EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, 45(2), 250260, 2012

C University of Massachusetts Amherst School of Education

Copyright
ISSN: 1066-5684 print / 1547-3457 online
DOI: 10.1080/10665684.2012.671095

Safe Schools for LGBTQI Students: How Do Teachers

View Their Role in Promoting Safe Schools?
Stephanie Vega, Heather Glynn Crawford, and J-Lynn Van Pelt
University of Nevada, Reno

This literature review presents insights from existing research on how teachers view their role in creating safe schools for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI)
students. Analysis of the literature shows that there are concerns for LGBTQI students safety in
schools, that educational settings operate from a position of heteronormativity, and that heterosexual
teachers are uniquely positioned as part of the dominant group in which they help to define what is
normal and what is deviant in school culture. Research findings on the ways heterosexual teachers
respond to institutional heteronormativity are summarized and compared. This review of research
provides considerations for and recommendations to school administrators and teacher educators to
address needs of teachers. Areas for future research also are identified.

The purpose of this article is to synthesize findings from current scholarly literature concerning teachers view of their role in promoting safe schools for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
queer/questioning, and intersex (LGBTQI) students in K-12 settings. (See Table 1 for an expanded
definition of the LGBTQI acronym and definitions for use of terminology to describe varying
identifications within the LGBTQI community.) The goal is to shed light and understand how heterosexual school staff might perpetuate or counteract heteronormativity in schools. Implications
for practice and future directions for research are suggested.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Hostile School Climates
School cultures can be hostile and unsafe for LGBTQI students (Bochenek & Brown, 2001;
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2009; Griffin, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer,
2004; Munoz-Plaza, Quinn, & Rounds, 2002). Contributing to a hostile environment is peer-topeer sexual harassment. Cases of same-sex harassment involve instances of sexual orientation
or gender expression in which individuals do not exhibit traditional male or female traits or
behaviors (Fineran, 2002).
Address correspondence to Stephanie Vega, University of Nevada, Reno, College of Education, Educational Specialties/299, Reno, NV 89557. E-mail: Stephanie@unr.edu

251

A person who identifies as being attracted to

both men and women
A person who identifies with a different
gender than their biological gender
A person who identifies with a different
gender and alters his/her body to transition
to that gender
Individuals who do not identify with
traditional gender or sexual expression
Individuals who are uncertain of sexual or
gender identity
Individuals born with non-standard sexual
anatomy

Bisexual

To describe persons who were born with

both male and female reproductive
anatomy

Used to describe a larger group or an

individual

Used as an adjective; male-to-female

transgender; female-to-male transgender
Often use more inclusive term of
transgender

Refers to gay men; Used as inclusive term

for group of gay, lesbian, and bisexual
persons
Sometimes referred to as bi

Preferred term for lesbian women

Used to address group; LGBT also used

Typical Use

Hermaphrodite is considered
derogatory

Also used as derogatory term and should

not be used casually

Should be recognized as its own identity,

not as indecision
Address individuals using pronouns of the
gender he/she expresses
Address individuals using pronouns of the
gender he/she expresses

Can be unfamiliar to new allies; can cause

confusion; lumps a diverse group
together a larger
Term gay also used; use lesbians
when more applicable to group
Not inclusive of transgender persons; term
homosexual is considered derogatory

Cautions

compiled

Talking About LGBT People and Equality produced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (2011).
from GLSEN Safe Space: A How-to Guide for Starting an Allies Program produced by Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (2010).
compiled from Frequently Asked Questions (Intersex Society of North America, 2012).

compiled from An Allys Guide to Terminology:

Intersex

Questioning

Queer

Transsexual

Transgender

Gay

Lesbian

Acronym stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

Transgender/Transsexual,
Queer/Questioning, Intersex
Woman who identifies as being attracted to
women
Man who identifies as being attracted to men

Basic Definition

LGBTQI

Term

TABLE 1
Expanded Definition of the LGBTQI Acronym and Definitions for Use of Terminology to Describe Varying Identifications within the LGBTQI Community

252

VEGA ET AL.

