Part A: Keeping our young people safe

Nomisha Kurian, PhD Candidate (Research for Equitable Access and Learning Centre, University of Cambridge). Her work examines ways to make education more inclusive and supportive, especially for young people at risk of violence and marginalisation.

Our Wellbeing and Inclusion seminar on May 13th was a joy to lead with Ros and Tania’s excellent organisation and chairing. It gave me the chance to not only share my human rights paper (Kurian, 2019)¹, but also to hear from members of our group about their own passion for supporting at-risk young people, their personal encounters with discrimination and their ideas for making education more inclusive. As we spend our days at home in lockdown, it might be timely to remember that for LGBTQ+ young people, home is not always a safe or welcoming place (Human Rights Campaign, 2020).² Perhaps we can help support them by advocating for schools to be sensitive to their needs and struggles. As I summarise a few points from my paper in this post, a key source of data I will use is a report on the experiences of 3,700 (LGBT) pupils aged 11-19 across the UK, led by Stonewall, the UK’s leading LGBTQ+ charity (Stonewall, 2017).³

The problem of LGBTQ+ discrimination is neither new nor slight. Nearly half⁴ of LGBTQ+ pupils face bullying, which can range from physical injury and social exclusion to death threats. Over 1,000 UK primary and secondary teachers report⁵ that this is the most common type of bullying (BBC, 2019). Stonewall surveys show severe effects⁶ on victims: two in five have skipped school as a result; at least three in five have self-harmed and at least one in five have attempted suicide; over half say it has hindered their plans to pursue higher education (Stonewall, 2017). I chose to foreground teachers’ behaviour in our seminar and my research because we might need to prioritise fully inclusive and compassionate pedagogy. 53%⁷ of LGBT young people say that there is no adult at school they can talk to about their identity while 45%⁸ say they have never told anyone about being bullied (Stonewall, 2017). Only 29% say⁹ that teachers intervene to stop such bullying when they see it (Stonewall, 2017). These statistics triggered my curiosity about why teachers might refrain from intervening to protect students, and what we can do about it.

In my paper, I built four categories to understand how and why teacher discrimination might work. Real-life human behaviour is too changeable and multidimensional to fit neatly into categories. However, categories still form useful analytical tools to capture different threats to young people’s wellbeing. A teacher who does not intervene to stop a child being bullied because she does not know it is happening is quite different from one who knows but doesn’t take it seriously; this, again, is different from one who believes it’s not part of her job description or one who shares the bullies’ prejudiced beliefs. Categories can help differentiate between the reasons, forms and effects of diverse types of discrimination. My research therefore builds 4 categories of teacher behaviours likely to perpetuate social exclusion: lack of awareness, apathy, reluctance and prejudice.

To begin with the first category: I conceptualise ‘unaware’ teachers as those who do not affirm marginalised students’ rights because they are unsure of the meaning of different identities, the different threats to wellbeing occurring in school and their own responsibility and capacity to protect students’ rights. For example, in a 2014 survey¹⁰ of almost 2000 UK teachers, 86% of primary school teachers and 80% of secondary school teachers said they had not received any guidance on how to combat homophobic bullying (Stonewall, 2014). By contrast, the second category I construct, teacher apathy, involves a conscious decision not to intervene. Unlike an unaware teacher, an apathetic teacher may witness or learn of bullying or discrimination against LGBT students. However, they do not intervene out of a lack of concern and not taking the issue seriously. Bystanderism is dangerous, because it enables cultures of exclusion to continue and can leave students feeling alienated, isolated and depressed. Using the example of discriminatory language, my research explores how teacher apathy may stem from some types of discrimination becoming normalised and taken-for-granted.

My third category is reluctant teachers, who are aware of bullying and discrimination and do care about their students’ wellbeing, but hesitate to intervene to affirm or protect their rights. My research explores the range of factors (from fear and pressure to perceptions of appropriateness) that can sustain such hesitation. The final category is prejudiced teachers, or those who may actively oppose LGBT equality and may directly violate their students’ safety and dignity through their language, gestures or actions. All four categories of teacher behaviour can spark a ‘ripple effect’ of young people losing faith in the adults around them. Yet, active prejudice may be the most damaging; as a bullied young person reveals¹¹, ‘Because the teachers made fun of trans people I was too scared to tell anyone’ (Stonewall, 2017). Promoting inclusive and compassionate pedagogies is essential if we want young people to feel confident in their ability to seek support from trustworthy adults in school.

