female/male? Identify as many as three recent (within the last 18 months) romantic relationships. Identify the sex of each partner. Identify as many as three recent non-romantic sexual relationships. Identify the sex of each partner. How many male/female partners did you have sex with before you were 18 years old? Young Adulthood Are you romantically attracted to females/males? Please choose the description that best fits how you think about yourself:

A. 100% heterosexual (straight) B. Mostly heterosexual (straight), but somewhat attracted to people of your own sex C. Bisexual, that is, attracted to men and women equally D. Mostly homosexual (gay), but somewhat attracted to people of the opposite sex E. 100% homosexual (gay) F. Not sexually attracted to either males or females

List romantic and sexual relationships since June of 1995 and identify sex of each partner (Wave III). List partners that respondents had married, lived with, had a pregnancy with or were currently involved with and identify sex of each partner and start/end date of each relationship (Wave IV). Considering all types of sexual activity, with how many male/female partners have you ever had sex? How many male/female partners did you have sex with before you were 18 years old? (Wave IV)

Figure 1. Add Health measures of same-sex sexuality.

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 180

Driscoll, & Truong, 2002; Wilkinson & Pearson, 2009). LGBTQ (sexual mi- nority) youth were found to have lower levels of participation in school-based sports; however, the LGBTQ youth did not differ from their peers in their par- ticipation in other school-based clubs (Toomey & Russell, 2013).

Although the Add Health data set contains information about students’ school experiences, peer networks, and social contexts, most studies that use these data to study LGBTQ youth focus on health-risk behaviors such as alco- hol, drug, and tobacco use or physical and mental health issues. These studies are within the education research field as they focus on students in an educa- tional setting; yet they intersect with many fields and cut across the behavioral and social sciences, including public health, psychology, sociology, and social work (see Easton, Jackson, & Mowery, 2008; Jager & Davis-Kean, 2011; Wilkinson & Pearson, 2013). An example of a health-related finding from these data is that both adolescent boys and adolescent girls with both-sex at- tractions or relationships were significantly more likely than those with only opposite-sex attractions or relationships to be current smokers. Adolescent boys and girls with both-sex attractions or relationships who were nonsmokers at Wave I were more likely to be current smokers at Wave II than those with opposite-sex attractions or relationships. These findings support previous re- search on smoking among youths who report same-sex or both-sex romantic attractions or relationships and demonstrate bisexual youths’ increased risk for smoking initiation and smoking prevalence (Easton et al., 2008).

However, the AHAA education component data are underutilized. There is limited research that uses these data to examine education research questions, particularly focusing on LGBTQ students. In short, among LGBTQ students there are few studies that examine course taking, discuss students’ academic achievement and educational outcomes, or analyze other information found on students’ high school transcripts. Researchers must be encouraged and mo- tivated to develop the skills to use the Add Health data, and more important, the AHAA component, to examine issues affecting LGBTQ students and schools. These data sets, like other large-scale quantitative data sets, do require a certain degree of quantitative and statistical training, knowledge, and skill and the desire to study LGBTQ topics. It is important to build capacity among researchers who are using these data and to encourage education researchers to explore them. Not doing so will leave potentially valuable information un- used and many important research questions unexamined. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance (YRBS) survey is a comprehensive survey that examines the health-risk behaviors of middle and high school stu-

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 181

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 181

dents (Grades 7–12). These health-risk behaviors cut across or include 10 areas: behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries, behaviors that con- tribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, dietary behaviors, physically active and sedentary behaviors, and weight management. Developed by the U.S. Depart- ment of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Preven- tion, and implemented every two years by states and local school districts, the YRBS is one of the few large-scale surveys that include optional questions to identify sexual minority status, examine the health-risk behaviors of these youth, and compare these youth with their heterosexual peers.

States have the option of including questions on the YRBS about students’ sexual behavior and contact. A dozen states (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin) and nine large urban school districts (Boston; Boulder County, Colorado; Chicago; Cuyahoga County, Ohio; Mil- waukee; New York City; San Diego; San Francisco; and Washington, D.C.) include items about students’ sexual orientation, sexual attraction, or same- sex sexual behavior at some point between the 2009 and 2013 survey admin- istrations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). Appendix A (Table A-2) lists the different ways the YRBS questions are asked to determine students’ sexual identity, sexual behavior, and romantic or sexual attraction.

Overall survey results reveal that when compared with students who are not LGBTQ, a disproportionate number of sexual minority students engage in a wide range of health-risk behaviors. The findings can be disaggregated by students’ sexual minority identity, specifically gay or lesbian, bisexual, or questioning, as well as their racial and ethnic group. Although limited, some researchers use pooled 2005 and 2007 YRBS data from across the United States to examine differences between sexual-identity, sexual-be- havior, and sexual-attraction status groups as they related to risk behaviors and school victimization at the time (Mustanski, Birkett, et al., 2014; Mus- tanski, Van Wagenen, et al., 2014; Russell, Everett, Rosario, & Birkett, 2014). Comparisons can also be made at different points in middle or high school, as well as by school characteristics such as size and poverty level. Using a subset of this pooled YRBS data, other research suggests that schools which promote a protective school climate for LGBTQ students through Gay-Straight Alliances or similar clubs, supportive faculty, or an inclusive curriculum may reduce the risk of suicidal thoughts for these students (Hatzenbuehler, Birkett, Van Wagenen, & Mayer, 2014). Although limited and underdeveloped, these data give us a glimpse of sexual minority students’ experiences and risk behaviors.

182 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 182

Using YRBS data, researchers can potentially examine the experiences of LGBTQ students at state and local levels. The general YRBS is required of all states and local school districts, yet as previously noted, only 12 states and 9 large urban school districts choose to use the optional items about sexual identity, sexual behavior, or both of these areas. Using these items permits these states and localities to examine the behaviors of sexual minority students and to design policies and implement programs that meet the health needs of these students. Notably, by examining the localities that do participate, one can potentially extrapolate to similar localities that do not explore these issues. For example, research suggests that many states and local school districts are examining the health-risk behaviors of their sexual minority students using other surveys, interviews, and various data collection techniques (Mustanski et al., 2012). An advantage of the YRBS is that it focuses on all students and thus differs from the National School Climate Survey (discussed later) in en- abling researchers to compare sexual minority students with their straight peers. Because sexual minority students represent a relatively small proportion of all students, use of large population-based samples of students is important for obtaining the most generalizable and highest quality data on which to make or base policy and programmatic decisions.

There is a developing body of research and reports based on YRBS findings for LGBTQ students at the state and local levels (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011; Corliss, Goodenow, Nichols, & Austin, 2011; Mohr & Husain, 2012; Mustanski et al., 2012). For example, in Rhode Island the YRBS findings reveal that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or unsure is associated with students who have considered, planned, or attempted suicide (Jiang, Perry, & Hesser, 2010). In Boston, sexual minority students living in neigh- borhoods with higher rates of LGBTQ assaults were more likely to report sui- cidal ideation and attempts than similar students living in communities with lower LGBTQ assault hate crime rates (Duncan & Hatzenbuehler, 2014). These students frequently face social and environmental situations that con- tribute to suicide attempts such as prejudice, discrimination, harassment, alien- ation, isolation, stress associated with their sexuality, drugs, and alcohol abuse. However, many of the findings that school districts report using YRBS data provide little or minimal information about LGBTQ students; many school districts may be reluctant to report information about students’ LGBTQ status or sexual behavior due to hostility or opposition from the local community.

However, several limitations of the YRBS inhibit it from providing a broader and clearer perspective of LGBTQ youth. The YRBS does not identify trans- gender- or other-gender-status students. Like Add Health, YRBS is primarily a health survey and does not provide comprehensive data on students’ school

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 183

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 183

and educational experiences. Unfortunately, YRBS is not linked to student achievement, grades, attitudes about school, or other items connected to edu- cational outcomes.

Furthermore, while we can identify LGBTQ status for some states and local districts, the YRBS does not provide a national sample of students. The states and districts that include the sexual orientation question tend to be places where there are some generally favorable laws and policies toward LGBTQ people. For example, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Vermont ask their students the optional questions about sexual orientation, and they are among the states that also have legalized same-sex marriage. Similarly, schools in Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco include these questions, and these communities were among the first to have strong civil-union laws protecting same-sex couples.

Despite some of these limitations, the YRBS remains one of the most valu- able sources of information about the behavior of our nation’s middle and high school students, and in some places, lesbian and gay students. Although there is plenty of room for expansion and growth, the YRBS is a step in the right direction toward understanding LGBTQ youth and their life experiences. National School Climate Survey Since 1999, the Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) has implemented the biennial National School Climate Survey (NSCS) to gather information on the school experiences of LGBTQ students in Grades 6–12 across the nation. The NSCS remains one of the few studies to examine the school experiences of LGBTQ students nationally. The NSCS specifically tar- gets LGBTQ students and is the only national study to include transgender students. Table A-3 in Appendix A shows the questions and possible responses students can use to identify their sexuality or sexual orientation and gender as well as identify the extent to which they are “out” at school about their sexual and gender identity. The findings of the NSCS help shed light on the issues that LGBTQ students face, and can inform efforts to develop safe and affirming schools for all students.

For the 2013 survey administration, the NSCS used two methods to locate survey participants in an effort to obtain responses from a diverse group of LGBTQ youth. The first method involved outreach to national, regional, and local groups that served LGBTQ youth. Here youth were directed to the online survey though GLSEN’s website. The second method targeted the online social networking site Facebook to obtain responses from youth between 13 and 21 years old to complete the survey. Facebook provided a forum for GLSEN to connect with LGBTQ youth who may not have been involved or affiliated

184 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 184

with or able to access a community-based organization. LGBTQ youth could anonymously view and respond to advertised solicitations to complete the sur- vey. To attempt to obtain adequate representation of underrepresented students, GLSEN made special efforts to reach out to organizations that served transgender youth, racial and ethnic minorities, and youth in rural communities. The final sample included 7,898 students from across the United States and over 2,700 school districts (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014).

About half (43.6%) of the NSCS respondents were cisgender female and over half identified as gay or lesbian (58.8%). The students were in Grades 6 to 12, with the largest numbers in Grades 10 and 11. The NSCS targeted racial and ethnic minorities and made extra efforts to reach students of color. This resulted in a sample that was White (68.1%), Latino (14.7%), African American (3.3%), Asian/South Asian/Pacific Islander (2.7%), Middle Eastern (1.4%), Native American (0.7%), and Multiracial (8.9%). Although these methods may not necessarily produce a scientifically representative sample of LGBTQ youth in the United States, they do provide responses from a good mix of LGBTQ youth that cuts across racial groups, regions, and communities. With the addition of the 2013 data, there are now over 10 years of cross-sectional data on LGBTQ youth that researchers can use to examine trends and changes in the climate and experiences for LGBTQ youth over time.

Like many other surveys that focus on students’ school experiences, the NSCS relies on students’ self-reports of the school climate and how it impacts their physical, social, and psychological well-being. School bullying is a key aspect of the NSCS. It examines whether LGBTQ students report experiences of victimization to school officials or to family members and how these adults address the problem. In this survey, students report on issues such as hearing biased remarks, including homophobic remarks in school; feeling unsafe in school because of their LGBTQ status; and experiencing harassment, assault, or other bullying behavior in school. The NSCS goes a step further to examine the possible negative effects of a hostile school climate on LGBTQ students’ academic achievement, school attendance, educational aspirations, and psy- chological well-being. It explores the diverse nature of LGBTQ students’ ex- periences by reporting on how these differ by students’ personal and community characteristics.

Survey findings reveal that the school and educational experiences of LGBTQ youth vary somewhat by race. One specific finding is that Asian/South Asian/Pacific Islander LGBTQ students were less likely to feel unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation or gender expression than were Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, White/European American, or mul- tiracial students. Furthermore, Asian/South Asian/Pacific Islander LGBTQ

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 185

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 185

students were less likely to report experiencing harassment or assault based on sexual orientation than were students from other racial/ethnic groups (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014).

Similarly, Black/African American LGBTQ students surveyed were less likely to report feeling unsafe in school because of their sexual orientation than were Hispanic/Latino, White/European American, and multiracial students. Black students were also less likely to report being harassed or assaulted at school because of their sexual orientation than similar students from these racial/ethnic groups. The 2013 safety and harassment findings for and Asian/Pa- cific Islander and Black/African American LGBTQ students are at lower levels than for other racial/ethnic groups across previous administrations of the NSCS (Kosciw, Greytak, & Diaz, 2009; Kosciw et al., 2012).

Although the NSCS reveals that Asian and Black youth are less likely to report being bullied or harassed than their White LGBTQ peers, one must use caution when interpreting these results for Black students (Kosciw et al., 2009). This study draws its sample from community organizations, social me- dia, and other groups that serve the LGBTQ population. Although efforts were made to secure a representative sample, Black students are only 3.3% of those surveyed and Asian/South Asian/Pacific Islander students 2.7%. Too strong a reliance on these data might lead one to believe that Asian and Black LGBTQ students are not in danger of school harassment and bullying as much as similar White students. However, national data that represent all students sug- gest that Black students are victims of school bullying at a higher rate than their peers. In this research 44% of Black students report being victims of bul- lying, compared with 33.1% of Whites (Petrosino, Guckenberg, DeVoe, & Hanson, 2010). Thus it is clear that many Black students, whether LGBTQ or not, report incidences of school bullying. Although the NSCS data may be considered, qualitative studies of Black students indicate a very hostile envi- ronment for LGBTQ students (Blackburn & McCready, 2013; McCready, 2010; Pritchard, 2013; Rawls, 2010). There is limited research that examines Asian/Pacific Islander students’ school bullying experiences.

It is promising that Latinos made up just over 14% of the last three NSCS samples (2009, 2011, and 2013), enabling researchers to examine further the experiences of these students. Recent GLSEN data collections expanded their recruitment to reach racial and ethnic minorities as well as rural students; however, it is evident that some students in these communities may not have access to organizations that target LGBTQ youth. Also, the NSCS lacks infor- mation on non-LGBTQ students or students who do not identify as LGBTQ. We see from other research that many people have same-sex romantic attrac- tions or engage in same-sex sexual behavior but do not adopt an LGBTQ

186 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 186

identity (Goodenow, Szalacha, Robin, & Westheimer, 2008; Savin-Williams & Cohen, 2010). This is particularly true in Black and Latino communities, where there may be “men who have sex with men” (MSM) but because of cultural norms, social oppression, religious convictions, or simply by choice they may not identify as LGBTQ or may delay identification beyond adoles- cence (Davis, 2003; Rosario, Schrimshaw, & Hunter, 2004; Smith, 2012). Further research is needed to address the diversity of LGBTQ youth and to compare them with their straight peers.

The NSCS is one of the few surveys examining the school experiences of transgender youth or youth with other gender identities. Beyond the traditional female and male genders, the 2013 survey sample includes students who iden- tify as transgender (9.5%), genderqueer (10.6%), or another gender (4.3%) (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). Findings show that transgender students were generally more likely than all other categories of students to have negative experiences at school. More specifically, transgender students were more likely to feel unsafe because of their gender identity than students who identified as cisgender (gender assigned at birth is aligned with present gender) female, cisgender male, genderqueer, or another gender; transgender students are also more likely to be physically harassed or assaulted at school based on their gender identity than all other categories of students.

The NSCS goes a step further to report some of the possible solutions or mediating factors to combat the hostile environment that some LGBTQ stu- dents face. These factors include the presence of Gay-Straight Alliances or similar school-based clubs that provide a safe and affirming space for LGBTQ students; an inclusive curriculum that offers positive representations of LGBTQ people and events; and teachers and other educators who are sup- portive of LGBTQ students. Beyond these relationship factors, some schools have adopted anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies and laws that can protect LGBTQ students. When these factors exist, LGBTQ students are less likely to report feeling unsafe at school or hearing homophobic remarks, and they report fewer school absences than do similar students who do not report these factors. However, few students indicate having all or a combination of these mediating factors available. Only about half of students report that their school has a GSA or similar organization. Although nearly all students know of one staff member in their school who is supportive of LGBTQ stu- dents, only about two thirds can identify six or more. Very few students have been taught with positive representations of LGBTQ people, history, or events in their classes, as few schools have adopted a curriculum that is purposively inclusive of LGBTQ people and issues. Similarly, few students report that their schools have comprehensive anti-bullying policies that cover sexual

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 187

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 187

orientation and gender identity/expression (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boe- sen, 2014).

The NSCS is one of the leading surveys focusing on LGBTQ students only. Although it is difficult to identify the total population of LGBTQ youth, the NSCS is one of the best resources targeting self-identified sexual minority and transgender youth. However, there are some issues with the methods used to collect NSCS data. One key issue centers around selection of the participants, because the NSCS includes only students who are self-identified as LGBTQ or who participate in a community-based program for LGBTQ youth. These are the students who are openly gay; thus it may be difficult to generalize the findings to the entire LGBTQ population, particularly those who are not openly gay. National College Climate Survey The 2010 National College Climate Survey (NCCS) is one of the few national, large-scale data sets to collect information on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer (LGBTQQ), and heterosexual stu- dents, faculty, administrators, and staff on college and university campuses (Rankin et al., 2010). Through a targeted sampling procedure of campus offices and departments that are concerned with LGBTQQ issues and LGBTQQ people, over 5,000 respondents from over 100 institutions across the United States completed the survey. Efforts were made to draw a largely LGBTQQ group of respondents, yet the broad nature of the sexual orientation and gender categories resulted in a mix of undergraduate and graduate students as well as faculty, staff, and administrators. The resulting respondents were largely LGBTQQ, with about 16% describing themselves as heterosexual.

One unique, yet key, element of the NCCS project is that the respondents were students as well as faculty, staff, and administrators. This allows re- searchers to get a broad-based view of multiple parties that influence and are affected by the campus climate. The findings reflect 63% students, 10% faculty, 21% staff members, and 7% administrators. The study explores how they ex- perience the campus climate, perceptions of the campus climate and behavior, and their perceptions of how their institution responds to the LGBTQQ campus community.

A disturbing finding from this research is the extent and degree of harassment and discrimination reported. The lesbian, gay, and bisexual respondents were significantly more likely than their heterosexual classmates to report harassment in general as well as harassment directed toward their sexual identity. This ha- rassing behavior included hearing derogatory remarks, being stared at, and being singled out as a “resident authority” regarding LGBTQ issues. LGBTQ

188 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 188

students reported higher rates of harassment than faculty and staff. Respondents with a gender variation (e.g., transmasculine, transfeminine, and gender non- conforming) reported higher rates of harassment than those with a traditional male or female gender identity.

Research suggests that LGBTQ people of color (racial and ethnic minorities) experience higher rates of harassment and indicate more negative perceptions of their college campus climate than White respondents (Beemyn & Rankin, 2011; Rankin, 2003; Strayhorn, 2010). Obtaining a racially diverse sample was a goal of the NCCS project, with the data collection resulting in a somewhat racially mixed group of White (77%), multiracial (8%), Latino/Hispanic (5%), Asian/Pacific Islander/Asian American (5%), Black/African American/ African/Caribbean (4%), Middle Eastern (1%), and American Indian/Alaska Native/Native American (1%) respondents. This study finds that the intersection of racial identity and sexual identity shaped the respondents’ perceptions of the campus climate. Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to feel “very comfortable” or “comfortable” with their department/work unit or with the classroom climate than are their White peers and colleagues. However, White respondents were more likely than respondents of color to perceive harassment on campus. Respondents of color were more likely to attribute harassment to their race rather than their sexual identity. Although we must use caution in interpreting these results because of the low percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in the study, the findings represent one of the few large-scale data collections on LGBTQ students and campus staff of color. Researchers should be encouraged to continue their studies in this area.

The findings from the NCCS study show that the campus environment can be very challenging for LGBTQ people. Students, particularly, face harassment that could get in the way of their achievement and learning. Many of the LGBTQ survey respondents seriously considered leaving school, avoided areas frequented by the LGBTQ community, feared for their physical safety, and avoided full disclosure of their sexual identity. Although we have limited data on students’ grades, the overwhelming evidence of harassment, derogatory remarks, and limited responses from their school to this harassing behavior can make it difficult for students to engage in their studies. Similarly high percentages of faculty and staff indicated that they had considered leaving the school because of harassment.