The 2009 National School Climate Survey examined the experiences of 7,261 LGBTQI middle
and high school students and reported that 61.1% felt unsafe in school because of their sexual
orientation (GLSEN, 2009). Further, nine out of ten respondents who identify as LGBTQI experienced harassment at school in the past year (GLSEN, 2009). Respondents cited negative homophobic remarks and various forms of harassment, such as verbal name-calling or threats and physical
harassment and assault, but 64.2% of students did not report occurrences to school staff (GLSEN,
2009). Students reluctance to report cases of verbal and physical harassment creates urgency for
researchers and school personnel to proactively address LGBTQI student safety in schools.
LGBTQI Equality in Schooling
In the United States, the legal landscape for LGBTQI individuals is considerably complex.
Historical legislation regarding LGBTQI equality in K-12 schools frames this review. Key
elements of laws in the U.S that guide teachers and schools to provide a learning environment
that is safe and free of harassment for all students regardless of sexual orientation or gender
expression are presented; however, the highly nuanced nature of these issues are not captured in
detail here (see Biegel, 2010).
The principles of the First Amendment Free Speech Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
Equal Protection Clause surround LGBTQI schooling issues. The 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District U.S. Supreme Court decision laid the foundation that,
under the First Amendment, students have a right to express their sexuality. Several subsequent
LGBTQI freedom-of-expression cases upheld the Tinker decision with courts recognizing the
right to be more open about ones sexual orientation or gender identity (Biegel, 2010, p. 23).
Biegel describes Fourteenth Amendment case victories, including the Nabozny v. Podlesny (1996)
decision that bolstered their [gay and gender-nonconforming persons] rights to be treated equally
as a result of expressing their identity (p. 36). The Nabozny case was clarified at the federal
level that sexual harassment directed at lesbian and gay students is also covered by Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972 (Russo, 2006, p. 118).
Title IX places responsibility on schools to maintain grievance procedures to resolve sexual
discrimination and harassment (Fineran, 2002; Underwood, 2004). As the body of law around
sexual harassment continues to be developed, mostly through case law, one consideration is the
decision of Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1996) that reinforced that schools
are to be held responsible for student-to-student sexual harassment when the schools have been
informed of the offending behaviors (Fineran, 2002, p. 68). An additional body of law around
threats relating to LGBTQI students is primarily brought under state law (Biegel, 2010). Examples
of these laws include: N.Y. Educ. Law 3214(3)(a) that allows school officials the option of
suspending or expelling students who threaten other students and Tex. Educ. Code 37.0006(d)(2)
that allows the removal from the classroom and placement in a disciplinary program if a students
continued presence threatens the safety of others (Biegel, 2010 p. 225). School districts are held
liable if they do not intervene or only intervene in situations for some students.
The rights of LGBTQI individuals within U.S. society, including public schools, have not
been fully realized. Results of GLSENs (2009) School Climate Survey show that cases of sexual
harassment go unreported and that students believe little or no action would be taken or that after
reporting, the situation would worsendespite the adoption of Title IX in which school boards
may be held liable if schools fail to take action or correct the situation after they are given notice.