In the paper, I draw on previous training in the field of human rights to suggest ways to tackle these problems using the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and heeding England’s socio-cultural milieu and its historical and legal legacies. No silver bullets exist. Yet, perhaps a first step to helping young people thrive and stay safe is to recognise the ways in which some are vulnerable to distinctive forms of bullying and violence; and designing our advocacy and support to respond to these vulnerabilities. No less important is the wellbeing of our teachers. Our next section explores how to support LGBTQ+ staff as part of whole-school cultures of wellbeing and inclusion, led by experts transcending the researcher-practitioner boundary.

Part B: Supporting our LGBTQ+ teachers

Building inclusive schools for LGBTQ+ Teachers and drawing on Minority Stress Theory

Jonathan Glazzard and Samuel Stones – Leeds Beckett University

Professor Jonathan Glazzard is Professor of Inclusive Education in the Carnegie School of Education at Leeds Beckett University. Jonathan is a researcher, teacher educator and qualified teacher. His research focuses on a broad range of topics and disciplines, including mental health, LGBTQ+ inclusion, special educational needs, critical disability studies, critical psychology, sociology and early literacy development.

Samuel Stones is a doctoral researcher and lecturer in the Carnegie School of Education at Leeds Beckett University. Samuel’s research outputs are linked with the Centre for LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Education and the Carnegie Centre of Excellence for Mental Health in Schools. His research explores the experiences of teachers who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender, with specific emphasis on the impact of sexual orientation on teacher identity and mental health.

Some teachers in England will remember the days of Section 28 which was introduced by the Conservative Government, led by Margaret Thatcher. This legislation banned local authorities and schools from promoting homosexuality and from promoting the acceptability of homosexuality as a ‘pretended family relationship’. Research demonstrates the powerful and long-lasting effects of Section 28 (Edwards et al., 2016).¹² It contributed to a climate of fear through the policing of heterosexuality in schools, resulting in marginalisation, oppression and regulation of teachers and students who did not identify as heterosexual or cisgender (Neary, 2013).¹³ Teachers who identified as LGBTQ+ were forced to conceal their personal identities and during this time, homophobic bullying often went unchallenged due to fear that teachers would be accused on promoting homosexuality. Effectively, schools became ‘panoptic laboratories’ (Edwards et al., 2016, p. 300)¹⁴ which promoted compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980).¹⁵ The legislation was repealed in 2003, although research suggests that heteronormative discourses in schools continue to marginalise teachers and students with non-normative identities.

Although the rights of LGBTQ+ people have been strengthened across Europe (Lundin, 2015)¹⁶, international research continues to demonstrate that heterosexist cultures are entrenched within schools (Kjaran and Kristinsdóttir, 2015).¹⁷ Dominant heteronormative discourses in schools often situate teachers with LGBTQ+ identities within exclusionary spaces (Gray et al., 2016).¹⁸ According to Røthing (2008)¹⁹, teachers’ experiences are influenced by ‘homo-tolerant’ (p. 258) school cultures. Research demonstrates that teachers with LGBTQ+ identities across the world continue to experience discrimination and marginalisation (Cooper, 2008; King et al., 2008; Hardie, 2012; Marrs and Staton, 2016).²⁰ This restricts the willingness and ability of teachers to disclose their personal identities within school contexts (Wright and Smith, 2015).²¹ Research also demonstrates that even in countries that are known for their liberal attitude towards sexuality, such as Sweden, heteronormative attitudes continue to prevail within schools (Lundin, 2015).²² Thus, teachers who identify as LGBTQ+ are required to negotiate complex personal and professional boundaries (Vicars, 2006; Gray, 2013).²³ They must decide whether to separate or intertwine their personal and professional identities (Grace and Benson, 2000).²⁴ Some will choose to pass off as being heterosexual and cisgender, others will actively cover up their personal identities and some will intertwine their personal and professional identities.