A significant strength of the NCCS is that it provides a broad-based per- spective of students, faculty, staff, and administrators on our nation’s college and university campuses. It includes responses from those who identify as LGBTQ as well as from heterosexual respondents and attempts to include people across racial groups. This data set has the potential to be linked with

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 189

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 189

larger campus-level data sets that capture information about the overall com- position and campus demographics. However, this survey provides data at one point in time and does not allow the researcher to follow changes and variations in the experiences of students, faculty, and other respondents over time. Further iterations and versions of this survey could enhance our under- standing of LGBTQ issues on college and university campuses and in higher education. National Survey of Student Engagement Since 2000, over 1,500 colleges and universities have used the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) College Student Report to collect information about the campus experiences of their first-year and senior students. Each year this large-scale survey collects information from over 500,000 students about their general campus engagement, including involvement in campus or- ganizations, collaborative learning, academic challenge, and relationships with faculty. From this survey we know about the college experiences of over 3.2 million students. Gonyea and Moore (2007) added questions about LGBTQ status to the 2006 NSSE and surveyed over 14,000 students on 31 campuses. In this expanded questionnaire, students self-report their sexual orientation, how open they are about their sexual orientation, and whether they are trans- gender (see Appendix A, Table A-5). The findings yield 6% of all students identifying as LGBTQ, creating one of the few large-scale data collections to identify and address the issues facing LGBTQ students on campus.

The NSSE results on student engagement among LGBTQ students are somewhat mixed. The LGBTQ students did not differ from their heterosexual classmates in the extent to which they engaged in academic activities such as preparing for class, studying, reading, writing, rehearsing, and other activities related to their academic program. Among LGBTQ students, those who were more out reported more active and collaborative learning than their less out peers or heterosexual classmates. Furthermore, LGBTQ students reported more contact with their faculty members than did their heterosexual peers. These students were also more likely to engage in educational activities such as studying foreign languages, participating in study-abroad programs, or working with faculty members on research.

However, LGBTQ students rated their campus environments less positively than their classmates did and reported that their campuses were less supportive. The combination of these findings suggests that colleges and universities may need to expand and enhance their services to help create a more positive and supportive environment for LGBTQ students. An important implication of this research is that additional colleges need to gather information on the cam-

190 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 190

pus experiences and engagement of LGBTQ students. Studies such as Gonyea and Moore (2007) led to versions of NSSE adding optional questions to identify students’ sexual orientation. Colleges and universities now can choose to learn more about the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of their LGBTQ students. Although the LGBTQ questions are now available to campuses, only about one quarter of the more than 600 schools that participate in NSSE have chosen to include these items (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2013). By excluding these LGBTQ-identifying questions, schools limit their capacity to examine LGBTQ students’ engagement on campus. In- stitutions that administer NSSE should be encouraged to ask the LGBTQ- identifying questions and later analyze survey data for LGBTQ students. This will lead to some of the most solid, rigorous, and representative data on LGBTQ students on college and university campuses.

General Population and Household-Focused Data Sets Much of what we know about the LGBTQ community that comes from large- scale data sets tends to focus either on the general American population or on issues and concerns that can impact everyone, regardless of their sexual ori- entation or identity. Although the studies that are the focus of this report deal with education research issues, the data discussed below are not necessarily collected within a school or other educational setting or context. This section discusses some of these surveys and the studies that describe their findings as they relate to LGBTQ issues in education research. General Social Survey The General Social Survey (GSS) contains a standard core of demographic, behavioral, and attitudinal questions, plus topics of special interest. Data on social change in the United States are collected as part of this survey; and many of the core questions have remained unchanged since 1972 to facilitate time-trend studies. The GSS is the only full-probability, personal-interview survey designed to monitor changes in both social characteristics and attitudes in the United States. In addition, since the GSS adopted questions from earlier surveys, trends can be followed for up to 70 years. Overall, the GSS is one of the single best sources for sociological and attitudinal trend data covering the United States.

The GSS provides information on public opinion regarding LGBTQ popu- lations and issues. Among the topics covered are civil liberties, crime and vi- olence, intergroup tolerance, morality, national spending priorities, psycho- logical well-being, social mobility, and stress and traumatic events. Since

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 191

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 191

1988, the GSS has collected data on the number and gender of sex partners and in more recent years has included items about opinions toward same-sex marriage, gay adoption, and homosexual professors working on college and university campuses. Although the GSS interviews only adults, one can analyze opinions and attitudes of those who engage in same-sex behavior by educational attainment level and other demographic characteristics, information that can make a valuable contribution to education research.

A strong point of the GSS is that it allows us to examine opinions toward LGBTQ issues by education level and income of LGBTQ people (Badgett, 1995; Black, Gates, Sanders, & Taylor, 2000). As discussed in Chapter 7, analysis of GSS data (1988–1996) reveals that 23.7% of gay men have earned college degrees and 13.0% of gay men have completed graduate or professional education. Slightly fewer married straight men have completed college or graduate study. Among married straight men, 17.0% have college degrees and 10.3% have graduate education. Among lesbian women, 25.0% have college degrees and 13.9% have postcollege education; comparable rates for married women are 16.0% and 6.1%, respectively.

Although several studies have addressed LGBTQ issues using the GSS data over the last two decades, few studies in the education research field use this data to examine LGBTQ topics and concerns (Black et al., 2000; Brandt & Reyna, 2010; Gates, 2012; Worthen, Sharp, & Rodgers, 2012). A primary con- cern that some researchers express about the GSS is that it is a general survey and does not focus specifically on LGBTQ issues or people. In regard to edu- cation and school experiences it examines a cross section of adults, not those specifically in school. Some of the limited data use may be a result of elements such as the different definitions of LGBTQ that can be derived from the data. In some studies using the GSS, LGBTQ status is defined as having more same- sex sexual partners than opposite-sex sexual partners since age 18 (Badgett, 1995); others define LGBTQ status as having exclusively same-sex or bisexual behavior (Black et al., 2003). These different definitions yield slightly different findings. The current versions of GSS do not identify transgender people or discuss transgender issues. Similarly, the questions about attitudes and opinions toward LGBTQ issues are somewhat limited, asking only about surface-level attitudes toward LGBTQ issues such as same-sex marriage, homosexual pro- fessors, and same-sex couples adopting children. The lack of broad or deep at- titudinal and opinion questions limits the analysis and depth of research on at- titudes toward LGBTQ people and the issues that affect their communities.

Despite some limitations, the GSS remains a valuable resource for under- standing the attitudes and opinions of LGBTQ Americans as well as the public’s view of such issues. Additional research using the GSS is needed in

192 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 192

relation to education. One of the strongest attributes of the GSS is its potential to reach a large and representative sample of Americans, and for survey de- velopers to expand its focus to address further issues that affect education. As future iterations of the GSS are developed, it is essential that GSS designers include additional questions about LGBTQ status and consider expanding its content to address the LGBTQ community and develop new survey questions on these issues. Researchers can disaggregate findings by an individual’s LGBTQ identity, behavior, attraction, or household, as well as by educational level. Potential studies could allow us to understand and shed some light on the role that greater education plays in terms of shaping public attitudes and belief systems about LGBTQ issues. National Survey of Family Growth The National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), sponsored by the National Center for Health Statistics, United States Department of Health and Human Services, is a multipurpose survey based on personal interviews with a national sample of women (all cycles) and men (beginning with Cycle VI), ages 15 to 44, in the United States. NSFG has been conducted since 1973 and is currently in its eighth cycle (2011–2015). Its main function is to collect data on factors affecting pregnancy and women’s health in the United States and to provide reliable national data on marriage, divorce, contraception, and infertility in the United States. Topics covered in the NSFG include the number of children women have had and the number they expect to have in the future, intended and unintended births, first sexual intercourse and partners, marriage, cohabi- tation, impaired fertility, sterilization operations, breastfeeding, maternity leave, child care, adoption, stepchildren, foster children, health insurance cov- erage, family planning, and health conditions and behavior, including smoking, HIV testing, pelvic inflammatory disease, and sex education. Like the GSS, the NSFG does not include transgender status

Beginning in 2002, the NSFG began including questions about the sexual behavior, sexual identity, and sexual attraction of male and female respondents (Chandra, Billioux, Copen, & Sionean, 2012). Thus, researchers can use this data set to address many health, family, and personal well-being topics by char- acteristics such as same-sex attractions, sexual identity, and sexual partners, and make comparisons by number of years of education completed and degrees earned. For example, findings from the NSFG reveal that LGB adults with a high school diploma or less have high participation in the federal food stamps program when compared with their heterosexual peers (32% vs. 24%) (Gates, 2014). Furthermore, this data shows that across level of educational attainment, bisexual people are more likely to receive food stamps than lesbian/gay people.

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 193

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 193

NSFG respondents’ ages span from 15 to 44 years old; thus, education re- searchers are able to collect information about the sexual experiences, identity development, and health of some adolescents and young adults attending high school and college. A significant advantage of the NSFG is that it allows re- searchers to make comparisons and conduct analyses among and between dif- ferent categories of LGB status; for example, researchers can report data for lesbian and gay respondents and make comparisons with bisexual and/or het- erosexual people. However, unlike the longitudinal Add Health study that fol- lows these youth and young adults over time, the NSFG is cross-sectional and examines experiences at one point in time. Also, because NSFG does not focus specifically on youth, sample sizes for adolescents and young adults, including LGBTQ youth, are relatively small. Nonetheless, the NSFG remains one of the key individual-level surveys that give us a perspective on adolescents through middle age, a pivotal time when people are completing their education, beginning careers, raising families, and making important life decisions. U.S. Census and the American Community Survey: Household Composition of LGBTQ Families The 1990 decennial Census marked the first time that Census Bureau data could be used to distinguish same-sex cohabiting couples who were in close personal relationships from those who were simply roommates. Same-sex couples could be identified by combining information about the sex of all in- dividuals in the household with the relationship question. In 1990, 145,130 same-sex couples used the unmarried partner designation. In Census 2000 and in subsequent annual American Community Surveys (ACS), the decision was made to add same-sex couples who designated a partner as a “husband/wife” to the counts of same-sex cohabiting couples, though same- sex spouses were not reported as such. Instead, they were counted as same- sex unmarried partners. The U.S. Census and the ACS gather information from the total population and a nationally representative sample. This is im- portant information that helps us to understand the demographics of those who are in same-sex relationships. Although these surveys do not ask questions about sexual behavior or romantic attraction, they do focus on the household gender composition and the relationship status of the adults in the household. Thus, researchers can identify a same-sex couple and know whether there are children living in the household. There is also socioeconomic information on these households, such as occupation, income, and years of education.

Census 2000 counted 594,391 same-sex couples identified as either spouses or unmarried partners. In the 2008 ACS, the Census Bureau publicly released separate estimates for the number of same-sex spouses and unmarried partners.

194 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 194

The 2008 ACS data suggest that approximately 150,000 same-sex couples identified as spouses and 415,000 identified as unmarried partners. This in- formation is combined with items that ask about children living in the home to give us an estimate of how many same-sex couples are raising kids. Ac- cording to Census 2000 data, about one quarter of people in a same-sex couple were non-White (Romero, Baumle, Badgett, & Gates, 2007) and one fifth of these couples were raising children. Among those raising children, 40% of those in same-sex couples were non-White, as were more than half of the children (Gates & Romero, 2009). African Americans and Latinos in same- sex couples are more than twice as likely as their White counterparts to be raising children. Nearly one in five children being raised by a same-sex couple lives in poverty (Albelda, Badgett, Schneebaum, & Gates, 2009).

Findings from the 2010 U.S. Census and the 2012 ACS show over 600,000 households led by same-sex couples, and it is estimated that one fifth of these households are raising children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, 2013). It is im- portant to know the number of same-sex couples and the number with school- age children to prepare for and understand the school experiences of these children. These data sets also indicate that nearly half (48.9%) of same-sex households include one partner who has earned at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 22.9% of opposite-sex unmarried couples and 36.5% of married couples. The Census and ACS are a key first step in understanding the com- position of households, family structures, and educational attainment. Com- munities and school districts, as well as colleges and universities, can use this valuable demographic information to develop policies and programs to best serve these families.

General Limitations of the Current Large-Scale Data Sets and Plans for Future Work

There is limited education research with representative samples of LGBTQ students. The Add Health survey is based on a nationally representative sample of all students in Grades 7–12, but this data set was not designed specifically to address educational processes and outcomes. As discussed above, the AHAA supplement to Add Health provides some information on student achievement and school context, but it lacks a comprehensive perspective of students’ aca- demic experiences, parent and teacher perspectives, test scores, attitudes toward school, and educational goals. This comprehensive, longitudinal overview of students’ school experiences is found in several other large-scale studies of U.S. K–12 schools and students (e.g., Educational Longitudinal Study, High School Longitudinal Study, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study);

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 195

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 195

however, these data sets do not address sexual identity, same-sex behavior, or transgender status. This makes it impossible to link LGBTQ status with stu- dents’ educational outcomes such as student achievement, educational expec- tations, high school graduation, college going, and earning of degrees— the hallmark topics of many of these large-scale data sets.

Much LGBTQ research on U.S.-based adolescents uses retrospective ac- counts from college students and is drawn from convenience samples. These are usually openly LGBTQ students who are active in on-campus LGBTQ or- ganizations. Much of this research is of limited scope, based on a few students’ perspectives or focuses on programmatic offerings that affect LGBTQ students within specific schools. Thus, what exists in the literature is an accumulation of narratives and anecdotal information that is most relevant to specific contexts related to students’ school experiences. Furthermore, the research in this area is on White students, who often live and attend schools in affluent or upper- middle-class communities. Few studies focus on racial and ethnic minorities or low-income or rural communities. It is often difficult to generalize current findings to the LGBTQ school community, as many of the current studies ignore intersectionality— how issues of race, class, and gender may intersect with LGBTQ status to impact school experiences. Thus, it is important to de- velop questions and studies that yield valid and reliable data.

Promising Next Steps This review focuses on several large-scale data sets that are commonly used to address LGBTQ issues in education. It is important for these data sets to continue to include questions about sexual identity, sexual behavior, and sexual attraction, as well as for researchers and scholars to use these data sets to address education issues that impact the school experiences and the overall ed- ucational development and attainment of all youth. A large segment of the sci- entific community relies on large-scale data sets to address questions about students, teachers, schools, and schooling issues. As we have seen in this chapter, many of these data sets are collected in, and focus on, an educational context, yet other data sets include samples that are generalizable to the U.S. population overall. Both types of data sets allow education researchers either to examine an issue disaggregated by a person’s or community’s LGBTQ status or to include questions specifically about LGBTQ people, issues, or concerns. Most of the large-scale data sets that allow education research questions on LGBTQ issues are focused on risk behaviors, substance abuse, crime and vio- lence, or other mental or physical health–related topics (see www.gaydata.com).

196 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 196

Conceptually defining sexual orientation and measuring it as a demographic variable in much the same way as we do race and ethnicity can present a chal- lenge for researchers. Large-scale surveys use various measures to define LGBTQ status, but these measures are often inconsistent across the field or even across studies using the same data set. This can cause confusion or require caution in interpreting findings about LGBTQ populations. It is clear that this is a developing research area that will need greater debate and exam- ination across multiple scientific fields and disciplines. Nonetheless, researchers tend to agree that same-sex identity, behavior, attraction, or household structures and living arrangements put people in a sexual minority category; yet these people and their issues are an important part of the fabric of society. LGBTQ people and concerns represent a compelling area of study where research can expand knowledge and enhance our understanding. Schools across all grade levels, socioeconomic groups, racial and ethnic groups, and communities are facing issues of students, teachers, staff, and their families that deserve greater attention from the research community.

Further challenges and issues in using large-scale data arise in the broader political and social landscape of data collection at the national, state, and local levels. Some of these issues relate to the capacity and skills of education re- searchers and are addressed in Chapter 11 of this report.

References Albelda, R., Badgett, M. V. L., Schneebaum, A., & Gates, G. J. (2009). Poverty in the

lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726–739.

Beemyn, G., & Rankin, S. (2011). The lives of transgender people. New York: Columbia University Press.

Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. De- mography, 37(2), 139–154.

Black, D. A., Makar, H. R., Sanders, S. G., & Taylor, L. J. (2003). The earnings effects of sexual orientation. Industrial and Labor Relations, 56(3), 449–469.

Blackburn, M. V., & McCready, L. T. (2013). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning people and issues in urban education. In H. R. Milner IV & K. Lomotey (Eds.), Handbook of Urban Education (pp. 129–145). New York: Routledge.

Brandt, M. J., & Reyna, C. (2010). The role of prejudice and the need for closure in religious fundamentalism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 715–725.

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 197

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 197

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among students in Grades 9–12: Youth risk behavior surveil- lance, selected sites, United States, 2001–2009. MMWR, 60(7), 1–133.

Chandra, A., Billioux, V. G., Copen, C. E., & Sionean, C. (2012). Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual identity in the United States: Data from the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth. National Health Statistics Reports, 36, 1–36.

Corliss, H. L., Goodenow, C. S., Nichols, L., & Austin, S. B. (2011). High burden of home- lessness among sexual-minority adolescents: Findings from a representative Massa- chusetts high school sample. American Journal of Public Health, 101(9), 1683–1689.

Davis, J. E. (2003). Boys to men: Masculine diversity and schooling. In F. C. Worrell (Ed.), Boys to men: The challenges of engaging boys academically and emotionally in the primary and school system (pp. 1–14). Proceedings of Second Annual Summer In- stitute, School Leadership Center of Trinidad and Tobago, Port of Spain, Trinidad.

Duncan, D. T., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2014). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender hate crimes and suicidality among a population-based sample of sexual-minority ado- lescents in Boston. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 272–278.

Easton, A., Jackson, K., & Mowery, P. (2008). Adolescent same-sex and both-sex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications for smoking.  American Journal of Public Health, 98(3), 462–467.

Gates, G. J. (2014). LGB/T Demographics: Comparisons among population-based surveys. Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Gates, G. (2012). LGBT identity: A demographer’s perspective. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 45, 693–714.

Gates, G. J., & Romero, A. (2009). Parenting by gay men and lesbians: Beyond the current research. In E. Peters & C. M. Kamp Dush (Eds.), Marriage and family: Perspectives and complexities. New York: Columbia University Press.

Gonyea, R., & Moore, J., III. (2007, November–December). Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and their engagement in educationally purposeful activities in college. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY.

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L.A., Robin, L.E., & Westheimer, K. (2008). Dimensions of sexual orientation and HIV-related risk among adolescent females: Evidence from a statewide survey. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 1051–1058.

Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Birkett, M., Van Wagenen, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). Protective school climates and reduced risk for suicide ideation in sexual minority youths. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 279–286.

Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. (2013). National Survey of Student Engagement 2013 overview. Retrieved from http://nsse.iub.edu/2013_Institutional_ Report/pdf/NSSE_2013_Overview.pdf

Jager, J., & Davis-Kean, P. (2011). Same-sex sexuality and adolescent psychological well- being: The influence of sexual orientation, early reports of same-sex attraction, and gender. Self and Identity, 10(4), 417–444.

Jiang, Y., Perry, D. K., & Hesser, J. E. (2010). Suicide patterns and association with predictors among Rhode Island public high school students: A latent class analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), 1701–1707.

198 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 198

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The expe- riences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E.A. (2008). 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Who, what, where, when, and why: De- mographic and ecological factors contributing to hostile school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 976–988.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Diaz, E. M., & Bartkiewicz, M. J. (2010). 2009 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

McCready, L. T. (2010). Making space for diverse masculinities: Difference, intersectionality, and engagement in an urban high school. New York: Peter Lang.

Mohr, A., & Husain, A. (2012). The Youth Risk Behavior Survey and sexual minority youth in Wisconsin, 2007–2011. Retrieved from Wisconsin Department of Health Services website: http://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/lgbthealth/HealthReports/

Mustankski, B., Birkett, M., Greene, G, J., Rosario, M., Bostwich, W., & Everett, B. G. (2014). The association between sexual orientation identity and behavior across race/eth- nicity, sex, and age in a probability sample of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 237–244.

Mustanski, B., Clifford, A., Bigelow, L., Andrews, K., Birkett, M. A., Ashbeck, A., & Fisher, K. (2012). A healthy Chicago for LGBT youth: An IMPACT program white paper on health disparities in Chicago’s LGBT youth. Chicago, IL: The IMPACT Pro- gram at Northwestern University.

Mustanski, B., Van Wagenen, A., Birkett, M., Eyster, S., & Corliss, H. L. (2014). Identifying sexual orientation health disparities in adolescents: Analysis of pooled data from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2005 and 2007. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 211–217.

Petrosino, A., Guckenburg, S., DeVoe, J., & Hanson, T. (2010). What characteristics of bullying, bullying victims, and schools are associated with increased reporting of bul- lying to school officials? (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2010–No. 092). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast and Islands. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs

Pritchard, E. D. (2013). For colored kids who committed suicide, our outrage isn’t enough: Queer youth of color, bullying, and the discursive limits of identity and safety. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 320–345.