SAFE SCHOOLS FOR LGBTQI STUDENTS

253

For LGBTQI students who reported sexual harassment, 33% asserted that staff did not intervene
(GLSEN, 2009).
Steps to Safe Schools
As negative school climates and sexual harassment in schools persist, students with high levels
of victimization continue to report lower levels of psychological well-being (GLSEN, 2009;
Schneider & Owens, 2000). Beyond psychological distress, LGBTQI students academic success
and academic aspirations are hindered by feelings of vulnerability. Research indicates that these
students are more likely to miss classes and achieve lower grade point averages (GLSEN, 2009).
Most important, 14% of students who experienced high levels of victimization reported that they
do not plan to pursue postsecondary education (GLSEN, 2009).
Initiatives such as school climate evaluations, anti-homophobia education, staff development
through in-service workshops, gay-straight alliances/creation of safe spaces, and incorporation
of LGBTQI issues in curriculum provide evidence of efforts to counter hostility and negativity
in schools and improve safety for LGBTQI in schools (Blackburn & Smith, 2010; Franck, 2002;
Horowitz & Hansen, 2008; Kilman, 2007; Solomon, 2004). However, LGBTQI equality in
schooling has been elusive due to institutional heteronormativity, which situates normal life
within the heterosexualperpetuating heterosexism and homonegativity by positioning LGBTQI
students as the other (DePalma & Jennett, 2010; Donelson & Rogers, 2004; Mcintosh, 2007).
Khyatt (2006) contends, Schools both reinforce and, at the same time, reflect mainstream
normative genders and sexualities (p. 135). Khyatt states that schools teach heteronormativity
through the curriculum, and teachers, administrators, school boards, and parents reinforce
gender expectations and dominant group values of sexuality. Through exclusive practices and
institutional heteronormativity, the K-12 system creates school environments that are not always
safe for LGBTQI students.
The need for change is evident and researchers assert that the responsibility of countering
heteronormativity should not be placed solely on the shoulders of LGBTQI teachers (DePalma
& Jennett, 2010; Khyatt, 2006). The burden of responsibility for change lies with teachers who
self-identify as part of the dominant group. Heterosexual teachers often continue to display
heteronormative ideologies and behaviors, including failing to interrogate the norm, address
name-calling or other forms of bullying, and promote sexual equality by challenging the hypersexualization of LGBTQI identities (GLSEN, 2009). Rather than being oppressors, heterosexual
teachers, as members of the dominant group within the institution of schooling, are uniquely
positioned to serve as allies and role models by actively supporting LGBTQI individuals on
matters of equality (Poynter & Tubbs, 2008). Heterosexual teachers are distinctively situated to
create change within heteronormative school cultures by demonstrating support and openness
with LGBTQI students, which could lead to safer environments for LGBTQI students.
Research Questions
The questions that guided this review of scholarly literature were:
How do teachers view their role in promoting safe schools in K-12 settings?
How do heterosexual teachers perpetuate or counter heteronormativity in schools?

254

VEGA ET AL.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Positioning theory (Harre & van Langenhove, 1999) and queer theory (Mayo, 2007) frame this
review. Positioning theory attends to dynamics of the social exchanges and interactions that occur
between people in various social, historical, and cultural contexts. Linehan and McCarthy (2000)
describe positioning in schools: Both students and teachers have a degree of agency in how
they position themselves in interactions but this agency is interlaced with the expectations and
history of the community (p. 442). Harre and van Langenhove explain that positioning defines
expectations and constraints on how one should speak and behave. Positioning also confers
rights, including the right to be heard or to be taken seriously. Defined by their sexual orientation,
heterosexual teachers are positioned as the dominant group and LGBTQI students are designated
as a minority.
Queer theory problematizes the power of dominant culture in defining what is normal and what
is deviant (Mayo, 2007). The theory pertains to the reviews focus on teachers tendencies toward
normality or normalizing strategies (Plummer, 2005, p. 365). Queer theory challenges the notion
of fixed categories within gender and sexuality, such as binary homosexual and heterosexual
categories as well as hegemonic sexual order (Plummer, 2005). These theoretical ideas relate
to the reviews focus on sexual minority positions implicit in institutions and social ideologies
(Plummer, 2005). Mayo explains that queer theory attends to the heterosexual organization
of educational practice and institutions (p. 80). This review explores the differential power in
dominant ideologies of heterosexism, including exclusion or marginalization of sexual minority
members in school contexts. Queer theory is used here to frame how LGBTQI minority issues
are related to heterosexual educators influences on school climates.
SEARCH STRATEGY/CODING OF RELEVANT LITERATURE
A search of scholarly, peer-reviewed literature was conducted in two online databases, Education
Resources Information Center (ERIC) and PsycInfo. A list of keyword search terms defined by the
thesaurus of each database was developed. To maximize the use of these terms, a truncation search
was utilized. To address the role of teachers, search terms included: teacher, teacher attitudes,
teacher characteristics, teacher student interaction, and teacher role. Other terms used to
describe teachers included: straight ally and heterosexual ally. To focus on the population
of LGBTQI students, terms used were: sexual identity, sexual orientation, homosexuality,
gays, and lesbianism. To address the topic of school safety, the following terms were included:
safe schools, school safety, school violence, bullying, anti-gay bias, Parents, Families,
and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network
(GLSEN), Gay-Straight Alliance, heterosexism, heteronormativity, homophobia, and
homonegativity. A systematic list of search combinations using the three categories of terms
was developed.
Further, inclusionary criteria used to narrow the scope of the review were dates published,
fields of study, grade level focus, and use of empirical research. Articles written by researchers in
the fields of sociology, psychology, and education were included. Contemporary articles written
in 2000 to the present were included in the review to widen the search due to minimal availability
of recent research literature. Articles whose population included K-12 students and teachers were