The dynamics influencing the wellbeing of LGBTQ+ teachers might be better understood through minority stress theory. Within minority groups, individuals may, for example, share sexual orientation, gender identity or race characteristics. Therefore, the LGBTQ+ community share a minority status which increases their vulnerability to prejudice and discrimination as a result of strong heterosexist and cisgender discourses in society. Meyer’s (1995; 2003) and Meyer and Dean’s (1998) seminal research highlights three processes which lead to stress: circumstantial experiences (general stressors); an expectation of prejudice or harassment in relation to a minority identity (proximal stressors) and actual incidence of prejudice or harassment in relation to a minority identity (distal stressors).²⁵ Research demonstrates that teachers with LGBTQ+ identities often expect rejection and therefore attempt to conceal their sexualities, resulting in internalised psychological distress (Meyer, 2003).²⁶ These teachers may also begin to accept and believe negative depictions of their sexuality or gender identity and thus experience internalised homophobia (Russell and Bohan, 2006).²⁷

To delve deeper into minority stress theory: seminal research has illustrated the ways in which internal and external factors can result in stress (Meyer, 2003)²⁸. According to Dohrenwend (2000)²⁹, the recent stress discourse is associated with events and conditions which exceed an individual’s capacity to endure them, thus potentially inducing mental ill health. Stress is therefore a condition or event with the potential to arouse an individual’s adaptive response (Pearlin, 1999)³⁰.

Social evaluation theory suggests that individuals who are members of a minority group will establish networks and connections in order to develop a sense of collective group identity (Pettigrew, 1967)³¹. These individuals then start to draw comparisons against other members of the minority group in order to validate their own identity and experiences, rather than attempting to do so through drawing comparisons with those in a majority or dominant group (ibid). Morris, Waldo and Rothblum’s (2001)³² research has demonstrated that the process of coming out and seeking solidarity through the establishment of groups can help those with LGBTQ+ identities overcome stress. Postmes and Brandscombe’s research (2002)³³ has also demonstrated the importance of group affiliation and its positive impact on those within minorities.

Research has demonstrated the uniqueness of stressors amongst minority groups (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2008)³⁴. Despite this, Meyer’s (2003)³⁵ minority stress theory emulates Dohrenwend’s (2000)³⁶ stress model in proposing and highlighting a model of stress processes. According to Meyer (2003)³⁷, the minority stress theory positions general stressors within the wider environment. These environmental circumstances include poverty, redundancy and bereavement and each will produce stress as a general stressor. In contrast, minority stressors relate to a person’s identity and their association with a minority group (Meyer, 2003)³⁸, including the LGBTQ+ community. For example, a minority identity, such as being gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans or queer will produce minority stress. Intersectional identities can result in exposure to multiple stressors.

Distal stressors are a form of minority stress. Holman (2018)³⁹ conceptualises distal stressors as those which are external to an individual. They include experiencing rejection, discrimination, prejudice and stigma based on sexual orientation or gender identity. These experiences may be reinforced or shaped by structural forces in society, including racism and heteronormativity. Proximal stressors relate to an individual’s perception and appraisal of a situation. An individual with a minority identity may expect or anticipate rejection, prejudice and discrimination based on previous experiences (distal stressors) of these. These expectations and anticipations are proximal to an individual; they are known as proximal stressors and are therefore internal rather than external. Individuals may employ self-vigilance and concealment to reduce the likelihood of these negative experiences occurring (Velez et al., 2013)⁴⁰.

Miller and Major (2000)⁴¹ have argued that opportunities for affiliation and social support can ‘ameliorate’ (Meyer, 2003, p. 9)⁴² the impact of stress. Developing their argument further, this research has also argued that in some cases, a minority identity can actually become a ‘source of strength’ (ibid) if the identity itself is used as a vehicle to pursue opportunities for affiliation. However, minority stress theory positions those within minority groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, as vulnerable and passive victims (Petrou and Lemke, 2017).⁴³ It therefore undervalues the personal agency of those with LGBTQ+ identities.

We have discussed Meyer’s minority stress theory to illustrate the factors which can result in positive and negative mental health outcomes for teachers who identify as LGBTQ+. However, we acknowledge that some teachers may not wish to disclose their personal identities within their professional contexts. At the same time, we recognise that teachers’ lived experiences are not only influenced by these wider discourses but that factors relating to the school context will also influence their agency, identities and resilience. For example, the lived experiences of teachers who identify as LGBTQ+ may be shaped by the attitudes of school leaders, school culture, the catchment area and religious affiliations. Thus, we argue that future research should position LGBTQ+ teachers as agentic individuals who are able to advance an agenda of social justice within and beyond their own professional contexts. It is also important that school leaders take steps to reduce exposure to proximal and distal stressors for teachers who identify as LGBTQ+ because this will ensure that they can teach in a safe and inclusive environment.