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 199

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 199

Rankin, S. (2003). Campus climate for LGBT people: A national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.

Rankin, S., Blumenfeld, W. J., Weber, G. N., & Frazer, S. (2010). 2010 State of higher ed- ucation for LGBT people: Campus Pride 2010 National College Climate Survey. Char- lotte, NC: Campus Pride.

Rawls, T. M. (2010). Yes, Jesus loves me: The liberating power of spiritual acceptance for Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians. In J. Battle & S. L. Barnes (Eds.), Black sexualities: Probing powers, passions, practices, and politics (pp. 327– 352). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Romero, A. P., Baumle, A. K., Badgett, M. V. L., & Gates, G. J. (2007). Census snapshot: United States. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law.

Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., & Hunter, J. (2004). Ethnic/racial differences in the coming- out process of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: A comparison of sexual identity develop- ment over time. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 10(3), 215–228.

Russell, S. T., Driscoll, A. K., & Truong, N. (2002). Adolescent same-sex romantic attractions and relationships: Implications for substance use and abuse. Research and Practice, 92(2), 198–202.

Russell, S. T., Everett, B. G., Rosario, M., & Birkett, M. (2014). Indicators of victimization and sexual orientation among adolescents: Analyses from Youth Risk Behavior Surveys. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 255–261.

Savin-Williams, R. C., & Cohen, W. (2010). Development of same-sex attracted youth. In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public health perspectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations (pp. 27–47). New York: Springer.

Smith, W. S. (2012). Exploring dimensions of racism, homophobia, and social network as concomitant predictors of condom use in a sample of black MSM. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 24(4), 417–445.

Strayhorn, T. L. (2010). The influence of diversity on learning outcomes among African American college students: Measuring sex differences. Journal of Student Affairs Re- search and Practice, 47(3), 343–366.

Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2013). An initial investigation of sexual minority youth involvement in school-based extracurricular activities. Journal of Research on Adoles- cence, 23(2), 304–318.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). 2012 American Community Survey 1-year data file. Washing-

ton, DC: Author. Wilkinson, L., & Pearson, J. (2009). School culture and the well-being of same-sex-attracted

youth. Gender & Society, 23(4), 542–568. Wilkinson, L., & Pearson, J. (2013). High school religious context and reports of same-sex

attraction and sexual identity in young adulthood. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76(2), 180–202.

Worthen, M. G. F., Sharp, S., & Rodgers, F. R. (2012). Gay and lesbian individuals’ attitudes toward the death penalty: An exploratory study of the roles of empathic concern and political beliefs. Criminal Justice Review, 37, 239–261.

200 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 200

Appendix A: School- and Student-Focused Data Sets

Table A-1 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add

Health)

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health)

Wave I Section 25: Relationship Information (The first and last initials of each person with whom respondents have had a special romantic relationship within the last 18 months were collected in Section 22.) 20. What is {INITIALS}’s sex?

• Male • Female • Refused • Don’t know

Section 26: Non-Relationship History 1. Have you ever had a romantic attraction to a female?

0 No 1 Yes

2. Have you ever had a romantic attraction to a male? 0 No 1 Yes

Wave II Section 24: Relationship Information (The first and last initials of each person with whom respondents have had a special romantic relationship in the last 18 months were collected in Section 21.) 32. What is {INITIALS}’s sex?

• Male • Female • Refused • Don’t know

Section 25: Non-Relationship History 1. Since {MOLI*}, have you had a romantic attraction to a female?

0 No 1 Yes

2. Since {MOLI}, have you had a romantic attraction to a male? 0 No 1 Yes

*An abbreviation used to denote the month and year of last interview, taken from the first in-home interview.

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 201

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 201

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (cont.)

Wave III Section 16: Sexual Experience and Sexually Transmitted Diseases 11. Have you ever had a romantic attraction to a female? 12. Have you ever had a romantic attraction to a male? 13. Please choose the description that best fits how you think about yourself:

1 100% heterosexual (straight) 2 Mostly heterosexual (straight), but somewhat attracted to

people of your own sex 3 Bisexual—that is, attracted to men and women equally 4 Mostly homosexual (gay), but somewhat attracted to people of

the opposite sex 5 100% homosexual (gay) 6 Not sexually attracted to either males or females

Section 17: Compiling a Table of Relationships 3. Please indicate whether {INITIALS} is male or female

Wave IV Section 15: Suicide, Sexual Experiences, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases 13/19. Considering all types of sexual activity, with how many male/female partners have you ever had sex? 15/21. With how many male/female partners did you have sex before you were 18 years old? 29. Have you ever had a romantic attraction to a female? 30. Have you ever had a romantic attraction to a male? 31. Please choose the description that best fits how you think about yourself:

1 100% heterosexual (straight) 2 Mostly heterosexual (straight), but somewhat attracted to

people of your own sex 3 Bisexual—that is, attracted to men and women equally 4 Mostly homosexual (gay), but somewhat attracted to people of

the opposite sex 5 100% homosexual (gay) 6 Not sexually attracted to either males or females

Section 16b: Relationships 19. Is {INITIALS} male or female?

202 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 202

Table A-2 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBS)

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Question Sex of Sexual Contacts Question Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBS, national survey)

Which of the following best describes you?

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact?

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

Connecticut Which of the following best describes you? (2011)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Homosexual (gay or

lesbian) 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure 5) None of the above

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2011)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

Delaware Which of the following best describes you? (2011)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Homosexual (gay or

lesbian) 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure 5) None of the above

With whom have you had sexual intercourse? (2011)

1) I have never had sexual intercourse

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

Florida N/A During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2011)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females only 3) Males only 4) Both females and males

Hawaii Which of the following best describes you? (2011)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Homosexual (gay or

lesbian) 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2011)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females only 3) Males only 4) Both females and males

Maine Which of the following best describes you? (2009)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

The person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact during your life is (are)? (2007)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 203

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 203

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Question Sex of Sexual Contacts Question Maryland Which of the following best describes

you? (2013) 1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

N/A

Massachusetts Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, the person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are)? (2013)

1) I have not had sexual contact with anyone

2) Female(s) 3) Male(s) 4) Female(s) and male(s)

New Hampshire Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2013)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

North Dakota Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

N/A

Rhode Island Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2013)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

Vermont Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

With whom have you had sexual intercourse? (2013)

1) I have never had sexual intercourse

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

Wisconsin Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2013)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

204 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 204

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Question Sex of Sexual Contacts Question Boston, MA Which of the following best describes

you? (2009) 1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, the person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are)? (2009)

1) I have not had sexual contact with anyone

2) Female(s) 3) Male(s) 4) Female(s) and male(s)

Boulder County, CO

Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

N/A

Chicago, IL Which of the following best describes you? (2009)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, the person(s) with whom you have had sexual contact is (are)? (2009)

1) I have not had sexual contact with anyone

2) Female(s) 3) Male(s) 4) Female(s) and male(s)

Cuyahoga County, OH

Which of the following best describes your feelings? (2009)

1) 100% heterosexual (attracted to persons of the opposite sex)

2) Mostly heterosexual 3) Bisexual (equally attracted

to men and women) 4) Mostly homosexual 5) 100% homosexual

(gay/lesbian; attracted to persons of the same sex)

6) Not sure 7) None of the above

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2009)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

Milwaukee, WI Which of the following best describes you? (2013)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2013)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

New York City, NY

Which of the following best describes you? (2011)

1) Heterosexual or straight 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

During your life, with whom have you had sexual contact? (2011)

1) I have never had sexual contact

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 205

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 205

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Question Sex of Sexual Contacts Question San Diego, CA How would you describe your sexual

orientation/preference? (2013) 1) Heterosexual, attracted to

the opposite sex 2) Bisexual, attracted to both

sexes 3) Homosexual, gay or lesbian 4) Not sure

With whom have you had sexual intercourse? (2013)

1) I have never had sexual intercourse

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

San Francisco, CA

How would you describe your sexual orientation/preference? (2009)

1) Heterosexual, attracted to the opposite sex

2) Bisexual, attracted to both sexes

3) Homosexual, gay or lesbian 4) Not sure

N/A

Washington, DC Which of the following best describes you? (2012)

1) Heterosexual (straight) 2) Gay or lesbian 3) Bisexual 4) Not sure

With whom have you had sexual intercourse? (2012)

1) I have never had sexual intercourse

2) Females 3) Males 4) Females and males

206 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 206

Table A-3 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: National School Climate Survey (NSCS)

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The 2005 National School Climate Survey (NSCS)

Section K 1. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their sexuality or sexual orientation. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Straight/heterosexual • Questioning

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your sexuality or sexual orientation: 2. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their gender. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Male • Female • Transgender • Transgender male-to-female • Transgender female-to-male

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your gender: 3. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are at school about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or questioning?

• I am “out” to everybody at school • I am “out” to most people at school • I am “out” only to a few people at school • I am not “out” to anyone at school

The 2007 National School Climate Survey

Section K 1. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their sexuality or sexual orientation. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Straight/heterosexual • Questioning • Queer

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your sexuality or sexual orientation: 2. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their gender. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Male • Female • Transgender • Transgender male-to-female • Transgender female-to-male

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 207

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 207

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The 2007 National School Climate Survey (cont.)

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your gender: 3. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to other students at your school about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to everybody at school • I am “out” to most people at school • I am “out” to only a few people at school • I am not “out” to anyone at school

4. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to teachers and other school staff about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to all school staff • I am “out” to most teachers and staff at school • I am “out” to only a few teachers and staff at school • I am not “out” to any school staff

5. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to your parent(s) or guardian(s) about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to at least one parent/guardian • I am not “out” to my parent(s) or guardian(s)

The 2009 National School Climate Survey

Section N 1. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their sexuality or sexual orientation. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Straight/heterosexual • Questioning • Queer

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your sexuality or sexual orientation: 2. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their gender. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Male • Female • Transgender • Transgender male-to-female • Transgender female-to-male

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your gender: 3. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to other students at your school about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to all students at school • I am “out” to most students at school

208 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 208

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The 2009 National School Climate Survey (cont.)

• I am “out” to only a few students at school • I am not “out” to any students at school

4. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to teachers and other school staff about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to all school staff • I am “out” to most teachers and staff at school • I am “out” to only a few teachers and staff at school • I am not “out” to any school staff

5. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to your parent(s) or guardian(s) about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to at least one parent/guardian • I am not “out” to my parent(s) or guardian(s)

The 2011 National School Climate Survey

Section N 1. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their sexuality or sexual orientation. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Straight/heterosexual • Questioning • Queer

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your sexuality or sexual orientation: 2. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their gender. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Male • Female • Transgender • Transgender male-to-female • Transgender female-to-male

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your gender: 3. How people express their gender can be typically considered “masculine,” “feminine,” somewhere in between or something else. Would you say that your gender expression at school is typically considered (please check only one answer):

• Very feminine • More feminine, but somewhat masculine • Equally masculine and feminine • More masculine, but somewhat feminine • Very masculine • None of these

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how to describe your gender expression:

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 209

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 209

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The 2011 National School Climate Survey (cont.)

4. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to other students at your school about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to all students at school • I am “out” to most students at school • I am “out” to only a few students at school • I am not “out” to any students at school

5. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to teachers and other school staff about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to all school staff • I am “out” to most teachers and staff at school • I am “out” to only a few teachers and staff at school • I am not “out” to any school staff

6. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to your parent(s) or guardian(s) about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning, or queer?

• I am “out” to at least one parent/guardian • I am not “out” to my parent(s) or guardian(s)

The 2013 National School Climate Survey

Section M 1. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their sexuality or sexual orientation. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Straight/Heterosexual • Questioning • Queer

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how you describe your sexuality or sexual orientation: 2. Below is a list of terms that people often use to describe their gender. Please check all those terms that apply to you.

• Male • Female • Transgender • Transgender Male-to-Female • Transgender Female-to-Male • Genderqueer

If none of these terms apply to you or if you use another term, please tell us how you describe your gender: 3. What sex were you assigned at birth (what the doctor put on your birth certificate)?

• Male • Female

210 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 210

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The 2013 National School Climate Survey (cont.)

4. A person’s gender expression may affect the way people think of them. On average, how do you think other people at school would describe your gender expression? (Please check only one answer.)

• Very feminine • Mostly feminine • Somewhat masculine • Equally masculine and feminine • Somewhat masculine • Mostly masculine • Very masculine • None of these

If none of these terms apply to you, please tell us how to describe your gender expression: 5. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to other students at your school about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning or queer?

• I am “out” to all students at school • I am “out” to most students at school • I am “out” to only a few students at school • I am not “out” to any students at school

6. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to teachers and other school staff about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning or queer?

• I am “out” to all school staff • I am “out” to most teachers and staff at school • I am “out” to only a few teachers and staff at school • I am not “out” to any school staff

7. Answer the following only if you identify as transgender. Some transgender students may be out about their sexual orientation, but not about being transgender. Which best describes you?

• I am “out” to everyone at school about being transgender. • I am “out” to most people at school about being transgender. • I am “out” to a few people at school about being transgender. • I am not “out” to anyone at school about being transgender.

8. Which of the following best describes how “out” you are to your parent(s) or guardian(s) about your being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning or queer?

• I am “out” to at least one parent/guardian • I am not “out” to my parent(s) or guardian(s)

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 211

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 211

Table A-4 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: National College Climate Survey

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions Sexual Attraction Question National College Climate Survey (2010)

Which term best describes your sexual identity?

• Gay or similar (not queer) • Lesbian or similar (not queer) • Bisexual (not lesbian, gay, or

queer) • Queer • Heterosexual • Asexual or don’t know

To whom are you most sexually attracted?

• Women • Men • Both men and

women • Uncertain • Neither • Other

212 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 212

Table A-5 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), College

Student Report

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), College Student Report (2013)

1. GLBT Status: Which of the following best describes your sexuality or sexual orientation?

Response options: ‘Gay,’ ‘Lesbian,’ ‘Bisexual,’ ‘Straight/Heterosexual,’ or ‘Questioning/Unsure’

2. Transgender Status: Are you transgender? Response options: ‘Yes’ or ‘No’

3. Sexual Orientation Openness: How open are you about the sexual orientation you identified above with people at this institution?

Response options: ‘Not at all open,’ ‘Open with a few of the people I know,’ ‘Open with less than half of the people I know,’ ‘Open with more than half of the people I know,’ ‘Open with most of the people I know,’ or ‘Totally open’

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), College Student Report (2013)

What is your gender? • Female • Male

Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?

• Heterosexual • Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Questioning/unsure • I prefer not to respond

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), College Student Report (2014)

What is your gender identity? • Man • Woman • Another gender identity • Prefer not to respond

Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?

• Heterosexual • Gay • Lesbian • Bisexual • Another sexual orientation • Questioning/unsure • I prefer not to respond

Another sexual orientation, please specify:

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 213

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 213

Appendix B: General Population–Focused Data Sets

Table B-1 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: General Social Survey (GSS)

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions General Social Survey (GSS)

Which of the following best describes you? • Gay, lesbian, or homosexual • Bisexual • Heterosexual or straight

Have your sex partners in the last five years been... • Exclusively male • Both male and female • Exclusively female • Don’t know

Now, thinking about the time since your 18th birthday (again, including the recent past that you have already told us about), how many female partners have you ever had sex with?

Again, thinking about the time since your 18th birthday (including the recent past that you have already told us about), how many male partners have you ever had sex with?

214 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 214

Table B-2 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)

NSFG 2006–2008 Female Questionnaire, Year 1 NSFG 2006–2008 Female Questionnaire, Year 2 Section: Sexual Attraction, Orientation, and Experience With STDs The very last time you had any type of sex—that is, vaginal intercourse or anal sex or oral sex—was that last sexual partner male or female? 1 Male 2 Female People are different in their sexual attraction to other people. Which best describes your feelings? Are you... 1 Only attracted to males 2 Mostly attracted to males 3 Equally attracted to males and females 4 Mostly attracted to females 5 Only attracted to females 6 Not sure Do you think of yourself as ... 1 Heterosexual or straight, 2 Homosexual, gay, or lesbian, 3 Bisexual, 4 Or something else? When you say “something else,” what do you mean? NSFG 2006–2008 Male Questionnaire, Year 1 NSFG 2006–2008 Male Questionnaire, Year 2 Section: Sexual Attraction, Orientation, and Experience With STDs Was that last sexual partner male or female? 1 Male 2 Female People are different in their sexual attraction to other people. Which best describes your feelings? Are you... 1 Only attracted to females 2 Mostly attracted to females 3 Equally attracted to females and males 4 Mostly attracted to males 5 Only attracted to males 6 Not sure Do you think of yourself as ... 1 Heterosexual or straight, 2 Homosexual, gay, or lesbian, 3 Bisexual, 4 Or something else?

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 215

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 215

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) (cont.)

When you say “something else,” what do you mean?

NSFG 2006–2008 Female Questionnaire, Year 3 Section: Sexual Attraction, Orientation, and Experience With STDs The very last time you had any type of sex—that is, vaginal intercourse or anal sex or oral sex—was that last sexual partner male or female? 1 Male 2 Female People are different in their sexual attraction to other people. Which best describes your feelings? Are you... 1 Only attracted to males 2 Mostly attracted to males 3 Equally attracted to males and females 4 Mostly attracted to females 5 Only attracted to females 6 Not sure Do you think of yourself as ... 1 Heterosexual or straight, 2 Homosexual, gay, or lesbian, 3 Bisexual NSFG 2006–2008 Male Questionnaire, Year 3 Section: Sexual Attraction, Orientation, and Experience With STDs Was that last sexual partner male or female? 1 Male 2 Female People are different in their sexual attraction to other people. Which best describes your feelings? Are you... 1 Only attracted to females 2 Mostly attracted to females 3 Equally attracted to females and males 4 Mostly attracted to males 5 Only attracted to males 6 Not sure Do you think of yourself as ... 1 Heterosexual or straight, 2 Homosexual, gay, or lesbian, 3 Bisexual

216 use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 216

Appendix C: Household-Focused Data Set

Table C-1 LGBTQ-Identifying Questions: The American Community Survey

Survey LGBTQ-Identifying Questions The American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau)

(Person 1 is the person living or staying here in whose name this house or apartment is owned, being bought, or rented. If there is no such person, start with the name of any adult living or staying here.) Section: Person 2 2. How is this person (Person 2) related to Person 1? Mark (X) ONE box.

• Husband or wife • Adopted son or daughter • Brother or sister • Biological son or daughter • Stepson or stepdaughter • Father or mother • Grandchild • Parent-in-law • Son-in-law or daughter-in-law • Roomer or boarder • Unmarried partner • Other relative • Housemate or roommate • Foster child • Other non-relative

3. What is Person 2’s sex?

• Male • Female

(The questions are repeated for Persons 3–5 who reside with the respondent.)

use of large-scale data sets and lgbtq education 217

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 217

ch10.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 218

Chapter 11

Challenges to Doing Research on LGBTQ Issues in Education

and Important Research Needs George L. Wimberly and Juan Battle

This report illustrates how multiple strands of education research are developing and providing information on the school experiences of LGBTQ students, LGBTQ families, and those who interact or relate with them. It also points to how the literature on LGBTQ issues is somewhat diffuse. This chapter addresses some of the prevailing re- search challenges that have inhibited effective and rigorous studies on LGBTQ issues in education research. The political climate may produce challenges to conducting studies on topics about sexuality in schools. Also, research funding and support and the status hierarchies among academic publications may limit where and how studies are undertaken and disseminated. This chapter examines some of these challenges and offers recommendations to encourage further studies on LGBTQ issues and to support knowledge production in this area.

The preceding chapters gave overviews of several areas of education re-search on LGBTQ issues and topics. This chapter illustrates how mul-tiple strands of education research are developing and providing infor- mation on the school experiences of LGBTQ students, LGBTQ families, and those who interact or relate with them. Researchers in all fields face challenges in developing clear, effective, and sound research, but the challenges expand with nebulous and somewhat controversial topics such as sexuality. Political climates, local cultural and religious norms, and communities’ heteronormative perspectives and value systems may make it difficult for researchers to study LGBTQ issues. The difficulties grow when the focus is children and youth, their schools, their families, and other social contexts that children inhabit. Researchers confront many challenges in developing a research agenda that addresses LGBTQ issues, clearly defining and framing educational issues that affect the LGBTQ community, securing funding to conduct research in this area, collecting the data, and ultimately publishing the research in media that will reach both the scholarly and the policy communities. In this chapter, we discuss some of the difficulties that scholars and researchers encounter as they examine and produce knowledge on LGBTQ issues in education research.