SAFE SCHOOLS FOR LGBTQI STUDENTS

255

considered. While the framework of this study features the U.S. context, the review draws on
studies from other nations that highlight relevant issues. Only articles based on empirical research
with teachers as the participants were selected, not secondary sources or practitioner pieces.
By previewing the title and abstract, articles were selected based on relevance to the topic
of this review. A total of 16 scholarly, peer-reviewed articles and two scholarly books based on
empirical research were included. The empirical research that was presented drew on qualitative
and quantitative research methods. Qualitative methods used in the studies included field notes,
observations, artifact collections, and semi-structured individual and focus group interviews.
Quantitative methods used in the studies were surveys and questionnaires.
Research results presented in the articles and books were analyzed by making constant comparisons among codes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). First, the three researchers categorized articles
and book chapters using codes, such as agents of change, interrogation, confrontation, hesitations, reluctance, and others to identify similarities and differences among thr findings of
the research. The researchers compared coding, discussing coding differences until they reached
agreement. Next, the researchers grouped the keywords into categories to identify themes in the
literature. The first theme describes teachers passive attitudes, actions, and beliefs that perpetuate
heteronormativity. The second identifies teachers active role in promoting safe schools through
countering heteronormativity by dispelling homophobic attitudes and actions.

RESULTS OF THE LITERATURE SEARCH

A majority of the studies (e.g., Dessel, 2010; OHiggins-Norman, 2009; Warwick, Aggleton, &
Douglas, 2001) found that teachers were aware of verbal and physical homophobic bullying. These
studies also highlighted teachers awareness of differences in their students sexual orientations
and gender expression. In several studies (e.g., OHiggins-Norman, 2009; Warwick et al., 2001),
teachers were able to identify the academic effects of homophobic bullying in schooling. Research
findings for this review demonstrate that teachers roles in promoting safe schools varied by their
awareness of the dominant normative school culture power structures and their behaviors that
either promoted or countered heteronormativity. For example, straight teachers enjoy the privilege
of simple visibility (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009b).

Passive Behavior

Reluctance to Address Heteronormativity

Reluctance to address heteronormativity operates out of heterosexual frameworks (Bower
& Klecka, 2009). Homophobia can be complacent in the form of silence, which has powerful
implications (McIntyre, 2009; OHiggins-Norman, 2009). For example, in McIntyres research
findings on teachers perceptions of the relevance of LGBTQI issues to schooling, teachers did
not have the language to discuss sexualities. Through their silence, they sent the message that
homophobia is acceptable. Similarly, Anagnostopoulos, Buchanan, Pereira, and Lichty (2009)
found that a majority of teachers and school staff placed blame on LGBTQI students for the

256

VEGA ET AL.

