Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in education

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender Students

In today's educational environment, students who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) often find it hard to cope in their learning environment. LGBT students must endure an abnormal amount of stress throughout adolescence and young adulthood. According to Khayatt (1994), it is quite normal for LGBT students to experience harassment, isolation from their social group, the feeling of marginalization, and an inability to speak openly about their sexual/gender orientation. LGBT students have developed a myriad of ways of coping with the pressures of fitting in. Some of these methods have proven to be self-destructive, however. Up to thirty percent of all teenage suicides are believed to be LGBT. When LGBT students are not doing violence to themselves, they often become the target of attacks of others in their peer group. In the following study, I will begin with reviewing some of the significant literature relating to the subject of LGBT students. I will then go on to analyze the theoretical implications that such concepts hold for the educational environment, while also analyzing key educational psychology concepts that have the potential to be employed as a means of empowering both students and educators. Theory only goes so far, however, so a key part of my study will be an examination of the ways in which such theoretical paradigms have been employed effectively in educational environments in the form of programs such as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). Finally, I will draw conclusions from the discussion of these issues that can hopefully be used for constructing a future pedagogical program that addresses the needs of LGBT students and celebrates sexual diversity, rather than stigmatizing it.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students

I. Introduction

In today's educational environment, students who happen to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) often find it hard to cope in their learning environment. Despite the many social and educational advances made in our multicultural era, the vast majority of educational institutions and classrooms still operate out of the assumption that all students are heterosexual. Heterosexist and homophobic thinking tend to be predominate not only in the way the curriculum is designed and presented to students, but in social activities such as the prom, hallway interactions, school sports, extracurricular academic activities, physical education, and class arrangements. While the larger culture seems to have made great strides in accepting sexual minorities in recent years, what with a proliferation of representations of LGBT sexuality in popular culture, it should follow that the school systems would follow and begin to integrate an LGBT positive awareness into the curriculum. This has not been the case; schools are by and large silent on the matter of non-heterosexual identities. According to Khayatt (1994), systematic silence on LGBT matters in schools tends to take on two forms: LGBT-related topics are absent from the curriculum, and information about LGBT sexuality is either distorted or suppressed on an active level. Not only is the subject of LGBT sexuality often ignored altogether in educational environments - as thought it did not exist, there is often not even information available on the subject in the offices of guidance counselors. The subject is frequently omitted from all school curricula - even health classes, where the topic of human sexuality is traditionally dealt with. Where homosexuality is dealt with, it is frequently only shown in a negative light, such as in association with diseases like HIV and AIDS. Furthermore, there is an active refusal on the part of schools to allow LGBT speakers to address students. In some school systems, it is illegal for teachers or any other school employees to speak openly about their own LGBT orientation.

This is all the more remarkable, when nearly half the adult population has reportedly engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual activities (Sears 1991). It has been estimated that up to fifteen percent of the population in the United States is exclusively lesbian or gay. This means that, while homosexuality either has or will personally affect about half of all students' lives, a large minority will come to identify as exclusively gay or lesbian in the course of their lives, if they do not already - to say nothing of the unique situation that transgender students must endure throughout the turbulent period of adolescence and young adulthood. With this in mind, it is thus necessary for educators to begin asking themselves how they might go about addressing this issue, since it affects a significant portion of the student body. In order to dispel the myth that certain sexual and gender identities are "abnormal," it is necessary to break the silence on issues relating to LGBT students.

LGBT students must endure an abnormal amount of stress throughout adolescence and young adulthood. According to Khayatt (1994), it is quite normal for LGBT students to experience harassment, isolation from their social group, the feeling of marginalization, and an inability to speak openly about their sexual/gender orientation. What is more, the consequences of such social pressure can be severe. LGBT teenagers are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than non-LGBT teenagers. Up to thirty percent of all teenage suicides are believed to be LGBT. A third of all LGBT teenagers claim to have attempted suicide (Sedgwick 1993).

When LGBT students are not doing violence to themselves, they often become the target of attacks of others in their peer group. Homophobic jokes, remarks, and attacks are common (Van de Ven 1995). What is worse, teachers and school administrators tend to condone such expressions of violence towards LGBT students by ignoring them, rather than punishing the offenders.