219

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 219

Existing Literature: What We Know About the Topic Researchers often examine issues across the life span to identify pivotal points of individual development and to study an issue in a broad sense. But research on LGBTQ issues in school and other educational contexts is lacking at several key points along students’ educational path. Despite a number of programs and curricula that address children’s understanding of sexuality, few studies examine the preschool and early school years. We have only snapshots and retrospective information about those time periods. Most research focusing on pre-K through sixth grade does not use the

student as the unit of analysis; rather, the focus is the LGBTQ parent and the impact of the parent’s sexuality on the child’s educational experience and family life (Goldberg, 2007; Kosciw & Diaz, 2008; Moore, 2011; Russell et al., 2008). Many researchers have addressed the issues and challenges that LGBTQ parents face in raising children in a heteronormative society. Much of this research centers on LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples who foster or adopt children (Patterson, 1992; Wainright, Russell, & Patterson, 2004) and their experiences with child-raising and how others respond to the children (Goldberg & Smith, 2009; Moore, 2011). There is also an emerging literature on how schools relate to LGBTQ parents and parents in same-sex relationships (Casper & Schultz, 1996; Lindsay et al., 2006). This literature focuses particularly on children at the preschool and elementary ages, when parents tend to have a very hands-on connection with the child and the school, but it does not focus on the children’s development or their sexuality. Much of the literature addressing this time of life from the child’s perspective or taking the child as the unit of analysis is retrospective, as the information is collected at much later life stages (Renn & Bilodeau, 2005), for example, when adoles- cents and adults recount their experiences as young children. Middle and High School Years The dearth of studies on LGBTQ issues continues with regard to the middle school years (Grades 6–8), although an emerging body of research examines the school experiences of students at that level, especially in connection with being bullied or otherwise harassed (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Net- work [GLSEN], 2009). As students near the end of middle school, the research starts to examine health-risk behaviors, such as alcohol and drug use, and links those behaviors to LGBTQ status (Robin et al., 2002). Nevertheless, little research examines the educational and school experiences of LGBTQ students in middle school, and there is practically no research linking sexuality to educational outcomes.

220 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 220

An emerging strand of research on LGBTQ high school students addresses development of an LGBTQ identity, school experiences, peer relationships, and educational outcomes using large-scale data sets such as the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth), the National School Climate Survey, or the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey that are dis- cussed in this report (Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, & Koenig, 2008; Kann et al., 2011; Kosciw et al., 2012; Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009). This literature tends to focus on health-related outcomes or educational outcomes. Again, it does not reflect the full potential of the data sets. There are only a few education research articles and reports written from these data sets that specifically address LGBTQ issues (Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007; Robinson & Espelage, 2011; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Some of this research deals with LGBTQ students’ high school experiences

through participation in community-based organizations for LGBTQ youth, providing rich personal narratives (Blackburn & McCready, 2009; Pascoe, 2007). Other research, exploring areas such as homeless adolescents and youth, drug use among adolescents, and juvenile delinquency and deviant behavior (Ray, 2006), contains elements linked to LGBTQ culture. Yet much of this lit- erature relies on individual student experiences or on very small samples that do not necessarily represent the student population. Unfortunately, none of the widely used and prominent large-scale educational data sets, such as the Edu- cation Longitudinal Study of 2002 or the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009, ask questions about sexual identity and same-sex behavior that could be linked to students’ school experiences, achievement, or outcomes. Although research exists on the experiences of LGBTQ teachers at the K–

12 levels, we know little about how teachers in general interact with LGBTQ students and respond to their issues in school (Jackson, 2007). Moreover, practically no research exists on the opinions or experiences of teachers, coaches, or other school professionals on LGBTQ issues. Higher Education When it comes to higher education, the field is clearly developing. The literature on the college and campus experiences of LGBTQ young adults encompasses a wide range of studies, reports, essays, and articles. Much of this literature reflects similar experiences of students as they develop their sexual identities and their participation in campus organizations formed and run by LGBTQ students. Alliance building, student activism, and advocacy (Beemyn, 2005; Rankin, Blumenfeld, Weber, & Frazer, 2010) dominate this body of work. It also deals with student life more generally and its social dimensions as en- countered by these students on campus. The literature on higher education ad-

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 221

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 221

dresses the experiences of LGBTQ faculty and scholars as well (Tierney, 1997), but does not often connect faculty and students. Even with the relative abundance of work in this area, there are limitations.

Much of the work on sexuality in higher education uses qualitative research methods such as interviews, personal narratives, and observations. These studies often involve small samples and anecdotal examples that cannot be generalized to the larger student population. Other studies rely on retrospective information from students about their past life experiences. In fact, much of the information we have on LGBTQ students’ life experiences as children is gathered during their college years when they are young adults. This research may be effective as a historical recollection of events, but it does not address children’s current experiences, perspectives, feelings, or immediate educational outcomes associated with their LGBTQ identity, behavior, or attraction. Like the literature at the high school level, much of the LGBTQ literature on higher education examines pathological issues such as bullying, suicide, de- pression, and general lack of psychological well-being (D’Augelli, 2002; Savin-Williams, 2001). As a result, there is a dearth of large-scale, “non- pathological” research linking sexuality with educational experiences and outcomes (Horn et al., 2009). Throughout this report, it is clear that the research on LGBTQ issues is

somewhat diffuse. Many issues need to be explored and clarified to fill the gaps and increase our understanding of how they affect schools, schooling, and other educational issues. In this chapter we seek to address some of the prevailing research challenges that have inhibited effective and rigorous studies on LGBTQ issues in education research.

Enabling and Limiting Factors Political Climate Although policies may be national, politics are local. Therefore, even in the best of times— with a socially liberal president and Congress— getting local K–12 school boards to allow researchers to collect data on sexuality is an almost insurmountable hurdle. Conversely, with a socially conservative pres- ident, Congress, or other leaders, the hurdle may become a lost cause. Local school districts and communities often remain very reluctant to allow re- searchers to ask students questions about sexual behavior or sexual identity. Even health issues associated with sexual behavior— e.g., birth control, condom use, sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancy— are taboo in many com- munities. Some argue that these issues are tied to religious and moral value systems and thus have no place in schools, but belong in the family (Irvine,

222 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 222

2002). Sexuality issues can be off-limits to researchers and prohibited from the school curriculum. For example, a sex education curriculum in a Wash- ington, D.C.-area school district was rejected because it discussed and depicted condom use (McGarry, 2013). Many parents and community leaders are outraged by the prospect of re-

searchers studying sexuality among youth, let alone LGBTQ issues. The outrage is often greater in private schools and religiously affiliated schools or communities that are not obligated to follow federal or state guidelines and that have strong sanctions on sexual behavior, particularly same-sex activity (Irvine, 2002). Regardless of national policy or edict, reaching students who are enrolled in religious schools or being home schooled is a major challenge. Thus, gathering reliable data from children or young adults on their sexual identity or behavior, or from their parents or the clergy who teach in their schools, presents its own unique challenge. Although sexuality studies may be linked with curriculum, researchers

often find it difficult to get approval to ask questions that remotely address those issues. Even general studies at the K–12 level cannot address LGBTQ questions (Castro & Sujak, 2014). Further, data collections that do address sexual identity or behavior are subject to constraints. For example, the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey of middle and high school students’ health behaviors asks questions about sexual identity and same-sex behavior only in the nine large urban school districts and twelve states that have approved those questions (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). Nevertheless, with changes of political parties, the evolution of local, state,

and national political climates may shed light on the LGBTQ community. Since 2011, with increasing attention to bullying of LGBTQ students at school, passage of state and local laws permitting same-sex marriage and civil unions, and greater acceptance of gays in the military, public attitudes toward LGBTQ issues have become more accepting than in the past (Badgett & Herman, 2011; Lugg & Tooms, 2011). These changes have the potential to create a cli- mate that is conducive to the study of LGBTQ issues more broadly, and specif- ically as these issues relate to children and youth, schools, and educational experiences. However, the pendulum could swing back to conservatism, much as it did from the 1970s to the 1980s, and sound, rigorous scientific research on any topic takes time. Large-scale studies can take years to develop, pilot, and ultimately implement. Research cannot afford to be subject to the whims of public sentiment. To produce useful and informative knowledge about the LGBTQ experience in our schools and educational systems, the education re- search community must commit to studying LGBTQ issues, regardless of changes in political climate.

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 223

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 223

Status Hierarchies in Research: The Academy, Policy Organizations, and Think Tanks Some of the most significant knowledge production and science on LGBTQ issues is developed and published by academic institutions, policy organiza- tions, and think tanks. Each of these entities produces and reports information that is disseminated to its respective stakeholders (e.g., scholarly communities, state and federal legislatures, local school districts, and other policy-making bodies). But not all research is created equal. It is not all conducted with the same scientific method and rigor, does not all emphasize the salient LGBTQ issues in education research or have the same potential influence or effect. The variety of information on LGBTQ issues makes it difficult to decipher a clear and consistent message. Most research by academics on LGBTQ issues in education appears in

scholarly journals and books whose readers are other academics. It is reviewed by experts in the field for rigor, accuracy, and fit within a given publisher’s purpose. The status hierarchy among journals and academic presses is based on their reputations as sources of rigorous research that is respected in the field. In education, some of the leading journals that have published research on LGBTQ issues are Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Educational Researcher, and Sociology of Education. However, a wide body of LGBTQ research is published by second- or lower-tier journals or presses that lack widespread appeal or prestige. Although the research may address important LGBTQ issues such as campus climate or the “coming out” process, it is often anecdotal, with weak reliability and limited validity and generalizability. Moreover, the controversial nature of sexuality and LGBTQ issues, or a lack of understanding of their connection with educational outcomes and experi- ences, may discourage many publishers. Some of the research has aspects of advocacy (Quinn & Meiners, 2009) or takes the form of essays, personal nar- ratives, or position papers (Meiners, 1998). Many publishers avoid it, although others accept it based on the importance of the topics. The structure of education research as a field may pose challenges to

research on LGBTQ issues. In the behavioral and social sciences— including economics, history, psychology, and sociology— there is a wider body of ed- ucation research on LGBTQ issues. Some of this research is inherent to a single discipline, and some integrates theories and perspectives across disci- plines. Additional work on LGBTQ issues in education is found in various professional fields of study such as public health, social work, medicine, and mental health. For example, much of the research on LGBTQ drug and alcohol use can be found in the public health literature (Kann et al., 2011; Greenwood & Gruskin, 2010), while research on LGBTQ youth’s psychological well-

224 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 224

being is found in psychology and sociology as well as in medical and mental health literature (Meyer, 2008). Each field brings its own perspective to the research. In many ways, the multifield and multidiscipline focus can be an asset. However, given the relative newness and limited discussion of LGBTQ topics among researchers, the most salient and potentially influential research may be hard to identify. In many cases, this literature stays within its originating discipline or field and is not widely disseminated. For example, research pub- lished in school administration journals may never get beyond the school su- perintendents and principals targeted by the journals, although the findings may have implications for teachers, parents, and students. The resources as well as the agendas of political organizations and think

tanks are quite different from those in academic settings. Political organizations such as the Center for American Progress tend to fund and publish research that supports a specific political party and its agenda. Similarly, think tank re- search often reflects the goals and missions— and the liberal or conservative political perspectives— of the organizations that publish it and therefore is un- likely to be viewed as objective. For example, work published by GLSEN, a leading organization on school rights, has published numerous research reports and essays that support rights for LGBTQ students, teachers, and administrators (GLSEN, 2009; Kosciw & Diaz, 2008; Kosciw, Diaz, & Greytak, 2008; Kosciw et al., 2012). On the other hand, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative group, argues that an LGBTQ curriculum undermines traditional family values (Messner, 2008). Such divergent opinions and perspectives expressed by po- litical organizations and think tanks may make it difficult for researchers to produce clear and accurate work that has value and saliency. Another continuing challenge for education researchers studying LGBTQ

issues is defining the audience. As described above, research can be useful for policy makers as well as for scholars; the same research can have multiple di- mensions, intended for multiple purposes and audiences. For example, the re- search on school bullying has very practical implications for teachers, parents, and students. Media attention to school bullying has sparked interest among many audiences, yet much of the bullying research is written from a scholarly perspective and may only be disseminated to the academic community (Es- pelage et al., 2008; Espelage & Swearer, 2008). Similarly, research on LGBTQ students’ academic performance and outcomes, such as grades, test scores, and graduation rates, may have limited exposure among school administrators and teachers. And negative public attitudes toward LGBTQ issues may cause schools to overlook or ignore the research for fear of drawing unwanted atten- tion to the issue. Some school administrators may think that schools cannot deal directly or adequately with LGBTQ research and consider it more useful

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 225

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 225

for the mental health community. Researchers face challenges of this kind as they seek to identify an audience and address research questions that have the potential to affect LGBTQ students at all educational levels. Just as there are differences among the organizations that publish LGBTQ

education research, there are also differences among the researchers who produce it. Researchers receive different types of training through their graduate work and careers, developing varied skill sets. In the most optimal situations, scholars receive high-level training in conducting various kinds of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research. Such training might include multiple courses in survey research design, inferential statistics, program evaluation, qualitative methods, and narrative analysis, among other key methodological areas. In ad- dition to classroom training, graduate students work closely with faculty on re- search projects that can provide them with practical experience in developing and implementing studies. Many of the leading academic institutions have the resources to enable their students to develop a strong set of research skills. However, not all programs teach an extensive selection of quantitative and

qualitative methods for research and data analysis. Some provide only a min- imal overview of methods. Beyond the classroom, some students get very little research experience and have few opportunities to work on research projects. Many are trained to be consumers of research who can readily read an academic article, program evaluation, or report with some understanding of the theory, methods, and findings. These students are not necessarily trained to be producers of sound scientific research. Moreover, universities may not have faculty working on controversial topics

such as LGBTQ issues or encouraging students to study them. It was not until the 1990s that a body of literature on LGBTQ issues began to emerge in leading academic journals, particularly in education research (Badgett, 1995; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993). Faculty may be reluctant to study and publish on LGBTQ issues because of the emphasis on research and publishing for promotion and career advancement. Graduate school curricula are beginning to reflect sexual diversity in areas such as gay studies and lesbian studies, but few graduate courses deal with LGBTQ theories and issues, which are neces- sary if students are to develop the theoretical basis and knowledge to conduct research in this area. Some researchers have a strong advocacy perspective, resulting in biased

research that supports only one side of an issue. This lack of objectivity is particularly problematic in the study of LGBTQ issues. Advocacy research on LGBTQ issues may be highly significant among think tanks and organizations with a specific political or social agenda but unappreciated in scholarly arenas that focus on scientific research.

226 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 226

Even when advocacy is not the goal, researcher bias is a challenge in edu- cation research on LGBTQ issues. Often, those researchers who are willing to study LGBTQ issues are insiders with a strong connection to the subject, to such an extent that it compromises the research. Their insider status can also cause researchers to express offense when working with others with opposing perspectives, resulting in biased data collection, analysis, or interpretation. Researchers studying issues close to their personal experience must be ex- tremely careful to remain objective in order to ensure accurate and impartial findings. Another form of bias can arise when the LGBTQ populations among chil-

dren and young adults who are studied do not reflect the general population of LGBTQ students, teachers, and others in a school setting. Often, study partic- ipants are connected with school- or community-based organizations for LGBTQ people. These participants may be biased in that they identify with an LGBTQ organization and may take on an LGBTQ identity and status; the sample may not include those who engage in same-sex behavior or have same- sex attraction but do not adopt an LGBTQ identity. In short, even if research is done well, the person or organization that

“does” the research matters to its reception: whether it gets funded and how well, whether it appears in certain journals, and whether the researcher gets appropriate recognition— tenure, promotion, merit pay, or other accolades. Thus it is critical for LGBTQ researchers in education to maintain rigor and objectivity. Human Subjects Protection, IRBs, and Irregular Regulation Educational organizations at all levels are rightly concerned with protecting themselves, their researchers, and their students. Protecting students when they serve as human subjects in research becomes most important in studies of children and youth. To address these concerns, institutional review board (IRB) approval is required for a much broader range of research when children and youth are involved. IRBs are often based at universities or at state or federal funding agencies that are formed with the purpose of reviewing potential research projects. Local school districts and other groups may have their own IRB or implement an additional review process before allowing research studies to be conducted in their schools. However, the stringent nature of the IRB review and approval process gives

rise to some major concerns and challenges for education research on sexuality, particularly on LGBTQ issues. Researchers must ask themselves many ques- tions to implement a study in accordance with human subject protection guide- lines, for example:

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 227

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 227

• What information is protected and what is not? • How does a researcher gain access to students if the sampling frame is

community based rather than school based? • What does a researcher do when, even with IRB approval for a study,

community members responsible for gathering data refuse to cooperate because they find it personally offensive?

• How does a researcher develop an appropriate instrument when there are no national-level ethical standards for IRBs?

We address these questions below and explain in some detail why they are important as we address LGBTQ issues in education research.

What information is protected and what is not? It is often unclear what in- formation falls under protection guidelines. Much of LGBTQ research revolves around issues of individual identity, behavior, and sometimes actions sur- rounding this behavior. Mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts, along with pathological behaviors such as youth alcohol and drug use, are found in much of the LGBTQ research in schools and among students (D’Augelli, 2002; Russell, 2003). It can be unclear what obligations the researcher has to report the mental health concerns of students and how appropriate it is for researchers to enter the personal and social spaces of chil- dren, particularly in a K–12 setting. In the current environment for data collection, researchers often rely on the

Internet to obtain information for LGBTQ studies. Many researchers draw convenience samples that use Internet-based social media such as Facebook to identify and recruit LGBTQ youth (Kosciw et al., 2012; Rankin et al., 2010). Relying on Internet-based information from e-mails and Web-based discussion groups or blogs can raise questions regarding what constitutes in- formed consent. And it is not always clear how best to interpret and analyze the information from these sources.

How does a researcher gain access to students if the sampling frame is community based rather than school based?Gaining access to LGBTQ children and youth is one of the greatest challenges that researchers face. As discussed earlier, schools are often reluctant to give researchers access to their students for studies addressing controversial issues such as sexuality. They may also balk at the time and effort required to organize studies; in particular, schools do not want to relinquish valuable instruction time to give researchers access to their students. Community-based LGBTQ youth groups may be more ac-

228 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 228

cessible to researchers than schools, although working with these groups can raise ethical issues related to informed consent, and research findings should address possible selection bias, as the participants may represent only those actively engaged in the LGBTQ community.

What does a researcher do when, even with IRB approval for a study, com- munity members responsible for gathering data refuse to cooperate because they find it personally offensive? Although a university’s IRB may approve a school study on LGBTQ issues, an individual or gatekeeper at the school (e.g., research director, principal, teacher, parent, or community group) may block the study from being fully implemented. The IRB stamp of approval does not guarantee that researchers will have full access as specified in the re- search plan.

How does a researcher develop an appropriate instrument when there are no national-level ethical standards for IRBs? Ultimately, IRBs are approved by individuals. There are no national standards on how people should be se- lected for an IRB or how it should make decisions. Some IRB members have never gathered data for a research project. At many institutions and universities, IRB members are drawn from the medical research community and may be unfamiliar with the methods and standards used in the behavioral and social sciences. Thus, the limited training and sometimes limited experience of IRB participants become a challenge to the conduct of LGBTQ education research. In addition, the unclear yet often stringent IRB guidelines protecting and

shaping this research in the United States have limited its proliferation. Outside the United States more open policies have resulted in a wide body of literature on LGBTQ issues in schools. Australian, British, and Canadian studies domi- nate the field. Researchers in those countries have conducted extensive studies in schools and with families, despite public opinion on LGBTQ issues (Clarke, Kitzinger, & Potter, 2004; Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010; Rivers, 2004), and journals in many other countries have published extensive research on LGBTQ children, youth, families, and their school experiences. But in many regions of the world— for example, throughout Africa and Latin America— LGBTQ schol- arship is virtually nonexistent. Cultural norms and religious value systems limit the discussion of LGBTQ issues in those regions much as they do in the United States. Underuse of Existing Data Apart from the challenges in gathering data on LGBTQ issues in education, the data that already exist are underused. In this report we have noted that

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 229

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 229

several large-scale data sets— the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth), the General Social Survey, the National School Climate Survey, and the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey— and others offer additional information (see www.gaydata.org). However, researchers are failing to capitalize on the potential of the existing data. Here, we discuss several possible explanations.

Researchers do not know the data are available. Many researchers may be unaware that the large-scale national data sets are available for public use, al- though a number of them have public use files that can be easily downloaded or requested. However, licensing for access to restricted data can pose a chal- lenge for researchers.