bullying they encountered rather than evaluating the dominant assumptions and beliefs about
LGBTQI issues.
Teachers passive behavior through silence in a study by DePalma and Atkinson (2006), who
utilized an online discussion forum to investigate preservice and in-service teachers (enrolled
in graduate level courses) demonstrates perceptions of heteronormativity in school settings. The
online discussion had low levels of participation, despite the use of anonymity. The study was
opened up to all students and academic faculty at the university after the low initial response.
Approximately one in 60 participants university-wide posted to the discussion board; a majority of participants only logged on to read discussion postings. DePalma and Atkinsons study
demonstrated the importance of breaking the silence by showing that most of those who logged
on participated solely by reading. This is problematic, as most of the participants who posted
on the forums questioned the existence of heteronormativity. Additionally, Zack, Mannheim,
and Alfano (2010) suggest other reasons for silence that include discomfort with talking about
sexuality in a public forum or complicity toward the degree of homophobia displayed by other
discussants.
Beyond silence, teachers may express their reluctance to discuss homonegativity through
downplaying the discussion of this topic. For example, in a qualitative study of Greek primary
teachers, participants described their reactions to homophobic bullying (Gerouki, 2010). Gerouki
explained that in their dialogues, teachers downplayed the significance of the use of hateful or
pejorative language. Teachers in Geroukis study displayed a neutral attitude when confronted
with homophobic behavior. Similarly, teachers in OHiggins-Normans (2009) qualitative study in
six secondary Catholic schools in Dublin, Ireland were reluctant to address homophobic behavior
despite identifying that heterosexual students were perceived as normal and that homosexual
students who were perceived as different from the norm were bullied. Teachers in OHigginsNormans study were attuned to students fears of being labeled or associated with being gay or
lesbian but remained neutral unless the name-calling was overt.

Lack of Support
Teachers heteronormative behavior is, in part, influenced by the degree of support that teachers
receive. For example, in Warwick et al.s (2001) survey of 307 secondary teachers in England,
respondents stated that while they believed that LGBTQI issues were addressed in the curriculum,
they were unsure of how to address homophobic bullying. Similarly, McCabe and Rubinsons
(2008) findings show lack of support from administration, and respondents in Warwick et al.
reported a lack of support in schools and lack of knowledge on protocols for reporting bullying.
Additional studies indicate that participants are unsure of their responsibility toward addressing
LGBTQI bullying (Anagnostopoulos et al., 2009; Meyer, 2008).
Lack of teacher support is partially attributed to deficiencies in preservice and in-service
teacher training programs. For example, McIntyre (2009) found that teachers cited insufficient
preparation to address all forms of bullying/harassment from their teacher education programs.
Additionally, Macgillivray and Jennings (2008) found that during teacher preparation the scope
of coverage of LGBTQI topics was limited and many issues were not given stand-alone coverage.
Further, these issues were presented in educational foundations courses that were taken prior
to preservice teachers interactions with students (Jennings & Sherwin, 2008; Macgillivray &

SAFE SCHOOLS FOR LGBTQI STUDENTS

257

Jennings, 2008). With regard to practicing teachers, Meyers (2008) participants reported a lack of
professional development on LGBTQI issues, whereas most professional development provided
was targeted to teachers content areas.
Teachers also avoid topics of heteronormativity because of their personal beliefs or the perceived beliefs of others. Several studies found that teachers view sexuality as a private and moral
issue that does not have any place in the classroom (Bower & Klecka, 2009; Dessel, 2010;
Gerouki, 2010). In Bower and Kleckas qualitative study, heterosexual masters-level teachers
in Nevada explained that they were not willing to address sexuality because it may conflict
with students families beliefs. Respondents in Zack, Mannheim, and Alfanos (2010) study
expressed a lack of confidence to address homosexuality regarding contradicting families religious beliefs. Other studies have shown that teachers report avoiding topics related to sexual
minorities due to a fear of parental reactions (Bower & Klecka, 2009; Dessel, 2010; Gerouki,
2010; OHiggins-Norman, 2009; Schneider & Dimito, 2008). Teachers also reported avoidance
of the topic because of fears related to disapproval from students, colleagues, and boards of
management (Bower & Klecka, 2009; Dessel, 2010; OHiggins-Norman, 2009), fear of political
climate (Clark, 2010), fear of diminishing coverage of required curriculum materials (Meyer,
2008; Zack, Mannheim, & Alfano, 2010), and possible perceptions of being gay (OHigginsNorman, 2009; Zack, Mannheim, & Alfano, 2010). In contrast, secondary teachers in the United
Kingdom supported providing information on LGBTQI issues despite Section 28 of Englands
Local Government Act of 1988 making it unlawful for teachers and other public officials to
promote homosexuality or the acceptance of homosexuality (Warwick et al., 2001)1.