LGBT students have developed a myriad of ways of coping with the pressures of fitting in. Some of these methods have proven to be self-destructive, however. For example, a common means of coping for gay and lesbian students is to pretend to be heterosexual through dating members of the opposite sex or even joining in with their peers' homophobic remarks and behavior (Smith 2007). By acting in such a fashion, however, LGBT students often do further damage to their self-esteem. Such "passing" can also hinder the development of a student's social skills. Finally, LGBT students hinder the growth of peer relationships by pretending to be something they are not (Zera 1992).

In the following study, I will begin with reviewing some of the significant literature relating to the subject of LGBT students. I will then go on to analyze the theoretical implications that such concepts hold for the educational environment, while also analyzing key educational psychology concepts that have the potential to be employed as a means of empowering both students and educators. Theory only goes so far, however, so a key part of my study will be an examination of the ways in which such theoretical paradigms have been employed effectively in educational environments in the form of programs such as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). Finally, I will draw conclusions from the discussion of these issues that can hopefully be used for constructing a future pedagogical program that addresses the needs of LGBT students and celebrates sexual diversity, rather than stigmatizing it. I hope to show that an educational project that encompasses the needs of all students, regardless of their orientation, is preferable to one that is based on silence and exclusion.

II. Studies on LGBT Students

It was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that comprehensive studies on LGBT students began to emerge. Aware of the stigmatization that LGBT students commonly face (a stigmatization that ultimately results in suicide, dropping out, low self-esteem, health risks, substance abuse, etc.), Uribe and Harbeck set about instituting and documenting the affects of PROJECT 10, a program at Fairfax High School in Los Angeles targeted towards lesbian, gay, and bisexual teenagers (1992). In their study, Uribe and Harbeck first implemented PROJECT 10 in the 1985-1986 school year. The program was successful enough to be implemented subsequently throughout the Los Angeles Unified School District, and a number of other similar programs have since followed in its wake. In the study, fifty self-identified "homosexual" students were interviewed as a means of clarifying both their experience in educational settings and their special needs. A questionnaire was also circulated among the larger student body as a means of charting the reactions of students to PROJECT 10 as an institutionalized exploration of human sexual expression and emotional attachment. The authors concluded that much damage had been done by the institutionalization of homophobia, which they cited not merely in instances of violence and harassment by fellow students, but by silence on the issue of homosexuality from teachers, counselors, and administrators. In their first survey, Uribe and Harbeck also discovered that many gay male students often experienced their first sexual encounters in a "date rape" scenario, and felt that they did not have anyone at school to whom they could seek counseling on this issue. Lesbian students faced the problem of often being told that their sexual orientation was merely "a phase" when they attempted to come out to loved ones, teachers, or young people in their peer groups. In their second survey, the authors found that the majority of students felt that PROJECT 10 had been positive and beneficial - not merely for LGBT students, but for the overall educational environment.

This resonates with one of the conclusions reached by Sedgwick (1993) when she offered her first class in gay and lesbian studies at Amherst College in 1986. While she initially designed the course for the five to six students she believed would show up, she was quite shocked when, on the first day of class, sixty-five students showed up, most of whom identified as straight. While Sedgwick is writing as a literary scholar, rather than a social scientist, her comments on pedagogy, as one of the most important proponents of queer theory since its emergence in the academy in the 1980s, are pertinent here. Sedgwick notes that it is fairly common in the United States for teachers to be fired for even inferring that LGBT people have a right to existence and equality, thus cementing the institutionalized silence that serves a homophobic and heterosexist agenda. She also points to statistics that state that twenty-six percent of all gay men have to leave home as students as a result of their sexuality. She also notes that nearly a quarter of all homeless youth in the United States are LGBT. In addition to the systematic homophobia mentioned above, Sedgwick also points out that LGBT students are kept isolated from LGBT adults who may be able to serve as mentors and role models, were it not for the homophobic idea that such adults may have a negative influence or even prey sexually on LGBT youth. Finally, Sedgwick criticizes the rampant denial found in the world of education as well as government, which surfaces in the form of defunding research on adolescent sexual behavior and refusing to fund programs in schools that might provide students with information on LGBT identity, as well as HIV prevention. What is more, many academics that are involved in research that may be of beneficial use to both educators and LGBT students find their work to be stigmatized as a result of the attack on "political correctness" by both the right wing and anti-intellectual leftists.