Researchers do not know how to navigate large national data sets. The large national data sets contain thousands of records and variables, which re- searchers with novice data-handling skills may find difficult to understand and manipulate. The use of sampling weights— often necessary with national data sets— may pose further challenges.

Researchers do not know the statistical methods necessary to explore LGBTQ issues adequately. Some researchers may lack the advanced statistical training or skills needed to address certain research questions using these data sets, for example, hierarchical linear modeling, propensity score matching, and structural equation modeling.

Education researchers do not consider sexuality data sets appropriate for their interests. Although some large-scale data sets and smaller studies include survey items about sexuality, education level, and school experiences, re- searchers may find that the data do not adequately address their educational interests. Researchers may also encounter strict limitations on the school and schooling issues they can address with data sets used primarily in sexuality- and health-related studies.

Developers of large-scale data sets used in education research do not con- sider questions that address LGBTQ status. The relevance and salience of sexuality and LGBTQ issues have yet to emerge fully in education research or to gain full acceptance. Developers of large-scale data sets used in education research may simply neglect to include LGBTQ-related items or be unaware that they should do so, or they may feel inadequate to the task.

230 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 230

Operational Challenges and Adequate Indicators One challenge in conducting quantitative research on sexuality and educational outcomes is the financial burden of including enough questions to capture fully the intersectional nature of the phenomena. Because each survey question costs money, researchers aim for the biggest bang for the smallest number of questions. In an ideal world, one question measuring sexual orientation would be appropriate, regardless of race, region, age, and so forth. Unfortunately, that world is not the one we live in. For example, previous research shows that among people of color in certain regions and of certain generations, terms such as gay and queer possess qualitatively different meanings than among their White counterparts (Cahill, 2010; Moore, 2011; Smith, 2012). Even a term such as transgender becomes difficult because of its variant meanings across demographics. For example, if people are gender nonconforming, does that make them gay? The definitions of such terms often lie in the larger culture and society; the terms cannot be readily assigned a universal or na- tionwide meaning. Using nationally appropriate terms on a survey can be the- oretically challenging and thus financially prohibitive. Another challenge that education researchers face when studying LGBTQ

issues is the lack of scales or tools to define LGBTQ status and apply it to their school contexts or educational experiences. Part of this challenge is de- ciding what aspect of sexuality is to be measured. As discussed throughout this report, the term sexuality tends to include three unique aspects: identity, behavior, and attraction. The U.S. Census attempts to capture LGBTQ house- holds by the gender composition of members, yet it lacks specific questions about same-sex marriages or relationships. First and foremost, there is currently not a recognized and standard scale of sexual identity. Much of the research defines a person as being exclusively heterosexual, exclusively homosexual, or in some cases, bisexual. Most of the definitions of these terms address only sexual identity, without providing information about sexual behavior or to whom the person is attracted, particularly in research on children and youth. There are few clear measures of masculinity or femininity. Researchers are posed with the task of developing valid and reliable scales and measures of sexuality that capture the multiple aspects of LGBTQ status. Qualitative research on LGBTQ issues in education often relies on retro-

spective information when the unit of analysis is the person, and similar phe- nomena or experiences can have multiple meanings across time and space. Sexuality manifests differently in different settings, such as urban city schools, which overwhelming have low-income, minority student populations, and suburban and rural schools, which tend to serve students from many ethnic

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 231

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 231

groups, cultures, and social classes. It is difficult to apply the same methods or theories in different social contexts. To develop a study that accurately ad- dresses multiple perspectives, scholars need to develop definitions of multiple key terms and indicators. Funding Issues The key funders of education research include federal, state, and local gov- ernments; universities and other organizations; and private foundations. Many major donors often avoid funding research on sexuality because of its potential political volatility, the fluidity of its central concepts, and the ambiguity of its policy implications. Add to this the conservative nature of education research and funding, and it becomes both additively and multiplicatively more difficult to fund research on the intersection of sexuality and education. A researcher can invest quite a bit of time in a big article and, if it fails to

get published in a top journal, can look to less prestigious journals. Unfortu- nately, the same is not true for big grant proposals. Less prestigious funding sources are highly correlated with less money. Thus, for even the best-inten- tioned researcher, the cost-benefit analysis is clear: The low likelihood of funding is not worth the large amount of time it will take to design the study and write the proposal. Thus, without a prior commitment on the part of major donors to fund issues around sexuality, particularly LGBTQ status, many re- searchers are reluctant to seek funding from those donors. The studies that are funded often have very small budgets, which limit their scope, breadth, and ultimately the quality of the scholarship.

Conclusion The education research enterprise can be very challenging for scholars, policy makers, and others who study educational phenomena across a variety of do- mains. It is often not enough to merely develop sound, rigorous, scientific re- search questions to ponder, analyze, and form conclusions about. As we have discussed, the challenges can start with the researchers who are conducting the research, and they include the school and community contexts where the research takes place and the funding and intellectual support it receives. Insert a somewhat controversial subject such as sexuality or LGBTQ issues in edu- cation, and the challenges can be overwhelming. To expand the knowledge base surrounding LGBTQ issues in education,

scholars, researchers, and all those concerned must work to overcome or cir- cumvent some of these challenges and develop research agendas that will bring a clearer understanding. Despite great strides in the past two decades,

232 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 232

there remain serious gaps in our knowledge about LGBTQ students’ educational paths. An important first step is to acknowledge that these challenges exist and that they may be of great salience for controversial topics such as LGBTQ issues in education research.

References Badgett, M. V. L. (1995). The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial

and Labor Relations Review, 48(4), 726–739. Badgett, M. V., & Herman, J. L. (2011). Patterns of relationship recognition by same-sex

couples in the United States. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. Beemyn, B. G. (2005). Making campuses more inclusive of transgender students. Journal

of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 3, 77–87. Blackburn, M. V., & McCready, L. T. (2009). Voices of queer youth in urban schools: Pos-

sibilities and limitations. Theory Into Practice, 48(3), 222–230. Casper, V., & Schultz, S. (1996). Lesbian and gay parents encounter educators: Initiating

conversations. In R. C. Savin-Williams & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), The lives of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 305–330). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Cengage.

Castro, I. E., & Sujak, M. C. (2014). “Why can’t we learn about this?” Sexual minority stu- dents navigate the official and hidden curricular spaces of high school. Education and Urban Society, 46, 450–473.

Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). “Kids are just cruel anyway”: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 531–550.

D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths aged 14 to 21. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 433–456.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth in com- munity settings: Personal challenges and mental health problems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(4), 421–448.

Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B. W. (2008). Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What in- fluence do parents and schools have? School Psychology Review, 37(2), 202–216.

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (2009). The experiences of lesbian, gay, bi- sexual and transgender middle school students (GLSEN Research Brief). New York: Author.

Goldberg, A. E. (2007). (How) does it make a difference? Perspectives of adults with lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77, 550–562.

Goldberg, A. E., & Smith, J. Z. (2009). Perceived parenting skill across the transition to adoptive parenthood among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 861–870.

Greenwood, G. L., & Gruskin, E. P. (2010). LGBT tobacco and alcohol disparities. In I. H. Meyer & M. E. Northridge (Eds.), The health of sexual minorities: Public health per-

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 233

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 233

spectives on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender populations (pp. 566–583). New York: Springer.

Horn, S. S., Kosciw, J. G., & Russell, S. T. (2009). New research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: Studying lives in context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 863–866.

Irvine, J. M. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States (with a new preface). Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Jackson, J. (2007). Unmasking identities: An exploration of the lives of gay and lesbian teachers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.

Kann, L., Olsen, E. O., McManus, T., Kinchen, S., Chyen, D., Harris, W. A., & Wechsler, H. (2011). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among students in grades 9–12—Youth risk behavior surveillance, selected sites, United States, 2001–2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), 60(7), 1–133.

Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2008). Involved, invisible, ignored: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents and their children in our nation’s K– 12 schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). The 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Lindsay, J., Perlesz, A., Brown, R., McNair, R., de Vaus, D., & Pitts, M. (2006). Stigma or respect: Lesbian-parented families negotiating school settings. Sociology, 40, 1059– 1077.

Lugg, C. A., & Tooms, A. K. (2011). Trouble in Toms River. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 14(15), 15–25.

McGarry, R. (2013). Build a curriculum that includes everyone. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(5), 27–31.

Meiners, E. (1998). Remember when all the cars were Fords and all the lesbians were women? Some notes on identity, mobility, and capital. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Queer theory in education (pp. 121–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Messner, T. (2008). Same-sex marriage and the threat to religious liberty. Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

Meyer, I. (2008). Social stress and mental health outcomes in lesbians, gay men and bisex- uals: Divergences and commonalities in cross-cultural perspectives. International Jour- nal of Psychology, 43(3–4), 209–209.

Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, relationships, and motherhood among Black women. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

234 challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 234

Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63(5), 1025–1042.

Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2007). Adolescent same-sex attraction and academic outcomes: The role of school attachment and engagement. Social Problems, 54(4), 523–542.

Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Willingness to remain friends and attend school with lesbian and gay peers: Relational expressions of prejudice among heterosexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 952–962.

Quinn, T., & Meiners, E. R. (2009). Flaunt it! Queers organizing for public education and justice. New York: Peter Lang.

Rankin, S., Blumenfeld, W. J., Weber, G. N., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher education for LGBT people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.

Ray, N. (2006). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: An epidemic of homelessness. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and National Coalition for the Homeless.

Renn, K. A., & Bilodeau, B. (2005). Queer student leaders: An exploratory case study of identity development and LGBT student involvement at a Midwestern research uni- versity. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 2(4), 49–71.

Rivers, I. (2004). Recollections of bullying at school and their long-term implications for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Crisis, 25(4), 169–175.

Robin, L., Brener, N. D., Donahue, S. F., Hack, T., Hale, K., & Goodenow, C. (2002). As- sociations between health risk behaviors and opposite-, same-, and both-sex sexual partners in representative samples of Vermont and Massachusetts high school students. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 349–355.

Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequalities in educational and psychological outcomes between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 315–330.

Russell, S. T. (2003). Sexual minority youth and suicide risk. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(9), 1241–1257.

Russell, S. T., McGuire, J. K., Lee, S. A., Larriva, J. C., & Laub, C. (2008). Adolescent perceptions of school safety for students with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(4), 11–27.

Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 111– 127.

Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). Suicide attempts among sexual minority youth: Population and measurement issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(6), 983– 991.

Tierney, W. G. (1997). Academic outlaws: Queer theory and cultural studies in the academy. London: Sage.

Wainright, J. L., Russell, S. T., & Patterson, C. J. (2004). Psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic relationships of adolescents with same-sex parents. Child De- velopment, 75(6), 1886–1898.

challenges to doing research on lgbtq issues 235

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 235

ch11.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 236

Chapter 12

Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research

George L. Wimberly

Throughout this report the authors have drawn on the existing literatureto discuss and explore what we know about LGBTQ issues in educationresearch, the methods used to develop or conduct this research, the limitations of our knowledge about LGBTQ issues, and the potential for further research that will enhance and fill gaps in the field. These chapters represent only a small amount of the research in key substantive areas that impact LGBTQ people, families, students, faculty, and administrators in K–12 schools, higher education, and other educational contexts. In the emerging field of LGBTQ issues in education research, scholars should be prepared and en- couraged to develop questions and examine issues with the full extent of sci- entific rigor and methods that are available. The result of such efforts will be studies that use sound quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research methods to collect information, strong statistical and analytical techniques to examine the data, and interpretations of findings that connect to existing literature, theory, and conceptual frameworks. Through scientific research we can expand our knowledge and understanding of LGBTQ issues from an education research perspective that can inform policies, practices, and programs in schools and other educational contexts. It is equally important that this research cut across racial and ethnic groups, socioeconomic classes, and other demographic char- acteristics that shape our families, schools, and educational communities. Given the recent legal, social, and policy shifts supporting LGBTQ people,

some schools, as well as education researchers, are compelled to address LGBTQ issues with a new sense of legitimacy and urgency. Just in the last decade, most states have legalized same-sex marriage; many cities, businesses, and organizations recognize same-sex unions; and the military allows openly gay and lesbian service members. In 2012, President Barack Obama expressed his support for marriage equality, adding visibility to important LGBTQ issues. The legalization and legitimation of same-sex marriage is undoubtedly changing how scholars and researchers define family, marriage, and relationships. Many communities acknowledge LGBTQ families as a fully functioning institution and recognize that these families raise children to be productive, successful

237

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 237

citizens. Children in same-sex-parent families that were once invisible are now gaining a voice in many schools across the United States, creating a greater need for education researchers to examine LGBTQ issues and produce new knowledge (Moore, 2011). Given these policy and social changes, we are at a prime stage to enhance and increase our understanding and knowledge of LGBTQ issues and develop research that can support schools, educators, school leaders, and policy makers. As we conclude this report, we highlight some of the key issues, themes,

and findings that arise from the research on LGBTQ youth and their families. We also make recommendations to guide and enhance further research that addresses LGBTQ issues within the education research domain.

What We Know From Education Research on LGBTQ Issues: Significant Themes

The research presented throughout this report reflects much of the heteronor- mative structure found in schools, educational systems, and communities across the United States. The heteronormative structure or perspective supports only traditional male-female relationships and marriages, maintains male dom- inance, and oppresses or suppresses any notions that are counter to or mis- aligned with that perspective. The heteronormative perspective is also dominant in research in general, and specifically in education research as it examines topics such as schools, curriculum, student experiences, student achievement, faculty, and other schooling and educational issues. The heteronormative per- spective has been privileged in that it is seen as mainstream and as an absolute, with other perceptions being inferior and illegitimate. It influences how scholars approach research, develop research questions, design studies, interpret find- ings, and ultimately arrive at conclusions about the findings. Heteronormativity influences what is valued in education research and what is ignored; what is published in the leading journals and presses and what is relegated to lower- tier journals or alternative publishers. The heteronormative perspective resulted in the view of homosexuality as being pathological and worthy only of con- tempt, especially among children and in schools. Typical of heteronormative institutions, schools have a long history of op-

pressing women and silencing gay and lesbian people. Although women tend to dominate the teaching profession, men are more likely to be school principals, leaders, and senior administrators. Female teachers also have a history of earning less money than their male peers. One reason is that women are more likely to teach in elementary schools, where the pay is lower than in high schools. Schools tend to maintain strong and traditional family structures and

238 conclusion and recommendations for further research

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 238

values. As late as the 1970s we know that many gay and lesbian teachers in K–12 schools lost their jobs on the grounds that their sexual orientation was a moral transgression and a threat to traditional family values and to their students (Blount, 2005; Graves, 2009). However, as is evident in this report, education research on LGBTQ issues

is at an important crossroad as greater knowledge is being developed and pro- duced to help us understand LGBTQ people and issues as a separate and distinct area of study. This research is moving into the mainstream of research and beginning to challenge some of the traditional notions of heteronormativity in schools. Conceptual frameworks such as Queer Legal Theory, Critical Race Theory, and other legal theories help set the stage for understanding how law and policy influence the lives of LGBTQ people (Hutchinson, 1997, 1999; Valdes, 1995, 1997, 2004). Emerging theoretical perspectives such as queer theory, and perspectives that draw on multiple theories and theoretical inter- actions, are beginning to frame education research and unveil LGBTQ issues in school settings. Although the research on LGBTQ people in an education context has only begun developing in the mainstream since the 1990s, we know from historical education research that LGBTQ teachers and students played a significant role in education and education policy throughout the 20th century (Blount, 2005; Dilley, 2002; Graves, 2009). One of the most sig- nificant outcomes of the research on LGBTQ issues is the increased visibility it has brought to LGBTQ people and the concerns of the LGBTQ education community (Renn, 2010). The research has shed some light on the school ex- periences of LGBTQ students in middle and high school (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014) and to a larger extent on university campuses (Rankin, Blumenfeld, Weber, & Frazer, 2010; Renn, 2010). As described in this report, there is an existing line of research that addresses LGBTQ issues in an educa- tion context focusing on student achievement, school climate, bullying, ha- rassment, and other school-related issues. The research is giving both a face and a voice to LGBTQ students and administrators as they interact on school campuses. It focuses on issues affecting faculty and administrators at the indi- vidual level and schools and campuses at the institutional level. Much of the education research on LGBTQ issues focuses on school and

campus climates for LGBTQ students. Specifically, this research examines school safety issues as they relate to LGBTQ students. Students from elemen- tary school through college report being taunted, bullied, ridiculed, or otherwise victimized because of their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Sadly, this school-based victimization sometimes extends to the children of LGBTQ par- ents. As we see in many of the studies described in this report, these acts of school violence are the common thread through much of the school-based re-

conclusion and recommendations for further research 239

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 239

search. The studies give us a glimpse at some of the negative experiences of LGBTQ students. Narrative studies provide descriptions of abusive acts and anti-LGBTQ comments and concerns that are often present in schools. Studies show how teachers and administrators often ignore the comments and some- times indirectly condone harassing behavior. In the school context, some athletic teams and programs have a long history of encouraging and somewhat normalizing anti-LGBTQ culture, taunts, and ridicule. These behaviors or re- actions to LGBTQ people further reflect the heteronormative culture of schools. The research suggests that in many ways schools, and sports teams in particular, have accepted or condoned harassment and bullying of LGBTQ students (Kosciw et al., 2012; Lipkin, 2001, 2004; Pascoe, 2007). However, much of the research is unclear in terms of the effects on students’ academic achievement and other educational outcomes. In some studies LGBTQ students who are victimized have lower grades and are less likely to attend college, while other studies show little or no difference between LGBTQ students and their peers (T. J. Clarke & Russell, 2009; Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007). These findings suggest that there are unexamined areas at the individual and school levels where research could possibly explain some of these similarities and differences across studies. Further research is clearly needed. Unfortunately, much of what we know about LGBTQ research in a school

or educational context depicts the challenges and often negative experiences of LGBTQ students, faculty, and school administrators. Many studies focus on mental illness such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal tendencies, and others explore behaviors such as drug and alcohol use among LGBTQ youth. Research suggests that LGBTQ students and faculty may experience high rates of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues as they cope with their sexual orientation (D’Augelli, 2002). We particularly see these mental health concerns among young children and youth as they discover themselves and mature into functional adults. At the institutional level much of the research focuses on bullying and harassment in schools. School administrators often report a legitimate fear that their jobs would be jeopardized if they publicly acknowledged their LGBTQ sexual orientation or status.

Recommendations to Enhance Education Research on LGBTQ Issues

Throughout this report, we see that there are numerous gaps in the knowledge on LGBTQ issues— important areas left unstudied or understudied— as well as strong potential for further education research addressing LGBTQ issues and topics. The current research is far from comprehensive. It fails even to

240 conclusion and recommendations for further research

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 240

give a full description of what we can and possibly should know. Several questions thus arise: • Why are there so many gaps in the LGBTQ research? • How can researchers produce additional knowledge in this area? • How can the broader research community expand knowledge on LGBTQ

topics? • Why are researchers not addressing LGBTQ issues? As we conclude this report, we make several recommendations that can help us begin to address these questions and examine some of the issues presented. In each chapter, authors make recommendations and discuss promising future research on specific topics. Taking the report as a whole, we see broad-based issues that could be addressed to facilitate and encourage additional and en- hanced scientific research in this area. We categorize our recommendations in four areas: 1. Content of LGBTQ research 2. Data and information systems that identify LGBTQ status, school practices, and educational outcomes

3. Capacity-building efforts and initiatives 4. The influence of policy and practice that will lead to enhanced research on LGBTQ issues

The research recommendations discussed in the next sections, grouped under these categories, can help us to fill the gaps in knowledge. Recommendation: Enhance the Content of Education Research on LGBTQ Issues. Develop and implement an operational definition of LGBTQ status to use across research. As illustrated throughout this report, most research defines LGBTQ status and sexual orientation based on a person’s sexual identity, sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and/or household structure. We lack a clearly defined method or questions to categorize LGBTQ status. To move in the direction of devel- oping an operational definition of LGBTQ status, researchers and scholars can include questions that identify elements and aspects of sexuality and sexual expression in their research. To develop a study that accurately addresses

conclusion and recommendations for further research 241

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 241

multiple perspectives, scholars need to develop definitions of multiple key terms and indicators. Identity, behavior, attraction, and household structure, as well as interactions among and between these components, only lay the foundation for operationalizing LGBTQ status. Being able to identify students by their LGBTQ status would greatly widen the knowledge we have about them, their educational experiences, and the relationships between their edu- cational outcomes and their attitudes, practices, and life experiences. Use multiple theoretical perspectives to frame research on LGBTQ topics, moving beyond notions of heteronormativity. It is evident that school-based research is dominated by heteronormative per- spectives that are characterized by traditional male-female relationships, male dominance, and patriarchy. To advance knowledge and increase our under- standing of LGBTQ topics, researchers should consider a broad range of the- oretical perspectives, which may include queer theory, critical race theory, post-structuralist perspectives, feminism, and intersections across these theo- retical perspectives. Scholars can draw upon the concepts and tenets of these multiple theoretical perspectives to develop research questions that address behaviors, individual identity(ies), group interactions, cultural factors, and the social landscapes that shape LGBTQ issues in an educational context. Identify the LGBTQ issues that are most salient to education from an interdisciplinary perspective. The research community can draw upon the knowledge and expertise of schol- ars from multiple disciplines and fields, including the humanities, psychology, sociology, law, social work, and public health, to provide a “state of the art” examination of LGBTQ research as it relates to education as a learning envi- ronment, as well as to the health and well-being of those who study or work in educational settings. Researchers should call for greater collaboration across the disciplines and fields to produce knowledge on this important topic. Encourage LGBTQ topics as the focus of education research. LGBTQ work is often a tangential issue or secondary research topic. Much of the research addressing LGBTQ students is designed to address school climate, mental health issues among teens, and/or drug and substance abuse. Few studies focus specifically or exclusively on LGBTQ subjects with a broad scope. The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network’s National School Climate Survey and Campus Pride’s National College Climate Survey begin to fill these research gaps, but unanswered questions remain. The LGBTQ component is often an aspect of a broader student outcome or school experience.