Indecision to Address Heteronormativity

Indecision to address heteronormativity appears when teachers begin to address the derogatory
action without challenging homophobia. For example, Gerouki (2010) studied Greek participants,
among whom a few primary teachers forbade the use of pejorative language. However, teachers
in Geroukis study did not explain why the language is not allowed. Instead, teachers insisted that
the primary students were too young to understand the content of such vocabulary (p. 342).
These teachers still acted in the minority, given that only a few of the participating Greek primary
teachers chose to act upon the use of hate language related to LGBTQI students in their classrooms.
Additionally, Zack, Mannheim and Alfano (2010) found that teachers verbally reprimanded
students for the use of words such as fag and homo, but no further action was taken.
Proactive Behavior
Teachers who are proactive in countering heteronormativity initiate actions to address homophobia
(Zack, Mannheim, & Alfano, 2010). This may be done by confronting homophobic bullying and
homophobic speech. Teachers in Zack et al.s study stopped mathematics lessons to discuss
what students meant by their name-calling and described the damaging effects of hate speech.
In another study, teachers called the interruptions of hate language teachable moments and
described the ways in which they modeled use of appropriate language and linked hate language
to forms of oppression (Schneidewind & Cathers, 2003). Additionally, two teachers in Geroukis
(2010) study provided opportunities for discussion of homosexuality as part of their health

258

VEGA ET AL.

education curriculum, and teachers in DePalma and Atkinsons (2009a, 2009b) studies asserted
that sexualities must be talked about and seen as ordinary. Teachers in Zack et al. and Schneidewind
and Cathers did not allow for silence in these matters. Further, several teachers incorporated
LGBTQI issues in the curriculum by introducing topics that challenged homophobia. These
teachers considered queer culture as part of multicultural lessons (Zack et al., 2010). In the same
vein, Schneidewind and Cathers found that in addition to integrating LGBTQI issues into the
curriculum, teachers actively removed biased books from their curriculum and classroom libraries.
Teachers participating in proactive behavior to counter heterosexism predominately report
receiving support from their school district, professional development, and teacher education
programs (Dessel, 2010; Schneider & Dimito, 2008; Zack et al., 2010). Clark (2010) investigated
what ally work looks like in teacher education and found that after course work in LGBTQI topics,
students were able to question and take positions around equity issues and felt prepared to teach
against heterosexism and homophobia. Athanases and Larrabee (2003) found that preservice
teachers developed an appreciation for the challenges faced by LGBTQI students through a
preservice course they had taken. The students developed strategies to advocate for LGBTQI
students by interrupting derogatory comments by students and teachers, providing awareness
of issues within the curriculum, and providing written resources about sexuality to students.
Additionally, Schneider and Dimito (2008) found that respondents whose school district had antiLGBT harassment policies seemed to experience less discomfort and have a sense of protection
when teaching about heteronormativity. Further, during intergroup dialogue with teachers who
identified as LGBTQI, participants in Dessels (2010) study reported more acceptance and general
concern for LGBTQI issues in schooling. Through the intergroup dialogue, many dialogue
participants expressed gaining confidence to address sexual orientation harassment, to incorporate
educational materials into the curriculum, and to connect students with support services.
CLOSING COMMENTS
It is problematic that schools seem to work from the assumption that all individuals, students, and
staff are or should be heterosexual, which leads to inequitable practices (Bower & Kleck, 2009;
Warwick et al., 2001). Given the lack of active teacher participation in countering heterosexism,
the importance of education on the topic is clear. The first step is to help teachers identify heteronormativity (Bower & Klecka, 2009; McIntyre, 2009). Gerouki (2010) suggests that teachers
be trained to reflect on and deconstruct their assumptions and understandings of sexuality. For example, opportunities to gain knowledge and discuss understandings about the needs of LGBTQI
students is limited, and interventions by schools and institutes that provide teacher education are
necessary (McIntyre, 2009). Further, teachers may benefit from ally role models, and a need for
gay and lesbian role models to dispel myths may also help to counter heteronormativity in school
environments (Clark, 2010; DePalma & Atkinson, 2009b). This review of literature shows that
to create safe schools for LGBTQI students, heterosexual teachers must play an active role in
promoting safe schools by first breaking the silence toward LGBTQI topics (McIntyre, 2009).
NOTE
1. Section 28 was later repealed in the United Kingdom in 2003.

