1

Addressing LGBT Inclusivity in Education

Justin Klotzle
University of California, Los Angeles

Justin Klotzle
Education 406
Instructor: Eduardo Lopez
27 December 2016
The American education system serves as a process through which the youth are prepared
to become contributing citizens of our society. The integrity of such a systemic process is
compromised by any omission of reality: the exclusion of LGBT history from curriculum, and
the discrediting of LGBT students discrimination. The erasure of LGBT curriculum from
historical, sociological, and literary subjects severely impacts the quality of every students
education, and even the quality of LGBT students lives. The lack of LGBT inclusive curriculum
in public schools reproduces the deficit-framing of LGBT individuals as the symptoms of their
own culture, simultaneously maintaining an inequitable social structure and obscuring the failed
systemic process that contributes to this injustice. By failing to address LGBT issues in
classrooms teachers provide a platform on which discrimination can continue, inside the
education system and beyond graduation. When focus on the source of LGBT discrimination is
wrongly misdirected at LGBT students, the true source of systemic injustice is ignored and any
possibility of righting the wrong is lost. In addressing this systemic issue, it is essential to
mandate the education of administrators and teachers on LGBT issues. Teachers must focus on
creating a pedagogy of love within their classrooms, and begin to disrupt deficit thinking by
replacing it with asset thinking. By valuing the experiences and contributions of the LGBT
community along with creating safe environments for individual expression the disconnect
between LGBT students and their education system and be brought together.

Teachers and administrators must be educated on the theoretical framework of sexual and
gender identity and this knowledge must inform an approach to equitable education for all.

Without a basic understanding of their LGBT students identities, educators cannot possibly
hope to serve these students; their misinformed practices of administration and education often
adversely affect LGBT students. Murray (2015) explains that Education does not occur in a
vacuum, and prospective teachers should be prepared to encounter and deal with the complex
ways gender and sexuality influence the social and academic schooling experience. (p. 6).
Theory provides an explanation, a way to comprehend the reality that comprises our existence,
and most importantly a location for healing (Hooks, 1994, p. 59). Murray explains that sexual
identity is a consistent and lasting understanding of sexuality and recurrent sexual thoughts
and/or actions. (p. 6). Sexual identity is composed of an individuals sexual characteristics which
are constructed through cultural, social and historical influences. As individuals began to
understand themselves and become encapsulated by the perception of others a conception of
ones sexual identity begins to form. Equally central to LGBT inclusivity is the theory of gender
identity. According to Murray, Gender identity is an internal process whereby we self-recognize
as masculine, feminine, androgynous, non-gender, or a unique blend of all these (p. 7) and it is
strongly embedded by the young age of four. Discovering ones own sexual and gender identity
may be quick for some youth, and prolonged for others; the impact of the surrounding social and
cultural influences on these 4 million school-aged youth (Murray, p. 6) is profound and enduring.
Without acknowledging theory as the power of liberatory education for critical consciousness,
we allow the systematic perpetuation of conditions that reinforce our collective exploitation and
repression (Hooks, p. 69).

Beyond understanding the legitimate existence of the LGBT community and the
meanings of their identities, the other essential element of this theoretical framework is the
unique oppression forced on this community and its ramifications. According to Murray (2015),

LGBT youth have increasingly become the focus of hate crimes with the number of hate crimes
rising by 118% between the years of 2007-2008. (p. 4). Schools systematically reproduce this
behavior by encouraging gender conformity and heteronormativity through school uniforms,
locker room assignments, and drastically incomplete sex education. The sanctioning and
institutionalizing of gender conformity in schools begins early and often as lasting effects
(Murray, p. 8). These effects have negative outcomes on personal health, and academic
achievement, and will be explored in the following paragraph. According to Blackburn and
McCready (2009), these hazardous environments are the symptom of abuse from peers and the
perpetuation of such abuse by the failure of adults in schools to address such abuse (p. 223).
This is symptomatic of an ignorant and uneducated workforce within the public-school system.
Murray explains that a substantial portion of the student population, as many as nine out of thirty
are significantly affected by gender variance but in a blatant disregard of this reality teacher
preparation programs rarely acknowledge queer aspects of multiculturalism (p. 5). This dearth
of knowledge allows for the exploitation and marginalization of the LGBT community.
According to a GLSEN study released in 2013, 86.2% of LGBT students experience verbal
harassment because of their sexual orientation and 66.5% because of their gender expression.
(Blackburn & McCready, 2009, p.223). Understanding the source of the oppressions that affect
LGBT youth today is a fundamental step in adopting an approach to address these issues.

The ramifications of this oppression are twofold and represent hazards to personal health
as well as academic achievement. As described by Murray (2015) the hetero- and cissexist
policies that countenance homophobia send painful and tragic messages to our youth, which can
have fatal consequences (p. 3). In a study prepared by the CDC (2016), it was discovered that
suicide is attempted by four times as many LGBT youth as compared to their straight peers and

two times as often by questioning youth (p. 3). This is an outrageous anomaly, especially when
considering the causes outlined previously. According to GLSEN (2013), LGBT students are
verbally and physically harassed at much higher rates than their straight peers with the
percentages being 74% and 36.2% respectively. (p. 17). This disrespect of LGBT youth not only
affects their personal safety but also impairs their academic success. Thirty-eight percent of
LGBT students missed at least one day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe, and
because of this impaired performance their grade point averages were significantly lower than
those students who were not harassed 2.8 vs 3.3 (GLSEN, 2013, p. 18). The LGBT youth of
todays society undoubtedly face immense obstacles which stem from the inherent systematic
oppression of the LGBT community and are compounded by flawed institutional responses.