So, how can schools reduce exposure to both proximal and distal stressors for LGBTQ+ teachers? The job advert is a useful place to start. It is helpful if the advert states that the school is committed to equality for everyone. However, if the advert explicitly states that the school has a commitment to equality for LGBTQ+ staff and students, this will reduce exposure to stress. Schools can also showcase the work that they are doing in relation to LGBTQ+ inclusion on their websites. This will help prospective LGBTQ+ teachers to experience a sense that they will belong in the school. Following this, LGBTQ+ teachers, like all teachers, will often visit the school before they apply for a job. If the physical environment of the school includes information which demonstrates a commitment to LGBTQ+ inclusion for students and staff, this will help them to experience a sense of belonging. During the interview senior leaders should use this opportunity to reaffirm the school’s commitment to LGBTQ+ inclusion to all candidates. Leaders should emphasise that everyone is accepted regardless of sexuality or gender identity and that teachers who identify as LGBTQ+ will be protected from discrimination. A question could be asked during the interview to reaffirm the school’s commitment to LGBTQ+ inclusion, for example: In this school, we are deeply committed to LGBTQ+ inclusion for students and staff. How will you work with us to ensure that this commitment is maintained? Additionally, many LGBTQ+ teachers will anticipate students asking them directly about their personal identities. A clear policy which provides teachers with a script in response to this question will help to reduce exposure to proximal stress.

It is this proactive whole-school approach that enables senior leaders to build a school environment that is fully inclusive. No single approach or strategy will support an organisation to fully embrace diversity and celebrate difference. Policies can be one part of this whole-school approach as they play an important role in signalling commitment. They also support leaders to reflect on existing practice and devise strategies to move forward. However, a policy in itself does not prove what has – and has not – been implemented. Ultimately, it is the actions that follow that will support senior leaders to develop a school culture which recognises and embraces the needs of all.

Endnotes

1.  Kurian, N. (2019). Rights-protectors or rights-violators? Deconstructing teacher discrimination against LGBT students in England and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as an advocacy tool. The International Journal of Human Rights, 1-23.

2.  Human Rights Campaign (2020). A New Resource for Educators on Supporting LGBTQ Students During Distance Learning. Retrieved from https://www.hrc.org/blog/a-new-resource-for-educators-on-supporting-lgbtq-students-during-distance-l

3.  Stonewall (2017). Stonewall School Report: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans Young People in Britain’s Schools in 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_school_report_2017.pdf

4.  Ibid.

5.  BBC (2019). LGBT bullying in schools is more common than other kinds, says poll. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/48866236

6.  Stonewall (2017). Stonewall School Report: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans Young People in Britain’s Schools in 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_school_report_2017.pdf

7.  Ibid.

8.  Ibid.

9.  Ibid.

10.  Stonewall (2014). Stonewall Teachers’ Report: Homophobic Bullying in Britain’s Schools.Retrieved from: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/teachers_report_2014.pdf

11.  Stonewall (2017). Stonewall School Report: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans Young People in Britain’s Schools in 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_school_report_2017.pdf

12.  Edwards, L., Brown, D., and Smith, L. (2016), ‘We are getting there slowly: lesbian teacher experiences in the post-Section 28 environment’, Sport, Education and Society, 21, (3), 299-318.

13.  Neary, A. (2013), ‘Lesbian and gay teachers’ experiences of ‘coming out’ in Irish schools’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34, (4), 583-602.

14.   Edwards, L., Brown, D., and Smith, L. (2016), ‘We are getting there slowly: lesbian teacher experiences in the post-Section 28 environment’, Sport, Education and Society, 21, (3), 299-318.

15.  Rich, A. (1980), ‘Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence’ in, Women: Sex and Sexuality, 5, (4), 631-660.

16.  Lundin, M. (2015), ‘Homo- and bisexual teachers’ ways of relating to the heteronorm’, International Journal of Educational Research, 75, 67-75.

17.  Kjaran, J., and Kristinsdóttir, G. (2015), ‘Schooling sexualities and gendered bodies. Experiences of LGBT students in Icelandic upper secondary schools’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19, (9), 978-993.

18.  Gray, E., Harris, A., and Jones, T. (2016), ‘Australian LGBTQ teachers, exclusionary spaces and points of interruption’, Sexualities, 19, (3), 286-303.

19.  Røthing, A. (2008), ‘Homotolerance and heteronormativity in Norwegian classrooms’, Gender and Education, 20, (3), 253-266.