SAFE SCHOOLS FOR LGBTQI STUDENTS

259

REFERENCES
Anagnostopoulos, D., Buchanan, N. T., Pereira, C., & Lichty, L. F. (2009). School staff responses to gender-based bullying
as a moral interpretation: An exploratory study. Educational Policy, 23(4), 519553.
Athanases, S. Z., & Larrabee, T. G. (2003). Toward a consistent stance in teaching for equity: Learning to advocate for
lesbian- and gay-identified youth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 237261.
Biegel, S. (2010). The right to be out: Sexual orientation and gender identity in Americas public schools. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Blackburn, M. V., & Smith, J. M. (2010). Moving beyond the inclusion of LGBT-themed literature in English language arts
classrooms: Interrogating heteronormativity and exploring intersectionality. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
51(8), 625634.
Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.
Bower, L., & Klecka, C. (2009). (Re)considering normal: Queering social norms for parents and teachers. Teaching
Education, 20(4), 357373.
Clark, C. T. (2010). Preparing LGBTQ-allies and combating homophobia in a U.S. teacher education program. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26(3), 704713.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. (1996). 91 F.3d. 1418 (11th Cir.).
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2006). The sound of silence: Talking about sexual orientation and schooling. Sex Education,
6(4), 333349.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2009a). No outsiders: Moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), 837855.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2009b). Permission to talk about it: Narratives of sexual equality in the primary classroom.
Qualitative Inquiry, 15(5), 876892.
DePalma, R., & Jennett, M. (2010). Homophobia, transphobia and culture: Deconstructing heteronormativity in English
primary schools. Intercultural Education, 21(1), 1526.
Dessel, A. B. (2010). Effects of intergroup dialogue: Public school teachers and sexual orientation prejudice. Small Group
Research 41(5), 556592.
Donelson, R., & Rogers, T. (2004). Negotiating a research protocol for studying school-based gay and lesbian issues.
Theory into Practice, 43(2), 128135.
Franck, K. C. (2002). Rethinking homophobia: Interrogating heteronormativity in an urban school. Theory and Research
in Social Education, 30(2), 274286.
Fineran, S. (2002). Sexual harassment between same-sex peers: Intersection of mental health, homophobia, and sexual
violence in schools. Social Work, 47(1), 6574.
Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Movement Advancement Project. (2011). An allys guide to terminology:
talking about LGBT people and equality. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/publications/talkingabout/terminology
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (2009). National School Climate Survey: The school-related experiences
of our nations lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. New York, NY: Author.
Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, GLSEN Safe Space Project. (2010). A how-to guide for starting an allies
program. Retrieved from http://www.ct.gov/dcf/lib/dcf/wmv/pdf/safe space guide.pdf
Gerouki, M. (2010). The boy who was drawing princesses: Primary teachers accounts of childrens non-conforming
behaviours. Sex Education, 10(4), 335348.
Griffin, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (2004). Describing roles that gay-straight alliances play in schools: From
individual support to school change. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(3), 722.
Harre, R., & van Langenhove, L. (1999). Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Horowitz, A., & Hansen, A. (2008). Out for equity: School-based support for LGBTQA youth. Journal of LGBT Youth,
5(2), 7385.
Intersex Society of North America. (2012). What is intersex? Retrieved from http://www.isna.org/faq/what is intersex
Jennings, T., & Sherwin, G. (2008). Sexual orientation topics in elementary teacher preparation programs in the USA.
Teaching Education, 19(4), 261278.
Khayatt, D. (2006). Whats to fear: Calling homophobia into question. McGill Journal of Education, 41(2),
133144.