More recent research has shown that, while some states have taken steps to instill legislation to protect LGBT students from harassment and bullying on the basis of their gender or sexual orientation, school systems across the nation continue to take steps to insure that LGBT-related issues are banned from the curriculum (Kosciw and Diaz 2005). What is more, homophobic language continues to resonate through American school hallways as a means of insulting LGBT students; unfortunately, teacher and staff members are a lot less likely intervene in such scenarios than they are when racist or sexist language is used. What is more, nearly a fifth of the LGBT youth surveyed in Kosciw and Diaz (2005) reported hearing teachers and school staff members make homophobic remarks themselves. Over a third of all students surveyed had been physically harassed in the previous year owing to their sexual orientation, while over a quarter had experienced harassment as the result of their gender expression. What is more, such harassment and stigmatization has a visible affect on students' academic performance; many of the students surveyed reported having skipped at least one day of school in the previous month out of fear for their safety. LGBT students are twice as likely to drop out of high school or not go on to college after graduation. The severity of LGBT students' harassment inevitably corresponds with their level of academic achievement. The vast majority of students - over 80% - reported that they had never been taught about LGBT history, people, and events. What is more, the presence of LGBT clubs in the school tended to reduce the amount of absentees among the LGBT student body, while fostering a sense of belonging to the school community.

Smith (2007) notes the importance of fostering a sense of belonging in schools, largely owing to the fact that LGBT students have traditionally been excluded from the broader gay subculture, which is adult-oriented and thus afraid of promoting the image of seducing young people into a lifestyle that has been by and large condemned by society at large throughout its history. Critics often accuse LGBT supportive teachers of filling "advocacy" roles; Smith suggests that teachers find ways of being supportive in a way that is informationally and emotionally fulfilling, rather than "advocating" for any one position. Smith suggests a five-fold solution in addressing the problems posed by the current educational system. First, he suggests that teachers familiarize themselves with the numerous print and video resources available detailing the lives and trials of both LGBT students and teachers. He then suggests that teachers take an active role in condemning negative and homophobic remarks, while going a step further and taking advantage of such moments to elicit classroom discussion on issues of sexual diversity. Third, he suggests that teachers actively campaign their schools to allow pamphlets and other printed information regarding LGBT issues to be made readily available to all students. Fourth, teachers should be wiling to integrate LGBT issues into their curriculum, while also giving LGBT students the chance to socialize with like-minded peers and acknowledging such students' needs for positive role models and reinforcement. Finally, teachers must be willing to listen to LGBT students' needs with an open mind and to offer positive suggests that are free of judgment. In addition, teachers should familiarize themselves with outside resources in the local community that might be able to help LGBT students in those events where the teacher is not in a position to do so.

III. Educational Psychology Concepts

One of the more immediate concepts that come to mind when dealing with any stigmatized minority in an educational concept is empowerment theory, which has been elucidated in the work of Ball (2000). Ball is one of the proponents of a pedagogical method that she terms "teaching for liberation," which is defined as "pedagogical practices that facilitate or encourage human action and agency" (p. 1,009). The goal of teaching for liberation is to encourage students to not only question established patterns of thought, but to take action towards changing them. Adjacent to the need for teaching for liberation is the development of what Ball terms a "critical pedagogy": "the development of a praxis of the present and conscientization, as well as the empowerment of individuals through critical reflection and the development of dialogue and voice concerning the transformative power of cultural knowledge" (p. 1,012). Finally, Ball's educational philosophy highlights the need for community-based organizations, where students belonging to a minority may congregate. Such sites serve as supplementary locales for education, and may or may not be officially recognized by parents, teachers, school principals, and other authorities. It should be noted, however, that Ball's research is largely rooted in studies of African-American students and teachers, rather than a LGBT context. Implicit to Ball's research is the fact that African-American students already have numerous opportunities to engage with their own cultural community. LGBT students do not necessarily have that opportunity in the current educational system, with the possible exception of LGBT community centers with youth outreach programs and support groups. But such centers are typically situated only in urban environments. The emergence of gay-straight alliances in many high schools, however, is one positive step forward in this direction.