242 conclusion and recommendations for further research

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 242

Studies need to move beyond school climate and school safety issues to address in depth other education issues such as achievement, preparation, in- terests, experiences, and outcomes. A recurring theme in this report is the lack of research that focuses on

LGBTQ youth and their families as a specific subgroup. In many cases there is not a clear line of research or researchers who focus on LGBTQ issues in education. Although we have illustrated some studies that examine school bullying, student achievement, family issues, and other student experiences and educational outcomes, much of the research touches on these issues while addressing a larger, general population. Many of the large-scale data sets that researchers use to study a particular LGBTQ issue or population are designed to examine public health, behavior and mental conditions, and general devel- opment. Similarly, most of the scholars who study these issues focus their re- search agendas on other, broader topics, such as learning and instruction, cur- riculum, higher education, and faculty development. The LGBTQ lens or perspective may be investigated in these studies but is not the primary focus. Study LGBTQ issues in education research across the intersections of race, ethnicity, social class, education level, income, and location. LGBTQ issues do not necessarily exist in isolation but are largely an artifact of the intersections of various issues. Very few education research studies examine LGBTQ issues across the intersections of race, ethnicity, and social class. Among the widespread diverse cultures of the United States, issues surrounding sexuality have large and significant cultural or subcultural un- derpinnings. LGBTQ students cannot be seen as a monolithic group that is somehow segregated or isolated from the broader society. There are cultural and religious influences that affect attitudes, perceptions, and comfort levels toward LGBTQ people and issues. The variations may be heavily reflected across different racial groups. For example, as discussed in this report, many African American and Latino men may not identify as gay or bisexual, yet engage in sexual behavior and activity with other men. These men may not be captured in mainstream studies or questions directed toward a general LGBTQ population. Much of what we do know about racial and ethnic minorities is from such

small samples that it is difficult to make generalizations about a population. Some of the education research and school-based research finds that GSAs and other gay-oriented support groups in schools tend to have little participation from males or minorities. In some studies, GSAs are dominated by female students in affluent school systems (McCready, 2010; Pascoe, 2007). Similarly, we know very little about social class differences among LGBTQ students

conclusion and recommendations for further research 243

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 243

and how these differences play out. Outside of looking at race and class sepa- rately, we know very little about how the intersection between race and class works in an educational context. How sexuality manifests varies across different types of school settings,

such as urban city schools that overwhelmingly have low-income, minority student populations and suburban and rural schools that tend to serve students from many ethnic groups, cultures, and social classes. It is difficult to implement the same methods or theories in these areas and apply them to very different social contexts. Develop valid and reliable scales and assessments to measure aspects of LGBTQ status. The term sexuality tends to include three unique aspects: identity, behavior, and attraction. As discussed in this report, we are missing a reliable and valid scale of sexual identity. Much of the research defines a person as being exclu- sively heterosexual, exclusively homosexual, or in some cases, bisexual. Most of these questions address only sexual identity and rarely provide information about sexual behavior or to whom one is attracted, particularly among children and youth. There are few clear measures of masculinity or femininity. The lack of such measures or tools makes it difficult for researchers to define LGBTQ status and apply it either to the school context or to students’ educa- tional experiences. Conduct research that differentiates among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer people and issues. In some ways it is a misrepresentation of the issues to lump LGBTQ research into one category. Within a school context, research suggests that boys and girls often have different school experiences. The same could probably be said about gay, lesbian, and bisexual people, yet very little research differen- tiates among these groups in relation to the same school experiences. There is a need to compare different sexual experiences and statuses. Fundamentally, there is an emerging discussion of different gender expressions, represented by the “T” for transgender, which may not necessarily be connected with one’s sexual behavior or identity. Greater knowledge and research about this group need to be developed. The LGBTQ categories, such as queer— once thought to be a derogatory

term, and not used by the American Psychological Association (APA; 2012)— can be conceived as referring to people who hold a certain belief system that challenges the traditional gender and sexuality categories. Queer is probably

244 conclusion and recommendations for further research

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 244

the term least connected to sexual identity. Perhaps the scholarly, scientific, and professional communities should discuss further the use of this term. Recommendation: Enhance Data and Information Systems to Include Information About LGBTQ Status, School Practices, and Educational Outcomes. Large-scale federal and state data collection should include items about LGBTQ status. Being able to identify students by their LGBTQ status would greatly widen the knowledge we have about this population. Including LGBTQ-identifying questions on large-scale surveys and questionnaires that are targeted to students and youth is a step in this direction. Using LGBTQ status as a common demo- graphic metric in data collections would allow researchers to focus specifically on the LGBTQ populations. The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) began to fill the void by asking sexual behavior questions in its later waves as youth matured into adulthood, but these data are getting old. The last collection (Wave IV) was in 2008, and numerous social and policy changes since then may be affecting attitudes and opinions toward LGBTQ issues. Researchers are able to include questions about sexuality and gender expression on some state- or community-wide surveys, but these are found in only a few states and school districts, as with the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). As previously discussed, these studies do not focus on LGBTQ issues directly but tend to deal with alcohol and drug use and other behaviors. There remains a dearth of solid research that uses large representative samples. A lot of the LGBTQ research relies on convenience samples that are neither representative nor generalizable to a larger population. There is a clear need to include sexual identity questions in follow-up and

new data collections. Longitudinal and cross-sectional data collections that address school experiences, academic achievement, and educational outcomes, such as those conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, could identify students’ sexual identity and behavior. This information should be collected for K–12 and for postsecondary and higher education. This would allow greater analysis of LGBTQ students’ experiences at the individual, school, community, and national levels. Beyond students, it is important to collect data on the LGBTQ status of teachers, school administrators, and other school personnel. Now that it is becoming easier to link survey data with ad- ministrative data sources such as student transcripts (which include courses taken, grades earned, and test score achievement), school health records, and

conclusion and recommendations for further research 245

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 245

teacher employment records, the potential to create a “big data” resource never has been greater. Collect data on students’ household and family structures. The 2010 U.S. Census estimates that one fifth of households with same-sex couples are raising children (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011, 2013). There is a growing body of research on same-sex couples and LGBTQ parents, yet the information and data about their experiences with schools in their communities are limited. To understand the needs and experiences of children with LGBTQ parents, it is important to have data that identify these children at the school and community levels. Schools need to be aware of the household and family structures of their pupils in order to meet students’ needs. Develop data systems that collect school-context information on crime and discipline related to LGBTQ status. Much of the research on LGBTQ issues in an educational context addresses issues of school violence and crime on campuses. In many communities schools are required to collect and report information on campus harassment, bullying, hate crimes, and other criminal activities. As part of this data collection it is important to identify which of these crimes and other incidents are con- nected to LGBTQ status or sexual orientation. Data and details on school sus- pensions and other disciplinary actions that result from infractions related to LGBTQ issues will allow researchers and policy makers to track and document schools’ responses to these offenses. Review school curriculum to identify courses, textbooks, and other learning resources that include LGBTQ people, history, and events. Some research has found that schools with LGBTQ-inclusive curricula cultivate a positive school climate for all students (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014). However, the data are limited on schools implementing LGBTQ-in- clusive curricula and on the elements of those curricula. Further information and research are needed concerning which schools use an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, how pervasive or infused LGBTQ issues are in the curriculum, how the curriculum is implemented, and how teachers and students respond to the curriculum. Expanding data on these issues will help schools and com- munities as they consider adopting and implementing an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum.

246 conclusion and recommendations for further research

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 246

Recommendation: Build Capacity Among Researchers and in the Research Enterprise to Study LGBTQ Topics in Education Research. Build capacity among researchers so that they can bring the most rigorous scientific methods to their studies on LGBTQ issues. Researchers must be trained to use the most rigorous scientific methods to collect, analyze, interpret, and present data. This involves training researchers who are adept in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method research tech- niques in order to collect data on evidence-based studies. Only the most rigorous studies will provide rich, sound, and respected information and data on the LGBTQ world of schools. Encourage scholars and researchers to study LGBTQ issues as part of their research agenda. Scholars and researchers at all levels should be encouraged to study LGBTQ issues in education. Beginning as early as the K–12 years, students of research should be encouraged to explore topics in their courses that deal with LGBTQ populations and issues. College and graduate students should be encouraged to study these issues in depth in their classes and through research-oriented projects and activities. This viable and developing line of research should be made a priority in higher education. The research field should value and en- courage the most scientifically sound research on these issues. The result will be new knowledge shared through course papers, honors theses, master’s and doctoral dissertations, and, ultimately, journal articles and books that address important topics in LGBTQ research. Empower education researchers to study LGBTQ issues. As LGBTQ people and issues continue to gain visibility in society and among researchers, topics affecting LGBTQ communities should become less contro- versial and more commonplace. Some researchers may be fearful or reluctant to pursue LGBTQ-focused research because they perceive that these studies are devalued by the academic and scholarly community. Universities, field- and discipline-based organizations, and foundations can promote LGBTQ research through their journals, conferences, academic colloquia, and general discussions. Invest in research that advances knowledge on LGBTQ issues. Conducting strong and effective studies on any topic has great financial costs. It is even more costly for an area that is still developing, such as LGBTQ re- search. Universities, associations, foundations, and federal and state agencies must be willing to fund and support research that addresses LGBTQ issues.

conclusion and recommendations for further research 247

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 247

This funding can take multiple forms, for example, supporting graduate stu- dents’ and early career scholars’ doctoral and postdoctoral work, providing small grants to develop studies and encourage new research, and establishing senior-level fellowships to support further inquiry in the field. Funds can be directed toward establishing university-based research centers for the study of LGBTQ issues. Corporations, foundations, universities, and state legislatures can endow senior faculty positions to support scholars who study these issues. It is important to have a cadre of researchers representing different levels and types of expertise who can speak with a high degree of confidence on LGBTQ topics and issues. Once the research is conducted, it must be distributed and disseminated

widely, beyond the academic community, to policy makers, school adminis- trators, and others. Additional peer-reviewed journal articles, books, reports, and research and policy briefs can be devoted to these issues. Concurrently, existing journals and presses should be encouraged to publish high-quality re- search that addresses LGBTQ topics. Recommendation: Develop Policies and Practices That Can Potentially Enhance Education Research on LGBTQ Issues and Topics. Consider the policy context in which individuals interact. LGBTQ-directed educational policies often reflect the broader social policy, attitudes, and sentiments in a specific community, such as a community that takes a formal stance supporting or opposing same-sex marriage. Or LGBTQ topics may reflect institutional- or school-level policy. One thing that is clear from the literature is that there often are misalignments between the broader legal or policy stance on LGBTQ issues in a community and how policies are interpreted and implemented in local schools, universities, or classrooms. For example, a state may have a ban on same-sex marriage or define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, yet the state-funded university system may grant benefits to same-sex couples. Further research is needed to under- stand how LGBTQ issues manifest in these social and policy contexts. Develop institutional review board (IRB) and human subject review guidelines and policies that specifically reference sexual orientation and LGBTQ people. The first and foremost goal of every scientific study is to ensure that the par- ticipants are safe, protected from danger, and that the study causes no harm. Yet even in the most progressive communities, getting local schools to allow researchers to collect data on sexuality is an almost insurmountable hurdle.

248 conclusion and recommendations for further research

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 248

Local school districts and communities remain very reluctant to allow re- searchers to ask students questions about sexual behavior or sexual identity. Questions about sexual attraction and transgender status are practically non- existent. Often, ambiguous IRB guidelines result in researchers’ being denied access to schools, students, and student records, especially when the research addresses sexuality, birth control, pregnancy, or other topics that are potentially controversial. The unclear yet often stringent IRB guidelines protecting and shaping edu-

cation research on LGBTQ topics has limited the scholarship proliferation in this area. More open and lenient policies abroad have resulted in a wide body of literature on LGBTQ issues in education outside the United States. As dis- cussed in this report, Australian, British, and Canadian studies dominate the education research field on LGBTQ issues; however, in other regions of the world— for example, throughout Africa and Latin America— LGBTQ schol- arship is practically absent (V. Clarke, Kitzinger, & Potter, 2004; Pallotta- Chiarolli, 2010; Rivers, 2004). Cultural norms and religious value systems may limit the discussion of LGBTQ issues in these countries much as they do in the United States. Universities, foundations, K–12 schools, and other or- ganizations can lead the way to enhanced research by developing clear guide- lines for the nature of questions and research that are permissible in addressing LGBTQ issues in schools.

Conclusion and Final Thoughts When AERA first launched this initiative to explore LGBTQ issues in education research, it was somewhat unclear what would be uncovered. Many experts concurred that the study of LGBTQ issues in schools and other educational contexts was a developing or nascent area of research, yet few could speak to the current state of knowledge in this area. The Call for Ideas on LGBTQ topics and extensive literature searches generated a collection of essays, con- ceptual papers, reports, program evaluations, and to a lesser extent, scholarly research based on empirical evidence. The studies that related to children, schools, schooling issues, and other education research areas came from mul- tiple disciplines and fields across the humanities and the behavioral and social sciences. Scholars, researchers, and practitioners have examined published research on LGBTQ issues in health policy, history, psychology, sociology, and social work; yet in education there did not appear to be a synthesis or comprehensive examination of what we know and how we know it. This report seeks to fill that void and provide an overview of some of the important LGBTQ issues examined in education research.

conclusion and recommendations for further research 249

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 249

Implementing the suggested recommendations will help to bring a higher profile to LGBTQ issues in education research and in education and schools in a broad sense. As scholars develop research to understand and examine the history and current status of LGBTQ students, faculty, and administrators, the knowledge gained can help to inform and influence education and social policy, and ultimately make for a positive educational experience for all. Scholars, researchers, policy makers, and school administrators can use findings from such studies to understand the LGBTQ experience and LGBTQ influence in our nation’s schools and on college campuses. Moreover, such studies will help to establish a research-oriented foundation of knowledge that addresses these issues.

References American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist, 67(1), 10–42. doi:10.1037/a0024659

Blount, J. M. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school work in the twentieth century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System. Available from the website of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: www.cdc.gov/yrbs

Clarke, T. J., & Russell, S. T. (2009). School safety and academic achievement. San Fran- cisco: California Safe Schools Coalition Research.

Clarke, V., Kitzinger, C., & Potter, J. (2004). “Kids are just cruel anyway”: Lesbian and gay parents’ talk about homophobic bullying. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 531–550.

D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths aged 14 to 21. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 7, 433–456.

Dilley, P. (2002). 20th century postsecondary practices and policies to control gay students. Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 409–431.

Graves, K. (2009). And they were wonderful teachers: Florida’s purge of gay and lesbian teachers. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Hutchinson, D. L. (1997). Out yet unseen: A racial critique of Gay and Lesbian Legal Theory and political discourse. Connecticut Law Review, 29, 561–645.

Hutchinson, D. L. (1999). Ignoring the sexualization of race: Heteronormativity, Critical Race Theory and anti-racist politics. Buffalo Law Review, 47, 1–116.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

250 conclusion and recommendations for further research

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 250

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Lipkin, A. (2001). Understanding homosexuality, changing schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Lipkin, A. (2004). Beyond diversity day: A Q&A on gay and lesbian issues in schools. In J. T. Sears (Ed.), Curriculum, cultures, and (homo) sexualities.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

McCready, L. T. (2010). Making space for diverse masculinities: Difference, intersectionality, and engagement in an urban high school. New York: Peter Lang.

Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, relationships, and motherhood among black women. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Border sexualities, border families in schools. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2007). Adolescent same-sex attraction and academic outcomes: The role of school attachment and engagement. Social Problems, 54(4), 523–542.

Rankin, S., Blumenfeld, W. J., Weber, G. N., & Frazer, S. (2010). State of higher education for LGBT people. Charlotte, NC: Campus Pride.

Renn, K. A. (2010). LGBT and queer research in higher education: The state and status of the field. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 132–141.

Rivers, I. (2004). Recollections of bullying at school and their long-term implications for lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Crisis, 25(4), 169–175.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). 2010 Census Summary File 1. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). 2012 American Community Survey 1-year data file. Washing- ton, DC: Author.

Valdes, F. (1995). Queers, sissies, dykes, and tomboys: Deconstructing the conflation of “sex,” “gender,” and “sexual orientation” in Euro-American law and society. California Law Review, 83, 3–377.

Valdes, F. (1997). Queer margins, queer ethics: A call to account for race and ethnicity in the law, theory, and politics of “sexual orientation.” Hastings Law Journal, 48, 1293– 1341.

