LGBTQ Issues in Education: Advancing a Research Agenda

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 Control Number: 2015938226

ISBN: 978-0-935302-49-3 (Paperback)

ISBN: 978-0-935302-36-3 (e-Book)

ISBN: 978-0-935302-54-7 (kindle)

ISBN: 978-0-935302-53-0 (pdf)

Preface

It is a pleasure to introduce this report on behalf of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). As the culmination of an AERA project, this work exemplifies one of the most important objectives of AERA as a scientific and scholarly association: to bring rigorous and relevant knowledge to bear on salient issues in education and to help chart future directions of inquiry. The idea of undertaking a project in this area emerged from discussions of the AERA Executive Board in 2007–2008 about how LGBTQ issues and individuals were treated in educational contexts and what AERA could do to foster greater attention to this situation and to the relevant knowledge base on which policy and practice should rely.

The result was the development of a long-term initiative, starting at the outset with enhanced substantive programming at AERA annual meetings and discussion of the elements of a more ambitious project plan. The steps leading to a research workshop in 2010 were both thoughtful and deliberative, with an explicit commitment to being as inclusive as possible in the consideration of relevant writings and research. As set forth in the introduction to this report, the project that evolved ultimately had three components: (1) a comprehensive literature review that led to a Web-based product of value and use, (2) a wide call for ideas that reached across research communities within AERA and in other relevant disciplines and fields, and (3) the workshop itself, which by design crossed sectors and modes of inquiry to scrutinize and synthesize what is known and to foster greater attention to the need for research on LGBTQ issues in education.

This report brings to fruition the commitments that drove the workshop. It relies on research emanating from all three components of the project and the further serious follow-up work of the authors and editor who collaborated in preparing this work. Underlying the initiative was an awareness that extant bodies of knowledge are insufficiently visible; that there needs to be more attention to research, data, and statistics; and that, just as there are barriers to addressing LGBTQ issues in society, there are challenges and complexities that constrain the pursuit of research. The aim of this report is to address these concerns. Beyond conveying substantive scholarship, there is a larger ambition of contributing to a culture that encourages research on LGBTQ issues in education and an infrastructure of support to enable that to happen.

This report itself speaks to a shared commitment to producing a product of merit. As AERA executive director, I want to thank the many persons, named and unnamed, who encouraged the creation this report and made it happen. AERA presidents loomed large in the process, including in particular Eva Baker, William Tate, William Tierney, and Carol Lee. Members of several AERA Councils are too numerous to name, as are the many leaders and scholars in the association’s Queer Studies SIG who contributed to every facet of the project. The workshop participants (listed in this report) contributed mightily in that meeting and also as readers of drafts. In addition, AERA requires blind peer review of any work it accepts for publication—this report included. Thus, I wish to thank several anonymous reviewers for taking the time to review the manuscript and offering comments and critique. George Wimberly, director of the project and editor of the report, thanks his co-authors in the acknowledgments to this volume. To him, too, multiple acknowledgments are owed.

Most important is to thank you, our readers, for examining this report and, we hope, for using it in your work—whether you are students or scholars, policy makers or practitioners. To advance a research agenda on LGBTQ issues in education is of benefit to LGBTQ students, educators, and parents and to all. We encourage that to happen.

Felice J. Levine

AERA Executive Director

About the American Educational Research Association

The American Educational Research Association is the national interdisciplinary research association for 25,000 scholars who undertake research on education and learning. Founded in 1916, AERA aims to advance knowledge about education, to encourage scholarly inquiry related to education, and to promote the use of research to improve education and serve the public good. AERA is dedicated to promoting research of the highest quality, communicating research openly and widely, advancing sound research and science policy, and undertaking projects and programs directed to these ends. In addition to a major annual meeting and other research conferences and public events, the association publishes seven peer-reviewed journals and research as well as methodology books central to the field. AERA also offers courses, small grants, dissertation support, and other professional development initiatives supported by the association and grants from federal research agencies and private foundations.

Acknowledgments

As the editor I am indebted to many who contributed to the development of this project and the preparation of the report. First and foremost I thank the co-authors, who contributed substantive chapters as well as ideas, critiques, and comments that brought the project to fruition. Many thanks to the LGBTQ Planning Committee, the participants in the AERA Research Workshop on LGBTQ Issues in Education Research, and the many scholars who contributed to our initial collection of literature. I appreciate the guidance and collaboration of Felice J. Levine, AERA Executive Director, throughout the conception and development of this report. I also value the support of the AERA Council. Special thanks to my AERA colleagues Maurice Brown, Lori Diane Hill, John Neikirk, and Martha Yager, who provided constant feedback on the report content and reviewed multiple drafts to bring it to publication. It is a great honor to spend my time and energy synthesizing research and sharing knowledge on this important topic.

George L. Wimberly

Editor

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Introduction and Overview

GEORGE L. WIMBERLY

In an increasingly diverse society, educators and policy makers face the challenge of fostering educational environments that are inclusive and welcoming 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 questioning 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 administrators, 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 conceptualize, 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 climate 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 relationships 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 harassment, have lower levels of academic achievement, have less school engagement, 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 organizations and policies protect LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff. Colleges provide a platform for researchers to study students’ current and past experiences, 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. Throughout this report the authors review key LGBTQ research, examine areas for future 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 Association (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 preparation 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.

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 relevant 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 Research 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 environment 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 addressed methodological and conceptual challenges to the research and developed an illustrative map of promising research directions and discussed potential 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 contexts, 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 addressed in the broad-based call from the education research community. The 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 component 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 society, 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, particularly in a school or educational context.

Each of the LGBTQ components and definitions can reflect cultural, political, 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 behavior. 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 landscapes 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 relationship; 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 report. Each of the theories discussed is much more complex and broad than as presented here. Readers seeking a deeper understanding of the theories themselves 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 heteronormative theoretical perspective. This research starts with the notion that traditional 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-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 heteronormative 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 overwhelmingly 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 derivatives 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 education. 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 aggressive 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 widespread 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 conceived and discussed in schools, as well as how LGBTQ topics are studied. It is through heteronormative discursive practices that LGBTQ lives are marginalized socially and politically and, as a result, are invisible in some social spaces, including schools. Prior to 1990 the heteronormative perspective dominated education research on LGBTQ issues, as much of this work focused on pathological topics surrounding LGBTQ students’ mental health and psychological 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 sexuality 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 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 expanded, 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 visibility of LGBTQ students, teachers, and issues affecting schools, and led researchers to produce a body a knowledge addressing LGBTQ issues.

Queer Theory

At the opposite end of the theoretical continuum, queer theory supports an individual’s self-identification and full self-expression, challenging the heteronormative perspective by dismantling all categories of cultural norms and values, class distinctions, racial and gender thinking, preconceived notions of family, and the traditional structure of the institutions that support heteronormative 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 replacing 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 assumes 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 characteristics. 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 perspective 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 (Luhmann, 1998), youth identity development (Davis, 1999), and the family (Letts & 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 deconstructs the identity and experiences of some groups that experience racial oppression 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. Theoretical 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 issues. As with any social construct, the meaning or interpretation of LGBTQ issues can change as society changes. What was once taboo may