20.  Cooper, L. (2008), ‘On the other side: Supporting sexual minority students’ in, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 36, (4), 425-440; King, E.B., Reilly, C., and Hebl, M. (2008), ‘The best of times, the worst of times: Exploring dual perspectives of “coming out” in the workplace’, Group and Organization Management, 33, (5), 566-601; Hardie, A. (2012), ‘Lesbian teachers and students: issues and dilemmas of being ‘out’ in primary school’, Sex Education, 12, (3), 273-282.; Marrs, S., and Staton, R. (2016), ‘Negotiating Difficult Decisions: coming Out versus Passing in the Workplace’, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 10, (1), 40-54.

21.  Wright, T., and Smith, N. (2015), ‘A Safer Place? LGBT Educators, School Climate, and Implications for Administrators’, The Educational Forum, 79, (4), 394-407

22.  Lundin, M. (2015), ‘Homo- and bisexual teachers’ ways of relating to the heteronorm’, International Journal of Educational Research, 75, 67-75.

23.  Vicars, M. (2006), ‘Who are you calling queer? Sticks and stones can break my bones but names will always hurt me’, British Educational Research Journal, 32, (3), 347-361; Gray, E. (2013), ‘Coming out as a lesbian, gay or bisexual teacher: negotiating private and professional worlds’, Sexuality, Society and Learning, 13, (6), 702-714.

24.  Grace, A.B., and Benson, F.J. (2000), ‘Using autobiographical queer life narratives of teachers to connect personal, political and pedagogical spaces’, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 4, (2), 89-109.

25.   Meyer, I.H. (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5), 674-697; Meyer, I.H. (1995), ‘Minority stress and mental health in gay men’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, (1), 38-56; Meyer, I.H., and Dean, L. (1998), ‘Internalized homophobia, intimacy, and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men’, in GM Herek (ed), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals, 160-186, London: Sage.

26. Meyer, I.H. (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5), 674-697.

27.  Russell, G., and Bohan, J. (2006), ‘The Case of Internalized Homophobia: Theory and/as Practice’, Theory & Psychology, 16, (3), 343-366.

28.  Meyer, I.H. (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5), 674-697.

29.  Dohrenwend, B.P. (2000), ‘The role of adversity and stress in psychopathology: Some evidence and its implications for theory and research’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, (1), 1-19.

30.  Pearlin, L.I. (1999), ‘Stress and mental health: A conceptual overview’, in AV Horwitz and TL Scheid (eds), A handbook for the study of mental health, 161-175, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.  Pettigrew, T.F. (1967), ‘Social evaluation theory: Convergences and applications’, in D Levine (ed), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1-335, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

32.  Morris, J.F., Waldo, C.R., and Rothblum, E.D. (2001), ‘A model of predictors and outcomes of outness among lesbian and bisexual women’, Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, (1), 61-71.

33.  Postmes, T., and Branscombe, N.R. (2002), ‘Influence of long-term racial environmental composition on subjective wellbeing in African Americans’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, (1), 735-751.

34.  Hatzenbuehler, M.L., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., and Erickson, S. J. (2008), ‘Minority stress predictors of HIV risk behavior, substance use, and depressive symptoms: Results from a prospective study of bereaved gay men’, Health Psychology, 27, (1), 455-462.

35.  Meyer, I.H. (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5), 674-697.

36.  Dohrenwend, B.P. (2000), ‘The role of adversity and stress in psychopathology: Some evidence and its implications for theory and research’, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, (1), 1-19.

37.  Meyer, I.H. (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5), 674-697.

38.  Meyer, I.H. (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5), 674-697.

39.  Holman, E. (2018), ‘Theoretical Extensions of Minority Stress Theory for Sexual Minority Individuals in the Workplace: A Cross-Contextual Understanding of Minority Stress Processes’, Journal of Family Theory and Review, 10, (1), 165-180.

40.  Velez, B., Moradi, B., and Brewster, M. (2013), ‘Testing the Tenets of Minority Stress Theory in Workplace Contexts’, Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, (4), 532-542.

41.  Miller, C.T., and Major, B. (2000), ‘Coping with stigma and prejudice’, in TF Heatherton, RE Kleck, MR Hebl and JG Hull (eds), 257-266, The social psychology of stigma, New York: Guilford Press.

42.  Meyer, I.H. (2003), ‘Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129, (5), 674-697.

43.  Petrou, P., and Lemke, R. (2017), ‘Victimisation and life satisfaction of gay and bisexual individuals in 44 European countries: the moderating role of country-level and person-level attitudes towards homosexuality’, Journal of culture, health and sexuality, 20, (6), 640-657.