Valdes, F. (2004). Anomalies, warts and all: Four score of liberty, privacy and equality. Ohio State Law Journal, 65, 1341–1400.

conclusion and recommendations for further research 251

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 251

ch12.qxp 4/7/15 10:50 AM Page 252

Name Index

253

Abes, E. S., 146 Acanfora, Joseph, 168 Anderson, E. C., 10 Anzaldúa, Gloria, 38 Aragon, S. R., 107

Badgett, 132 Bakker, Jim, 169 Barrett, D. C., 126 Beemyn, J., 97 Bernstein, Mary, 25 Berry, Marion, Jr., 28 Bilodeau, B. L., 145, 146, 147, 148 Birkett, M., 107 Black, D., 132–133, 133 Blackburn, Mollie, 171 Blount, J., 24, 27 Blumenfeld, W. J., 108, 143 Briggs, John, 29, 162, 168, 169 Brown, Jerry, 60 Bryant, Anita, 29, 35, 57, 162, 168–169 Burton, Peggy, 168 Byrd, James, Jr., 54

Case, Mary Ann, 51 Clark, Caroline, 171 Coloma, Roland Sintos, 38, 97 Cooper, R., 108

Davis, Katherine Bement, 25, 165 D’Emilio, John D., 163 Diaz, E. M., 107

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 26 Eskridge, William, 38 Espelage, D. L., 107

Feinberg, Leslie, 37 Foucault, Michel, 37 Frazer, S., 143

Garner, Tyrone, 49–51 Gaylord, James, 168 Gish, John, 168 Goffman, Erving, 51 Gonyea, R., 190–191 Graves, Karen, 168 Greytak, E. A., 107 Griffin, Pat, 171

Hall, Stanley, 25 Harbeck, Karen, 168 Hooker, Evelyn, 26 Hudson, Rock, 30

Jackson, Janna. See Kellinger, Janna (Jackson)

Jennings, Kevin, 31, 33, 39, 170 Jordan, J. N., 148

Kellinger, Janna (Jackson), 171 Kennedy, Anthony, 50 Kenney, Lauren, 171 Khayatt, Didi, 171 Kinsey, A. C., 26, 31, 48, 167 Kissen, Rita, 171 Koenig, B. W., 107 Koop, C. Everett, 23, 31 Kosciw, J. G., 107

Lawrence, John, 49–51 Lees, L. J., 37 Letts, W. J., 95 Lugg, Catherine, 31, 52–53

Maines, Nicole, 59–60 Makar, H. R., 132–133, 133 Manford, Jeanne, 35, 39 Martin, C., 167 Mathis, Coy, 59 McCarthy, Joseph, 25–26, 167

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 253

McElroy, J. A., 148 McKinney, J. S., 146 Meiners, Erica, 171 Milk, Harvey, 29 Mohr, Richard, 46 Moore, J., III, 190–191 Moraga, Cherríe, 38 Morrison, Mark, 27, 39 Moscone, George, 29

Nagel, M. S., 10 Newman, Lesléa, 35

Obama, Barack, 237

Pallotta-Chiarolli, M., 80 Patterson, C. J., 80 Pinar, William, 23 Polite, F. C., 10 Pollack, L. M., 126 Pomeroy, W., 167 Poteat, V. P., 107, 110 Pusch, R. S., 146

Quinn, Therese, 171

Rafferty, Max, 30 Rankin, S., 143–144 Reagan, Ronald, 30 Renn, K. A., 141, 145 Rich, Adrienne, 30–32

Robertson, Pat, 169 Rodriguez, N., 97 Rofes, Eric, 169–170 Russell, S. T., 96

Sanders, S. G., 132–133, 133 Scalia, Antonin, 43, 61 Sears, J. T., 95, 96 Sedgwick, E. K., 37 Shepard, Matthew, 54 Shilts, Randy, 30 Smith, Jill, 171 Southall, C., 10 Southall, R. M., 10 Souza, Diana, 35 Style, E., 95

Talburt, S., 148 Taylor, L. J., 132–133, 133 Tierney, W. G., 148, 152 Tilden, M. L., 126 Truman, Harry S, 25 Ttofi, M. M., 112

Uribe, Virginia, 31, 39

Waller, Willard, 25, 166 Weber, G., 143 White, Ryan, 23, 30–31, 170 Wilkinson, L., 90, 91 Wood, Mark, 59

254 name index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 254

Subject Index

255

absenteeism bullying and, 109–110 high-school students, 106, 110, 125– 126

homophobia and, 110 K–12 students, LGBTQ vs. straight, 109

middle school students, 106 abstinence-based sexuality, 44, 49, 53 abstinence-only curriculum, 60–61 abuse, verbal and physical. See also ha- rassment; violence coming out and risk of, 54, 109 K–12 students, LGBTQ vs. straight, 106–107

middle/high school students, 106 Academic Outlaws (Tierney), 148 achievement Adolescent Health and Academic Achievement (AHAA) study, 179

bullying, impacts on, 105, 106 challenges restricting/limiting, 121 college and career readiness and, 121 college and university students, 130, 189

course levels and, 122–128 harassment and, 189 homophobia and, 124–128 long-term effects, 131 research recommendations, 128 resilience and, 127–128 of same-sex-attracted students, 91 school climate and, 124–125, 130 students of LG parents, 76, 78

Acting Out! (Blackburn, Clark, Kenney, & Smith), 171

activism 1970s, 27–30 1980s–1990s, 163 educators, 27–31, 162, 169–170

gay liberation movement, 29, 39, 162–163, 168–170

historical context, 39–40 parents of gay children, 35, 37, 114 Stonewall Riots, 27, 29, 39, 168–170 women’s liberation movement, 165

administrators harassment of, 188–189 in higher education, 188–190, 212 married men, preference for, 167 pre-19th-century gender concerns, 24 remaining closeted, 55 research category of, 141 research on, 39 state laws effect on LGBTQ, 98

Adolescence (Hall), 25 Adolescent Health and Academic Achievement (AHAA) study, 179

adoption by same-sex couples, 57–58, 61 African American/Black same-sex cou- ples, 77, 132

African American/Black students achievement, campus climate and, 130 bullying of, 186 college athletes, homophobia of, 10 curriculum tracking, 52 school diversity experience for, 9–10

AFT, 168 age-related victimization, 107 AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT- UP), 30, 39

AIDS curriculum, 8, 23, 31 AIDS pandemic, 30–31, 49, 170–171 Aid to Families with Dependent Chil- dren, 53

Alabama, 52 alternate gender expression. See trans- gender/alternate gender expression

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 23, 27

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 255

American College Health Association National College Health Assessment, 147

American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau), 176, 194–195, 217

American Educational Research Associa- tion (AERA) purpose, 3 Queer Studies Special Interest Group, 3

American Educational Research Associa- tion (AERA) research initiative Call for Ideas on Scholarly Knowl- edge, 4, 249

conclusion, 249–250 literature search and review, 3 Workshop on LGBTQ Issues in Edu- cation Research, 4–5

American Federation of Teachers, 28 American Law Institute, 49 American Library Association Task Force on Gay Liberation, 28

American Psychiatric Association, 28, 30, 36, 48, 49

anal sex, 48. See also sodomy And They Were Wonderful Teachers (Graves), 168

anti-bias curriculum approach, 96 anti-bullying policies, 97, 187 anti-harassment policies, 187 archival information in qualitative re- search, 13

Asian/Pacific Islanders, 186 audience determination, research effect, 225–226

Australia, 78

binaries in heteronormative theory, 6–7 bisexual defined, 132 term usage, 5–6

bisexuality achievement and, 122, 123 APA reclassification of, 48 earnings impact, 132

Blacks. See African American/Black

Border Sexualities, Border Families in Schools (Pallotta-Chiarolli), 61

Bowers v. Hardwick, 49 boy problem in education, 24 boys same-sex attraction, 91 victimization vs. girls, 107

Briggs Initiative, 23, 29, 39 bullies, school involvement of, 105 bullying achievement, impact on, 106 advocacy improvements, 54–55 of Black/African American students, 186

dropout rates and, 125 engagement, impact on, 105–106 of high-school students, 110 inclusive curriculum, effect on, 79, 94 of K–12 students, 108–110 media coverage, effect on, 54–55 of middle school students, 105, 110 negative outcomes, 82 Project 10 response to, 31 psychological effects, 105 Queer Legal Theory (QLT) on, 45 research on, 33 research recommendations, 108, 112, 113, 114–115

school policies on, 97, 111–115, 187 staff interventions, 98, 126 of straight vs. LGBTQ students, 108, 109

students of LG parents, 78, 79 suicide risk and, 108, 109–110 technology-based, 108

bullying intervention, K–12, 112–114 bullying legislation, 53, 55 bullying prevention, K–12, 111–115 Bureau of Social Hygiene, Rockefeller Foundation, 25

California, 28–29, 36, 60, 78, 168–169 California Safe Schools Coalition, 109 California State University, Sacramento, 28

Call for Ideas on Scholarly Knowledge (AERA), 4, 249

256 subject index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 256

campus climate. See also school climate achievement and, 130 administrators knowledge of, 141 National College Climate Survey (NCCS), 93–94, 143, 144, 188– 190, 212

research on, 143–145, 149 Campus Pride, 11 Canada, 108 career readiness, achievement and, 121, 123, 124

celibacy, 53 Census information (U.S. Census Bu- reau) American Community Survey, 176, 194–195, 217

household focused, 176, 194–195, 217

same-sex couples, self-identification reluctance, 77

Center for American Progress, 223 Centers for Disease Control, 5–6, 114 children same-sex couples with, 1, 57–58, 61, 77, 195

socialization of, 75 transgender/alternate gender expres- sion (T), 5

Children of the Rainbow curriculum, 34 cisgender women and men, 147 citizenship, differentiated, 51–57, 62 civil rights, 27–30, 47 civil unions for same-sex couples, 36 classism as normative, 44 class structure, 9, 45, 52 climate in schools. See campus climate; school climate

clubs, 7, 10, 54, 61. See also Gay- Straight Alliances (GSAs)

Cobb, Victoria, 57 cognitive and noncognitive development theory, 11

Cold War era, 25–27, 56, 162–163, 166– 168

College Alcohol Study (Harvard School of Public Health), 147

college and university students

achievement, impacts on, 128–130 College Alcohol Study (Harvard School of Public Health), 147

engagement, LGBTQ vs. straight, 128–130

gender-minority, safety of, 147, 188– 189

harassment, 188–189 homosexual activity, punishment for, 129

homosexuality, punishment for per- ceived, 129

LGBTQ vs. straight, 2–3, 5, 39, 128– 130

National College Climate Survey (NCCS), 143, 144, 188–190, 212

National Survey of Student Engage- ment (NSSE), 128, 129, 176, 190– 191, 213

research on, 221–222 student groups, research on, 39 support structures, 2–3 transgender/gender expression (T) ex- periences, 5

college readiness, achievement and, 121, 123, 124

colleges and universities campus climate, 128, 130, 141, 143– 145, 149, 188–190, 212

changing constructions of LGBTQ identities, 141

curriculum, 28, 37 as hostile environments, 129 policies, programs, and services, 141, 149

research at, 3, 141, 143–145, 149 safety policies for gender-minority students, 130, 147

Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies Civil Rights Division, 59

coming out age, and educational attainment, 126– 127

dangers of, 54, 109 themes in research, 35

communism, homosexuality linked to, 26 computer filter software, 53

subject index 257

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 257

Connecticut, 36 conversion therapy, 37 Cooperative Institutional Research Pro- gram (CIRP), 134

Coronet (magazine), 167 counseling, research on, 36–37 counseling services, 31 courses, achievement and level of, 122– 128

Critical Legal Theory, 45 Critical Race Theory, 45 critical theory, 11 cultural capital theory, 10 curriculum abstinence-only, 60–61 AIDS/HIV, 8, 23, 31, 94–95 Children of the Rainbow, 34 at colleges and universities, LGBT fo- cused, 28, 37

counteracting homophobia/heteronor- mativity, 94–97, 99

on gay marriage, 59 gender-based stereotypes in, 7 health education, 7–8, 53 heteronormative structuralist frame- work, 7

inclusive approach, 78–79, 81–82, 94–95

no promo homo policies, 53 outlook for, 62 queer approach, 96–97 Queer Legal Theory (QLT) on, 45 research on, 33–34 research recommendations, 96–97, 151–152

sex education, 7–8, 39, 99, 222–223 curriculum reviews, 246 curriculum tracking, 52 cyber-bullying, 108

Daughters of Bilitis, 26 Defense of Marriage Act, 36, 57 depression risk, 110, 126, 180–181 development, research on, 36–37 differentiation, research recommenda- tions, 244–245

District of Columbia, 1, 33, 36, 55, 58

domestic partner benefits, 45 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 33, 58 dress code standards, 7 dropping out, 123, 125 drug use, 110

earnings, 126, 131–133, 192 economic class, curriculum tracking and, 52

education. See also schools, policies and practices feminization of, 24–25, 161–162 inequality reproduction, 51–52 post-1990s developments, 54–55 Reconstruction era, post-, 51–52

educational aspirations, students of GL parents, 76

educational attainment coming out age and, 126–127 earnings and, 131–133, 192 research directions, 134–135 of same-sex-attracted students, 91 same-sex couples, 195

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (journal), 224

educational research 1970s, 30 1980s, 30–32 1990–2011, 33–39 activism and, 39–40 on administration, 34 AERA’s research initiative, 3–5 atheoretical, 11–12 Cold War era, 166–168 on counseling, 36–37 on curriculum, 33–34 on development, 36–37 difficulties in, 163–164 early 20th century, 164–165 on empire and nationalism, 38 on health and safety, 32–33 on higher education, 34–35 historically, 2, 7 on identity, 36–37 on intersectionality, 38 introduction, 23–24 on K–12 school environment, 34

258 subject index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 258

on leadership, 34 overview and conclusions, 39–40 on pedagogy, 33–34 on policy and politics, 38 post-Stonewall Riots, 168–170 present day, 2–3, 170–172 purposive, 11–12 school-family partnership, 35–36 shift in focus of, 31–32 on stigma, 32–33 teacher education, 33–34 transgender issues, 37 WWI era, post-, to pre-WWII, 165– 166

Educational Researcher (journal), 224 educational research in higher education campus climate studies, 143–145, 149 categories of, 141–142 components, 142 evidence-based conclusions, 149 faculty identity, 148 postpositive, 146 queer theory approach, 142, 146–147, 151

recommendations for, 150–154 research on, 34–35 student identity, 145–148 visibility studies, 142–143

educational system, goals of the, 81–82 Education Department, Office of Civil Rights, 55

education employment contracts, morali- ty clauses in, 27, 48

educators. See also women educators homophobic, 126 impacts of support by, 92–93 male, 164–167 research on, 33–34, 39, 221

educators, historically 1900–1939 climate, 24–25 1940–1969 climate, 25–27 1950s–1990s witch hunts, 56 1970s, 162–163 1980s, 30–32 Cold War era, 162, 166–168 early 20th century, 164–167 normative expectations, 24–25

policing of, 167–168 scholarship on, 161–162 wage gap, 164

educators, LGBTQ ACLU support for, 27 activism, 27–30, 162, 163, 168, 169– 170

adaptive strategies, 161, 171 closeted, keeping, 48–49, 55 discrimination protections, 55–56 employment discrimination, 25, 26– 28, 163, 169

hostile work environment, 171 outlook for, 61–62 protecting students from, 29, 35, 49, 57, 164, 166, 167, 168–169

recognizing, 1–2 research on, 2, 163 silencing and invisibility of, 48–49, 55–56, 98

state laws effect on, 98 empire and nationalism, 38 employment discrimination, 25, 26–28, 33, 37, 55–56, 98, 133, 163

employment discrimination legislation, 98

Employment Non-Discrimination Act, 98

“Employment of Homosexuals and Oth- er Sex Perverts in Government” (Sen- ate report), 25

engagement bullying and, 105 college students, LGBTQ vs. straight, 128–130

high-school students, impacts on, 126 K–12 students, impacts on, 105 National Survey of Student Engage- ment (NSSE), 128, 129, 176, 190– 191, 213

suicide risk and, 126 England, 107–108 Epistemology of the Closet (Sedgwick), 37

Equal Access Act, 38, 54, 61 equal rights protections, 50, 51, 53 ethnicity

subject index 259

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 259

curriculum tracking and, 52 and harassment, 186, 189 and harassment vs. Whites, 126 suicide risk vs. Whites, 110 victimization and, 107, 126

ethnographic research, 13–14 Evans, Romer v., 60 extramarital sex, criminalization of, 48

Factors in the Sex Life of Twenty-Two Hundred Women (Davis), 25, 165

faculty, higher education. See also educa- tors harassment, 188–189 identity and identity development re- search, 148

National College Climate Survey (NCCS), 143, 144, 188–190, 212

research category of, 141 families. See also same-sex couples demographic patterns, 77 GSA supports, 82 heterosexual, preferential treatment for, 75

household composition (U.S. Census Bureau), 194–195, 217

invisibility, 81 research recommendations, 246 school discriminatory practices, 75– 76

Family Foundation of Virginia, 57 Feminist Legal Theory, 44–45 Fit to Teach (Blount), 24 Flaunt it! (Quinn & Meiners), 171 Florida, 29, 57 Florida Education Association, 26 Florida Legislative Investigation Com- mittee, 26, 29

4-H Center for Youth Development, 109 14th Amendment to the Constitution, 51 Freedom to Marry, 58 funding, research, 231, 232, 247–248

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Net- work (GLSEN) beginnings, 33–34 focus, 171

function, 11–12 funding, 114 LG parent-school interaction study, 78–79, 83–84

Lunchbox program, 114 membership, 171 National School Climate Survey, 93– 94, 106, 176, 184–188, 207–211, 221

online presence, 114 programming, 113–114 purpose, 113–114 Safe Space initiative, 114

Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Teachers Net- work, 171

Gay Academic Union, 28 Gay and Lesbian Educators (Harbeck), 168

Gay and Lesbian Legal Theory, 45 Gay Legal Theory, 45 gay liberation movement, 29, 39, 49, 162–163, 168–170

Gay Pride Parade, 35 gays coming out age, impact of, 126–127 defined, 132 educational attainment, 126–127, 131–133, 192

poverty rates, 131 Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) attempts to eliminate, 54 beginnings, 31 federal protections, 38, 54, 61 regulation of, 45 sponsors for, 54 support for, 34, 38, 113, 126, 171 support function, 82, 91–94 viability, 61

gays vs. straights educational attainment, 131, 132–133, 147, 192

poverty rates, 131 gender essentialism, 45 gender expression scholarship, 162 gender identity disorder, APA classifica- tion of, 48

genderism, 147, 149

260 subject index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 260

Gender Trouble (Butler), 37 gender variance, surveillance and pun- ishment of, 61

general population-focused data sets General Social Survey (GSS), 176, 191–193, 214

National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), 176, 193–194, 215–216

General Social Survey (GSS), 176, 191– 193, 214

Georgia, 49 girls, adolescent pregnant and mothering teens, aca- demic offerings for, 52

same-sex attraction, 91 victimization vs. boys, 107

government employment of homosexu- als, 25–26, 167

grade point average, achievement and, 122–128

harassment. See also abuse, verbal and physical activism against, 35 of African American/Black students, 186

at colleges and universities, 188–189 dropout rates and, 125 of high-school students, 125 of K–12 students, 90, 106–107 media coverage of, 54–55 of middle/high school students, 106 no promo homo policies and, 53 of parents, LGBTQ, by straight par- ents, 78

by parents of queer kids, 54 post-1990s advocacy improvements, 54–55

Queer Legal Theory (QLT) on, 45, 46 of racial and ethnic minorities, 186, 189

rates of, 107 school financial liability for, 59 school policies addressing, 97, 187 staff interventions, 98, 126 straight vs. LGBTQ students, 106–107 of students of LGBTQ parents, 76

of transgender/alternate gender ex- pression, 187

unchecked, in schools, 54–55 of White students, 126, 186

harassment legislation, 55, 59 Hardwick, Bowers v., 49 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study, 147

hate crimes legislation, 38, 54 Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 54 hate speech, 45 Hawai’i, 35–36 Health and Human Services Department, 23, 31–32, 193

health education curriculum, 7–8, 53 health risks. See also high risk behavior achievement and, 179 Adolescent Health and Academic Achievement (AHAA) study, 179

bullying and, 110, 111 mental health and victimization, 91, 109

National Center for Health Statistics, 193

National College Health Assessment (American College Health Associ- ation), 147

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 179

National Longitudinal Study of Ado- lescent Health, 80, 122, 123, 178– 181, 201–202

National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), 193

research on, 32–33 Heather Has Two Mommies (Newman & Souza), 33

heteronormativity in education, 6–8, 45, 90–91, 94–97, 99

heterosexism in education, 45, 89 “From Hiding Out to Coming Out” (Griffin), 171

higher education. See colleges and uni- versities; educational research; facul- ty, higher education

high risk behavior. See also health risks bullying/homophobia and, 110

subject index 261

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 261

College Alcohol Study (Harvard School of Public Health), 147

Youth Risk Behavior (YRBS) Sur- veillance Survey, 134, 181–184, 203–206, 221, 223

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 134, 176

high-school students absenteeism, 106, 110, 125–126 bullying, 110 coming out, risks of, 109 educational expectations, 128 GPA and safety in school, 125 harassment experiences, 106 homophobia, impacts on, 108–109, 110, 125

of LGBTQ parents, safety in school, 79–80

research on, 220–221 same-sex attracted, 91 straight, bullying, 110 suicide risk, 110, 126 threats of violence, 106 verbal abuse, 106 violence against, 106

Hispanic/Latino students, 9–10, 186 historical accounts in qualitative re- search, 13

History of Sexuality (Foucault, Michel), 37

Hollingsworth v. Perry, 58 homophile organizations, establishment of, 26

homophobia African American/Black college ath- letes, 10

curriculum counteracting, 94–97, 99 dress code standards re-enforcing, 7 Queer Legal Theory (QLT) on, 45 support systems, effect of, 110

homophobia, impact of on absenteeism, 110, 125–126 on achievement, 110, 123, 124–128 on college and career readiness, 123, 124

on dropout rates, 125 on engagement, 126

on health, 109, 126 on high risk behavior, 110 on high-school students, 108–109, 110, 125

on K–12 students, 90–91, 107 on suicide risk, 110, 126

homosexuality APA reclassification of, 28, 30, 36, 49 heretical stigma, 47–48, 56 moral contagion, 47–48, 56, 166, 167, 168–169

pathology stigma, 48 “Homosexuality and Citizenship in Flori- da” (Florida Education Association), 26

homosexuals citizenship, differentiated, 51–57 Cold War era purge of, 162–163 protecting students from, 29, 35, 49, 57, 164, 166, 167, 168–169

research on, 37–38 term usage, 164

“The Homosexual Teacher and Related Topics” (Phi Delta Kappan), 30

hostile work environment, 133, 171 household-focused data, Census Bureau, 176, 194–195, 217

housing antidiscrimination laws, 29 Human Rights Campaign, 114 human subjects protection, 227–229, 248–249

hypermasculinity, 10, 125, 180

identity and identity development normative, 44 research category of, 141–142 research on, 36–37, 145–149

Illinois, 27 income, 126, 131–133, 192 Indiana, 31 internal review boards (IRBs), 227–229, 248–249

intersectionality, 38, 45–46 intersections research-based conclusions, 149 research recommendations, 243–244 theoretical perspectives, 5, 9–10