In order to fully understand the complex the psychological problems that afflict many LGBT students in contemporary society, it may be useful to hearken back to Erikson's principles of identity development (1968). While identity crises are recurring for some individuals, owing to the constantly shifting and evolving nature of the world, which causes us to re-define ourselves over time, the most pivotal identity crisis occurs in the teenage years. The seven phases of identity development are delineated as follows: time perspective, self-certainty, role experimentation, anticipation of achievement, sexual identity, leadership polarization, and ideology. Unless we are able to resolve each of these facets of identity in our youth, Erikson argues, we will be unable to confront the problems of adulthood. An identity crisis may also come about as the result of a disruption of any three facets of the identity: that is, the ego identity ("the self"); the personal identity (those qualities that make us unique, separate us from others); the cultural identity (the myriad roles we may play in a social context.) as has already been stipulated, LGBT students in the United States have to deal with severe blows to at least two of these three - they must often mask their personal identity via attempting to pass as straight, effectively "deleting" those qualities of the self that makes them different from their peers, while simultaneously being denied a cultural identity that might link them to a wider, dynamic LGBT history. Thus, the identity crisis typically experienced by adolescents is arguably intensified for LGBT students, to the extent that it often takes such student a lot longer to resolve their identity crises than their heterosexual peers.

As Erikson's ideas make clear, it is vital to take into consideration factors outside the school that may exert an enormous influence on the educational development of LGBT students in order to grasp these students' unique struggle with identity formation. For this reason, it is useful to evoke the Ecological Systems theory of Bronfenbrenner (1979). Bronfenbrenner's four main ecological systems are the Microsystem, the Mesosystem, the Exosystem, and the Macrosystem. The Microsystem refers to the individual's immediate environment; for LGBT students, this is not only their school and peer group, but their home and family environments, as well. The Mesosystem refers to the connections among the individual's immediate environment; this may include the student's connection between home and school. The Exosystem refers to environments outside of the ones that the individual is immediately a part of, but indirectly affects their development (such as the workplace of a student's mother or father.) the Macrosystem is the wider cultural context in which the individual's development takes place. The Macrosystem is a key factor for LGBT students, whose suffering ultimately stems from societal attitudes towards their gender and/or sexual orientation. The Macrosystem is also inclusive, however, of the wider gay and lesbian subculture that the LGBT student may or may not be connected with or have an awareness of. It is important, however, not to put too much stress on the Macrosystem - or any other strand of Bronfenbrenner's ecological system - as each strand is connected and has an effect on every other strand. Thus, factors in the Exosystem (such as a parent's belonging to a religion that condemns homosexuality) can have a factor the student's Microsystem, which is simultaneously affected by the Macrosystem, etc.

Also useful here is Bandura's social cognitive theory (1973). Bandura developed this theory as a means of explaining how people acquire specific patterns of behavior and subsequently maintain them over time. At the core of this theory is the interaction between people, the environment, and behavior. By "environment," Bandura is referring to those factors in an individual's surroundings that may have an impact on her or his behavior. Bandura differentiates between social environment - which includes one's friends, family, peers, and teachers - and one's physical environment, which includes things like the size and temperature of a particular room. It is the former, in combination with "situation," that concerns us here. "Situation" is defined as a mental or cognitive representation of the environment that has an affect on an individual's behavior - that is, the individual's perception of the place, time, activity, and physical features surrounding an event. Bandura has stipulated that environment, behavior, and people are constantly influencing one another. Just as the various rungs of Erikson's ecological systems are constantly interacting among one another, so in the social cognitive theory of learning, one cannot say that behavior is merely the result of the person and the environment, just as the environment is not simply the result of the person and the behavior. Bandura also developed the concept of observational learning to stipulate those situations when an individual sees the actions of another individual and notes the reinforcements that that individual receives. This is particularly useful for understanding the behavior of homophobic students towards sexual minorities in school environments.