260

VEGA ET AL.

Kilman, C. (2007). This is why we need a GSA. Teaching Tolerance, 31, 3036.
Linehan, C., & McCarthy, J. (2000). Positioning in practice: Understanding participation in the social world. Journal for
the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 435453.
Macgillivary, I. K., & Jennings, T. (2008). A content analysis exploring lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender topics in
foundations on education textbooks. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 170188.
Macintosh, L. (2007). Does anyone have a band-aid? Anti-homophobia discourses and pedagogical impossibilities.
Educational Studies, 41(1), 3343.
Mayo, C. (2007). Queering foundations: Queer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender educational research. Review
of Research in Education, 31(1), 7894.
Meyer, E. J. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers (non) interventions. Gender
and Education, 20(6), 555570.
McCabe, P. C., & Rubinson, F. (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of school psychology and
education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. School Psychology Review, 37(4),
469486.
McIntyre, E. (2009). Teacher discourse on lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils in Scottish schools. Educational Psychology
in Practice, 25(4), 301314.
Munoz-Plaza, C., Quinn, S. C., & Rounds, K. A. (2002). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students: Perceived
social support in high school. The High School Journal, 85(4), 5263.
Nabozny v. Podlesny. (1996). 92 F.3d 446 (7th Cir.).
OHiggins-Norman, J. (2009). Straight talking: Explorations on homosexuality and homophobia in secondary schools in
Ireland. Sex Education, 9(4), 381393.
Plummer, K. (2005). Critical humanism and queer theory: Living with the tensions. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 357372). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Poynter, K. J., & Tubbs, N. J. (2008). Safe zones: Creating LGBT safe space ally programs. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1),
121132.
Russo, R. G. (2006). The extent of public education nondiscrimination policy protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender students: A national study. Urban Education, 41(2), 115150.
Schneider, M. S., & Dimito, A. (2008). Educators beliefs about raising lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in
the schools: The experience in Ontario, Canada. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(4), 4971.
Schneider, M. E., & Owens, R. E. (2000). Concern for lesbian, gay, and bisexual kids: The benefits for all children.
Education and Urban Society, 32(3), 349367.
Schniedewind, N., & Cathers, K. (2003). Becoming allies for each other: An inclusive approach to confronting heterosexism in schools. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36(2), 184193.
Solomon, S. (2004). Kids say the funniest things . . . anti-homophobia group work in the classroom. Teaching Education,
15(1), 103106.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. (1996). 393 U.S. 503.
Underwood, J. (2004). Legal protections gay students must receive. The Education Digest, 70(4), 1626.
Warwick, I., Aggleton, P., & Douglas, N. (2001). Playing it safe: Addressing the emotional and physical health of lesbian
and gay pupils in the U.K. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 129140.
Zack, J., Mannheim, A., & Alfano, M. (2010). I didnt know what to say . . .: Four archetypal responses to homophobic
rhetoric in the classroom. The High School Journal, 93(3), 98110.

Stephanie Vega is a first grade teacher and a doctoral student in Educational Specialties at
the University of Nevada, Reno. Her research interests are mathematics education, multicultural
education, and equity issues.
Heather Glynn Crawford is a first grade teacher and a doctoral student in Educational
Specialties at the University of Nevada, Reno. Her research interests are mathematical literacy,
teacher education, and equity issues.
J-Lynn Van Pelt is an educational consultant and a doctoral student in Literacy Studies at
the University of Nevada, Reno. Her research interests include childrens literature, vocabulary
instruction, and education equity.

Copyright of Equity & Excellence in Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.