262 subject index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 262

interviews in qualitative research, 14 invisibility of educators, LGBTQ, 48–49, 55–56, 98

of families, LGBTQ, 81 institutionalized, by regulation and discrimination, 44

Iowa, 36 It’s Elementary ((film) (Respect for All Project)), 114

job discrimination. See employment dis- crimination

The Jolly Game of Old Maid, 24–25

K–12 students achievement, 109, 122–128 bullying, impacts on, 107–110 course levels, effect of, 122–128 curricular inclusion, 91 educational attainment and earnings, 126

GSA supports, 91–94 harassment of, 90 high risk behavior, 91, 110 homophobia, impact on, 89–94, 104 location-related victimization, 107 research on, 2 research recommendations, 93, 133– 134

school climate for, 90–94 social exclusion, 91 staff support,/school workers impact on, 92–93

suicide risk, 91, 109–110 verbal abuse, 90

K–12 students, LGBTQ vs. straight absenteeism, 106–107 bullying of, 107, 108–109 ethnicity-related victimization, 107 girls vs. boys, victimization of, 107 harassment experiences, 106–107 health risks, 109 high risk behavior, 109 homophobic victimization, 104, 107 peer victimization, 107, 108 suicide risk, 109

threats of violence, 106–107 verbal abuse, 106–107 violence against, 106–107, 108

large-scale data sets federal and state inclusion in, 245– 246

function, 175 research recommendations, 245–247 underuse of, 229–230

large-scale data sets identifying LGBTQ status findings, reporting, 178 general population-focused, 176, 191–194, 214–216

household-focused, 176, 194–195, 217

limitations, 195–196 next steps, 196–197 response categories, 177 school- and student-focused, 176, 178–192, 201–213

sexual behavior survey items, 177 sexual identity questions, 177

The Last Closet (Kissen), 171 Lawrence v. Texas, 33, 34, 38, 43, 49–51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61

leadership, research on, 34 The Lesbian in Front of the Classroom (Sidaway, Hart, Rosa, Parmeter, & Stein), 170

lesbians defined, 132 educational attainment and earnings, 132–133

term usage, 5–6 Lesbian Teachers (Khayatt), 171 Let’s Get Real ((film) (Respect for All Project)), 114

LGBTQ conceptual frameworks, 9–10 LGBTQ people classification, 96–97 media impacts, 131 status, defining, 231–232, 241–242 term usage, 5–6

LGBTQ research data collection methods, 12–16

subject index 263

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 263

significant themes in, 238–240 LGBTQ research, enabling and limiting factors audience determination, 225–226 funding issues, 231, 232 high school students, 220–221 human subjects protection, 227–229 LGBTQ status, defining, 231–232 middle school students, 220–221 operational challenges, 231–232 political climate, 222–223, 225 recommendations for, 241–249 researcher skills and bias, 226–227 status hierarchies in research, 224– 227

underuse of existing data, 229–230 LGBTQ research theory, 5–11 location-related victimization, 107 Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of

Children and Family Services, 57 Lunchbox program, GLSEN, 114 L.W. v. Toms River Regional Schools

Board of Education, 59–60

Maine, 36, 59 marriage equality, 35–36, 58 Maryland, 36 Massachusetts, 31, 32, 34, 36, 58–59, 98 Mattachine Society, 26 men bisexual vs. straight, earnings, 132 cisgender, 147 as educators, 164–167 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin), 167

mental health, 91, 109 Mental Hygiene for the Classroom

Teacher (Blount), 25 middle school students absenteeism, 106 abuse, verbal and physical, 79, 106 bullying of, 110 coming out, risks of, 109 harassment experiences, 79, 106 homophobia, impacts on, 108–109 of LG parents, 79–80 research on, 220–221

suicide risk, 110 threats of violence, 106 violence against, 106

military, U.S., 26, 33, 49, 58 Minnesota, 37 Minnesota Human Rights statutes, 52–53 mothering teens, academic offerings for, 52

multidimensionality in Queer Legal The- ory (QLT), 45, 46

Nabozny v. Podlesny, 33, 34, 55, 60 narrative research, 14–15 National Center for Health Statistics, 193 National College Climate Survey (NCCS), 143, 144, 188–190, 212

National College Health Assessment (American College Health Associa- tion), 147

National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 23, 34

National Day of Silence, 113 National Education Association (NEA), 23, 28, 31, 168, 171

National Gay Student Center, 28 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 179

National Lesbian Family Study, 79 National Longitudinal Study of Adoles- cent Health (Add Health), 80, 122– 123, 176, 178–181, 201–202, 221

National School Climate Survey (GLSEN), 93–94, 106, 176, 184–188, 207–211, 221

National Study of Living-Learning Pro- grams, 147

National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), 176, 193–194, 215–216

National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), College Student Report, 128, 129, 134, 176, 190–191, 213

New Hampshire, 36 New Jersey, 36 New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, 59

New Jersey State Board of Education, 28 New York, 36

264 subject index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 264

New Zealand, 39 No Name-Calling Week, 113 no promo homo legislation, 55, 60 no promo homo policies, 38, 45, 52–53

Office of Civil Rights (DOE), 55 Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, 111

One Teacher in 10 (Jennings), 170 oral sex, criminalization of, 48 Oregon, 28

parents coming out to, dangers of, 54 of LGBTQ children, 35, 82–83, 114 research on LGBTQ, 76–77 same-sex, 1, 57–58, 61, 77, 195

Parents, Families, & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), 35, 114

parents, LGBTQ, with children in school harassment by straight parents, 78 number of dependent children, 77 research recommendations, 83–84 school interactions/involvement, 77– 81, 83

school workers, interactions with, 78 self-disclosure, concerns about, 78, 83

patriarchy, 45 pedagogy research category of, 141 research on, 33–34

Perry, Hollingsworth v., 58 Personal Responsibility and Work Op- portunity Reconciliation Act, 53

Phi Delta Kappan (“The Homosexual Teacher and Related Topics”), 30

physical abuse. See violence Podlesny, Nabozny v., 33, 34, 55, 60 police protections, anti-gay violence, 35 policy and politics, research on, 38 policy organizations, 225 political rights, 47 politics climate enabling/limiting research, 222–223, 225

and policy research, 38

of the Protestant Right, 49, 53, 56 positivist conception of identity develop- ment, 146

postmodernism, 11 postpositivist approach in research, 146, 148

poverty rates, 131–132, 193–195 pregnancy data, National Survey of Fam- ily Growth (NSFG), 193

pregnant teens, academic offerings for, 52

premarital sex, criminalization of, 48 privacy rights, 49, 50 professional development, 81, 93, 97, 98 Project 10, 31 Protestant Right, 49, 53, 56 PTL Club (television), 169 public accommodations, antidiscrimina- tion laws, 29

public opinion on LGBTQ populations, General Social Survey (GSS), 191– 192

purity campaigns, 44, 49

queer concept of, 37 term usage, 5–6, 44

queer identity, 44, 49 Queer Legal Theory (QLT), 44–46, 58 Queer Nation, 37 queer pedagogy, 96–97 queer studies, 37, 111–112 Queer Studies Special Interest Group (AERA), 3

queer theory, 5, 8–9, 37–38, 44–46, 142, 146–148

questioning, term usage, 5–6

race/ethnicity-related achievement, 126 race/ethnicity-related harassment, 10, 126, 186, 189

racial dominance, 9 racism, 44–45 Reconstruction era,post-, 51–52 religious right, 29, 30, 49, 53, 56 researcher skills and bias, 226–227 Research Workshop (AERA), 4–5

subject index 265

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 265

Respect for All Project, 114 right to privacy, 49, 50 Rockefeller Foundation, Bureau of So- cial Hygiene, 25

role models, 55–56 Romer v. Evans, 60 rural gays, 93, 107, 132, 185–186 rural schools, 126, 231, 244

Safe Schools Improvement Act, 98 Safe Space initiative, GLSEN, 114 safety in schools. See abuse, verbal and physical; bullying; harassment

same-sex-attracted students, 91, 122–123 same-sex consensual sexual behavior criminalization of, 48–51 decriminalization of, 27, 49 immorality of, court rulings on, 27, 28

legislation, 47 regulation, variability and selective enforcement of, 47

same-sex couples adoption by, 57–58, 61 African American, 77, 132, 195 Census data, 77, 194–195 civil unions for, 36 domestic partner benefits, 45 educational attainment, 131, 195 Latino, 195 poverty rates, 195

same-sex marriage, 57, 58, 61 same-sex marriage legislation, 1, 35–36, 57, 58

same-sex parents, 1, 57–58, 61, 77, 195 same-sex vs. other-sex attraction, 122– 123

Save Our Children campaign, 29, 35, 57 scales and assessment tools, 231, 244 school- and student-focused data National College Climate Survey (NCCS), 188–190, 212

National Longitudinal Study of Ado- lescent Health large-scale data sets, 80, 122–123, 176, 178–181, 201–202

National School Climate Survey (GLSEN), 93–94, 176, 184–188, 207–211

National Survey of Student Engage- ment (NSSE), College Student Re- port, 176, 190–191, 213

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS), 176, 181–184, 203–206

school climate. See also campus climate achievement and, 124–125 K–12 students, 91–94 National School Climate Survey (GLSEN), 93–94, 106, 176, 184– 188, 207–211, 221

research on, 34 school districts employment contract, morality claus- es, 27, 48

employment discrimination, 28 financial liability for hostile climates, 59

schools differentiated citizenship in, 51–57 heteronormative structuralist frame- work, 7–8, 90–91, 95

inclusive, recommendations for creat- ing, 81–82

institutionalized forms of enforced in- visibility, 60

LGBTQ parent involvement, 77–81, 83

normative values and social expecta- tions, 46–47

success in, 60, 121 schools, policies and practices addressing T students in higher edu- cation, 149

bullying intervention, 112–114 bullying prevention, 112 discipline, color’s influence on, 46 discriminatory, 75–76 dress code standards re-enforcing ho- mophobia, 7

government’s role in, 53 on harassment, 79, 97

266 subject index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 266

inclusive, 97–98 no promo homo, 38, 45, 52–53 protecting LGBTQ students, 82, 187 Queer Legal Theory (QLT) on, 45 reproducing legal bias against LGBTQs, 55–57

research recommendations, 98, 99, 248–249

social and economic inequality repro- duced, 47

stigma enforcement in, 52–53 School Success and Opportunity Act, 60 school workers GSAs supported by, 126, 171 impact of support by, 92–93 interventions by, 126 LGBTQ, 55–56, 58, 61 LGBTQ parents, interactions with, 78

second parent adoption, 57–58 Secretary of the Department of Children

and Family Services, Lofton v., 57 700 Club (television), 169 sex education, 7–8, 39, 99, 222–223 sexism as normative, 44 Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Geb- hard), 26, 167

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin), 167

sexuality abstinence-based, 44, 49, 53 scholarship on, 162 state regulations, 43–44 women’s, 25, 164–165

Sexual Politics, Sexual Communities, 1940–1970 (D’Emilio), 163

silencing educators, 48–49, 55–56, 98 smoking, 181 social class, media depictions of LGBTs, 131

social equality, 29 social exclusion, 91, 126 social mobility, 52 socioeconomic-related victimization, 125, 126

sociolegal contexts of LGBTQ issues, 39–40, 43–44, 62–63

Sociology of Education (journal), 224 The Sociology of Teaching (Waller), 25, 166

Socrates, Plato, and Guys Like Me (Ro- fes), 169–170

sodomy, 46–50 sodomy legislation, 33, 55, 61, 98 sports in schools, 7, 10, 125, 180–181, 240

Steps to Respect, 111 stigma heretical, 47–48, 56 pathology, 48 research on, 32–33 school policies and practices, 52–53

Stone Butch Blues (Feinberg), 37 Stonewall Riots, 27, 29, 39, 168–170 Straightlaced ((film) (Respect for All Project)), 114

straights vs. gays, educational attainment and earnings, 132–133

straights vs. LGBTQ students. See also K–12 students, LGBTQ vs. straight absenteeism, 109 abuse, verbal and physical, 106–107 bullying, 108, 109, 110 colleges and universities, 2–3, 5, 39, 128–130

harassment of, 106–107 inclusive school policies impact on, 97

suicide risk, 105–106, 109 victimization, 106–108 violence against, 106–108

Student Homophile League (Columbia University), 27

students of LGBTQ parents, 76, 78–82 Subject to Identity (Talburt), 148 substance abuse, 91 suicide risk bullying and, 91, 109–110 engagement and, 126 Health and Human Services Depart- ment youth suicide report, 23, 31– 32

high-school students, 110 homophobia and, 110

subject index 267

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 267

inclusive school policies impact on, 98 K–12 students, 91, 109–110 middle school students, 110 no promo homo policies and, 53 straight vs. LGBTQ students, 105– 106, 109

White students vs. of color, 110 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBS), 183

Swedish National Council for Crime Pre- vention, 112

Task Force on Gay Liberation (American Library Association), 28

teacher education, 33–34, 81, 99 teachers. See educators Tehachapi, 55 Temporary Assistance for Needy Fami- lies, 53

Texas, Lawrence v., 33, 34, 38, 43, 49– 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61

That’s a Family! ((film) (Respect for All Project)), 114

think tank research, 225 This Bridge Called My Back (Moraga & Anzaldúa), 38

Toms River Regional Schools Board of Education, L.W. v., 59–60

transgender/alternate gender expression harassment, 187 National School Climate Survey (GLSEN), 187, 207–211

research on, 5, 37 safety in colleges/universities, 147 term usage, 5–6

“Transgender Students on Our Campus- es” (Lees), 37

transgressive sex, 48 transphobia in education, 45 truancy. See absenteeism Truman administration, 25

United States, Windsor v., 36, 57, 58, 60 University of Nebraska, 28 Unmasking Identities (Kellinger), 171 Utah, 34, 58

verbal abuse. See abuse, verbal and phys- ical

Vermont, 36 victimization age-related, 107 ethnicity and, 107, 126 girls vs. boys, 107 health risks, 91, 109 of high-school students, 125 homophobic, 104, 107 peer, 107, 108

violence. See also abuse, verbal and physical advocacy improvements, 54–55 legal challenges, 33 against middle/high school students, 106

against minority students, 186 by parents, 54 police protections, 35 responsibility for, 23 staff interventions, 126 unchecked, in schools, 54–55

violence threats, 106–107 Virginia, 58 visibility studies, 142–143

wage discrimination, 133 Wales, 107–108 Washington, 36 Welcoming Schools project, 114 Whites, Blacks view of homosexuality in, 10

White students harassment/assault of, 186, 189 harassment of, 126, 186 queer theory perspective, 9 school diversity experience for, 9–10 suicide risk, 110

Who’s Who in America, 163 Windsor v. United States, 36, 57, 58, 60 women cisgender, 147 educational attainment and earnings, 131–132

268 subject index

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 268

Sexual Behavior in the Human Fe- male (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard), 26, 167

sexuality, portrayal of, 25, 164–165 single, deviance of, 25

women educators increases in, 24–25, 161–162 marriage employment restrictions, 165, 166

pre-19th-century concerns regarding, 24–25

protecting students from, 164 scholarship, historical, 25, 161–162, 164

wage gap, 164 women’s health data, 193 women’s liberation movement, 165 WWI era, post-, to pre-WWII, research, 165–166

WWII era, post-, research, 25–27

Youth Risk Behavior (YRBS) Surveil- lance Survey, 134, 181–184, 203– 206, 221, 223

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Sys- tem (YRBSS), 134, 176

zero tolerance policies, 111–112

subject index 269

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 269

ch13-index.qxp 4/7/15 3:53 PM Page 270

271

Workshop Participant Roster

AERA Research Workshop on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research

September 24–26, 2010

Madelaine Adelman, Arizona State University Judy A. Alston, Ashland University Juan Battle, Graduate Center, City University of New York Genny Beemyn, University of Massachusetts, Amherst Mollie Blackburn, Ohio State University Jackie M. Blount, Ohio State University Maurice Brown, American Educational Research Association Roland Sintos Coloma, Miami University James Earl Davis, Temple University Ruth E. Fassinger, American Psychological Association Gary J. Gates, University of California, Los Angeles Abbie E. Goldberg, Clark University Karen Graves, Denison University Richard Greggory Johnson III, University of San Francisco Waldo E. Johnson, Jr., University of Chicago Joseph G. Kosciw, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network Carol D. Lee, Northwestern University Felice J. Levine, American Educational Research Association Catherine A. Lugg, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Connie E. North, Connie North, LLC C. J. Pascoe, University of Oregon Kristen A. Renn, Michigan State University Nelson M. Rodriguez, College of New Jersey Stephen T. Russell, University of Arizona James T. Sears, Journal of LGBT Youth Lindsey Wilkinson, Portland State University George L. Wimberly, American Educational Research Association

Note: These are the participants’ institutional affiliations at the time of publication.

Ch14-supplement.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 271

Ch14-supplement.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 272

About the Contributors

273

Editor George L. Wimberly is the Director of Professional Development and Di- versity Officer for the American Educational Research Association; gwimberly@ aera.net. He develops and implements programs to enrich research skills, ex- pand knowledge, and build research capacity among graduate students and early career scholars. His research focuses on career development and diversity among scientists and the research topics they examine.

Contributors Madelaine Adelman is an anthropologist and Associate Professor of Justice and Social Inquiry in the School of Social Transformation at Arizona State University; [email protected]. Her research and teaching focus on the politics of domestic violence and the struggle over the meaning, manifestation, and management of gender and sexuality in society. She is the co-editor of Jerusalem: Conflict and Cooperation in a Contested City. Juan Battle is Professor of Sociology, Public Health, and Urban Education at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York; jbattle@ gc.cuny.edu. His research focuses on race, sexuality, and social justice. Among his current projects, he is heading the Social Justice Sexuality initiative— a project exploring the lived experiences of Black, Latina/o, and Asian lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the United States and Puerto Rico. Mollie Blackburn is a Professor of Teaching and Learning at Ohio State University; [email protected]. Her critical and activist research focuses on adolescent literacy with particular attention to lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer, and questioning youth and the teachers who serve them.

Ch14-supplement.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 273

Jackie M. Blount is a Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at Ohio State University; [email protected]. Her research focuses on the history of gender and sexuality in American schools. Dorothy L. Espelage is the Edward William Gutgsell & Jane Marr Gutgsell Endowed Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign; [email protected]. Her research focuses on translating empirical findings into prevention and intervention programming in the areas of bullying, homophobic teasing, sexual harassment, and teen dating violence. Karen Graves is Professor and Chair in the Department of Education at Denison University; [email protected]. Her research addresses 20th-century schooling in the United States with a focus on gender and sexuality, and legal policies concerning education. Catherine A. Lugg is Professor of Education at the Graduate School of Education, Rutgers University; [email protected]. Her research interests include educational politics and history, and the influences of social movements and political ideology on educational politics and policy. C. J. Pascoe is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Ore- gon; [email protected]. Her research focuses on gender, sexuality, in- equality, and youth. She has published widely, including her award-winning book about sexuality and gender in high school, Dude, You’re a Fag: Mas- culinity and Sexuality in High Schools. Jennifer Pearson is Associate Professor of Sociology at Wichita State University; [email protected]. Her research focus is on gender and sexuality, education, adolescence, and the transition to adulthood, and her work explores the role of school and family contexts in the well-being and ed- ucational success of sexual minority adolescents and young adults. Kristen A. Renn is Professor in the Department of Educational Adminis- tration at Michigan State University; [email protected]. Her research interests include student success and persistence; identity and identity development in higher education; mixed-race college students; women in higher education in U.S. and global contexts; new professionals in student affairs; and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in higher education.

274 about the contributors

Ch14-supplement.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 274

Stephen T. Russell is Distinguished Professor, Fitch Nesbitt Endowed Chair, and Director, Frances McClelland Institute at the University of Arizona; [email protected]. His research in LGBT youth health has highlighted the role of bias-based harassment in health disparities for LGBT youth, and has identified school-based policies and programs associated with reductions in peer victimization and promotion of school safety. Ryan J. Watson is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of British Co- lumbia in the Stigma and Resilience Amongst Vulnerable Youth Centre; [email protected]. His research focus is on interpersonal relationships, mental health outcomes, and school experiences for LGBT youth. Lindsey Wilkinson is Associate Professor of Sociology at Portland State University; [email protected]. His research focuses on the intersection of gender, sexuality, and schooling across the life course.

about the contributors 275

Ch14-supplement.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 275

Ch14-supplement.qxp 4/7/15 3:52 PM Page 276

View publication statsView publication stats