The complex issues facing LGBT youth in schools is exacerbated by the deficit paradigm
that has become so embedded in educational practices. As described by Lois Weiner (2006), the
deficit paradigm describes the social response and solutions to any epidemic as focusing on
individual character and failing as opposed to recognizing other more powerful factors such as
social and systemic failings (p. 42). The harassment of LGBT youth and their failure to succeed
is viewed as individual weakness on the part of students, completely obscuring the massive
systemic failure thus reproducing social inequality. It is the responsibility of teachers and
administrators to disrupt the deficit paradigm afflicting LGBT youth today by first
acknowledging the existence of the deficit paradigm and their complicit responsibility and then
to challenge undisputed practices and policies.

When attempting to increase LGBT inclusivity in school curriculum it is important to

identify the potential challenges in doing so. One of the largest fears of teachers is public

opposition to the inclusion of LGBT materials in the classroom. This public oppositions stems
from fear of the unknown, moral opposition, and a general concern that the subject material is
too mature for children. When interacting with concerned parents and the public it is often
necessary to calmly explain the need for LGBT inclusive curriculum and what that entails. This
will help to eliminate any confusion regarding the purpose and implementation of the curriculum
and hopefully alleviate some of their fears. When responding to moral concerns it is important to
sensitively explain that per the law religion is to be valued for historical, cultural, and literary
purposes but not in a devotional or doctrinal manner. The arguments that children are not ready
to discuss LGBT issues is counterintuitive because the same children already struggle with the
exact same issues.

Pushback from school administrators is inevitable, whether their opposition is based on

principle, or a simple unwillingness to change. When confronting administrators and fellow
teachers it is helpful to reference the legal mandates set by the California Senate in Bill 48. The
specific line items of this bill provide talking points and legal encouragement for administrators
to embrace LGBT inclusive curricula. Under Senate Bill 48 educational material that reflects
adversely on someone because of their identity is banned. Discrimination based on sexual
orientation had already been prohibited by law before this bill, but now this has been extended to
the curricula taught in classrooms. Senate Bill 48 mandates that the contributions of the LGBT
community to the development of California and the United states be added to curricula. This is
an enormous step forward but requires due diligence on the part of teachers and administrators.
There are no specific guidelines outlining what information must be added and in what manner.
It is the responsibility of individual school districts to decide how to create an LGBT sensitive
and inclusive curriculum.

While LGBT inclusivity should ideally be spread across all grade levels, this legislature
allows for individual units to be sporadically inserted rather than a continuous integration
through K-12 education. This is where a teachers skill in negotiation and advocacy becomes
absolutely necessary. The power of agency invested in teachers and administrators must be used
to its full potential to create a more equitable education environment for LGBT students.
Educators must advocate for their students not only to district administrators but also to the
public. Senate Bill 48 allows parents the right to examine course curricula/materials and to meet
with teachers/faculty regarding subject matter. Parents who exercise this right should be
explained clear and easily understandable educational objectives and the merit behind
implementing them.

Teachers also have incredible autonomy when it comes to creating a classroom

environment. While they may rely on administrative policies and peer collaboration to
implement LGBT inclusive lessons, classroom management is unanimously at their discretion.
The following strategies are ways that a teacher can foster and LGBT inclusive learning
environment and create an atmosphere of safety within the classroom. Teachers should address
hate speech, defining it, identifying it, and putting an end to hateful rhetoric in their classroom.
Words like fag, dyke and using the word gay in a derogatory manner should not be tolerated;
the student should be confronted and the teacher should follow through with repercussions if
necessary. Hanging LGBT awareness posters, an LGBT flag, and most importantly resource
hotline numbers in a classroom promotes awareness and provides support for the LGBT youth in
a classroom without saying a word. If a campus has a Gay-Straight Student Alliance, teachers
should support the organization with attendance and leadership where necessary. Presenting
oneself as an ally creates an important resource for LGBT youth to utilize at school. Lastly,

teachers should attend, and encourage others to attend ally trainings. Through education, teachers
can become the most powerful advocates for their LGBT students.

The first step to developing an approach to equitable education is to reveal, accept, and
understand the current inequality and the systemic failure that is the cause of such inequality.
When addressing the issue of LGBT inclusivity in education, understanding the theoretical
framework of sexual and gender identity is foundational. Without acknowledging the legitimate
existence of the LGBT community no reparations can be made. From this point, it is essential to
remove deficit-thinking and instead point fingers at the social and institutional causes of LGBT
discrimination and instead value the LGBT community for their unique contributions to society.
When taking practical steps towards equitable education for LGBT youth, preparation is
necessary to face opposition from peers, administrators, and the public. While this process takes
place, teachers must create a classroom environment of inclusivity and safety, providing
resources and support to the same students they are advocating for. In this way, it is possible to
reveal the systemic dysfunction and harm towards LGBT youth while taking steps towards an
equitable system of education for all.

References

CDC. (2016). Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among
Students in Grades 9-12: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.

GLSEN (2013). 2013 National Climate Survey [PDF Document]. Retrieved from GLSEN
Online Web Site: www.glsen.org/article/2013-national-school-climate-survey

Hooks, b. (1994). Theory as liberatory practice. Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice
of freedom (pgs. 59-76). New York: Routledge.

Mollie V. Blackburn & Lance T. McCready (2009) Voices of Queer Youth in Urban Schools:
Possibilities and Limitations, Theory Into Practice, 48:3, 222-230.

Murray, O. (2015). Chapter 1: Framing the issue. Queer inclusion in teacher education: Bridging
theory, research, and practice. New York, Routldge, 3-20.

Weiner, L. (2006). Challenging deficit thinking. Educational Leadership, 64(1), 42-45.