Educational Leadership Research and LGBT

The response to a fundamental question of literature reviews – what do we know about this topic? – is a resounding “very little.” This review documents that transgender persons and experiences are highly peripheral in the educational leadership research base, inclusive of research identified as social justice oriented or LGBTIQ/queer oriented. This review of the literature is supplemented by data from Capper and O’Malley’s (2012) survey of how LGBTIQ topics are included in principal preparation programs at UCEA member institutions. That data documents minimal attention to transgender persons in principal preparation programs and their institutional climates, as well as a lack of understanding on the part of educational leadership professors of rudimentary terms such as “gender identity.”

Grant, Mottet, & Tanis (2011) report the following results from a study conducted for The National Center for Transgender Equality: 41% of transgender persons surveyed (6,450) cannot change their gender on their legal identification; 57% of transgender persons surveyed were rejected by their families; 19% of transgender persons surveyed have experienced homelessness; 19% of transgender persons surveyed were refused medical care; and 47% of transgender persons surveyed have attempted suicide. GLSEN (2012) reports that gender nonconforming students are at particular risk for bullying and that teachers are unprepared to address issues of gender expression in elementary schools in the U.S. GLSEN (2009) reports, “Transgender youth face extremely high levels of victimization in school, even more so than their non-transgender lesbian, gay and bisexual peers” (n.p.). Even though advocacy organizations are reporting on issues facing transgender students in schools and transgender persons in society, educational research in the field of educational leadership and administration remains behind the mark by not directly addressing the needs and identities of transgender people.

An integrative literature review has been conducted, a process that involves reviewing, critiquing, and synthesizing relevant literature to come to new understandings of a topic (Torraco, 2005). Scholars in disciplines within and beyond education have been using the term transgender in their research and writing in earnest since the early 1990s; others have been drawing on the ideas of transgender as an identity, if not always specifically using that term, since the 1960s and 1970s. However, there has been little attempt to synthesize this literature—I did not locate a single review on the topic. I thus undertook this research to provide a synthesis of what has been done in this area and to provide guidance for future research, believing that this body of literature would benefit from “a holistic conceptualization and synthesis of the literature to date” (Torraco, 2005, p. 357).

The literature sample includes articles published in 7 leading educational administration, policy and research journals published in the US between 1993-2013. The seven leading journals were chosen because of high impact factors or other measures of repute in the field. Educational Researcher, Review of Educational Research, American Educational Research Journal, Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, Educational Administration Quarterly, Educational Leadership, and Review of Research in Education comprised the journals of the primary literature review. The years 1993-2013 were surveyed for articles containing transgender persons as a topic. 1993 was chosen as the opening year of the survey because Michael Warner published Fear of a Queer Planet in that year – beginning the discussion of heteronormativity as a problem in our society and our education system.

Within the 7 leading educational administration journals surveyed from 1993-2013, an alarmingly small number of articles addressed LGBT issues at all and within those, transgender was mentioned as part of the acronym “LGBT” (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender) and most of the information presented in the articles focused on lesbian persons and gay persons, not on bisexual persons or transgender persons. Many articles in the journals surveyed addressed race, gender, class, bullying, technology, and able-ism, yet, within those areas of diversity, intersectionalities with sexuality and transgenderism rarely came up. It also seemed that the issues related to race and class that have been part of educational struggles since Brown v. Board in 1954 still prevail and newer Civil Rights struggles such as those of sexuality and transgenderism cannot yet be addressed because we have age-old issues to address still.

I have decided to present the literature review journal by journal and within journal chronologically because I believe this representation gives the best view of how little material exists within educational leadership, policy and research literature on LGBT persons. Interestingly, the journal with the highest impact factor, Educational Researcher, had the most articles addressing LGBT issues from 1993-2013 with a total of 11. The journal surveyed with the fewest articles addressing LGBT issues from 1993-2013 was the one specifically policy journal, Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, with 0. Because no articles singly addressed transgender issues, articles addressing LGBT issues were surveyed for content related to transgender persons.

A review of Educational Researcher, 1993-2013.

Of the journals reviewed, Educational Researcher had the highest impact factor and the most articles published between 1993 and 2013 with 11 articles. In Educational Researcher, the first article addressing a topic related to LGBT persons or issues appears as a review in April of 1997; this is concurrent to the earliest LGBT publication in any of the journals (see A review of Educational Leadership, 1993-2013.). Reed (1997) presents a review of three films: The Crying Game, Orlando, and M. Butterfly. The first line of Reed’s review brings to light just how critical her review is to this study: “In recent years, there has been a significant proliferation of popular cultural practices that, in some way, include gender-bending, female ‘impersonation,’ or transgressive sexualities” (p. 30). The films reviewed actually came out in 1992, 1993 and 1994, respectively, but this review doesn’t get published until 1997. Reed’s work discusses ways that feminists theorize sex, gender and the body, and she draws on Foucault and Butler to talk about relationships of power when it comes to gender and sexual transgressors. Interestingly, the work has little to do with educational leadership or research, yet this is where we find it housed.

Educational Researcher published Capper (1999) on “(Homo)sexualities, Organizations, and Administration: Possibilities for In(queer)y” in which she addressed “the possibilities for research with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender school administrators and for the broader study of queerness in schools as organizations” (p. 4). Interestingly, Capper’s article suggests low numbers of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender administrators in schools. However, low numbers are cause for more research following in suit of other minorities, such as women and people of color. If there aren’t more of us, why not? Capper also suggests that heterosexism in schools is detrimental to all people in the schools and thus greater work needs to be done in overcoming that heterosexism.

In April of 2001, Kumashiro’s first piece in the body of literature appears in Educational Researcher. Kumashiro (2001) writes on “anti-oppressive education” and uses feminist and queer perspectives to address the question of what it means to teach core curriculum in an anti-oppressive way. Kumashiro points out that “All students come to school with partial knowledges. In some ways they may not know much about marginalized groups in society, but even when they do know about the Other, that knowledge is often mis-knowledge, a knowledge of stereotypes and myths learned from the media, families, peer groups, and so forth” (p. 4). In April of 2002, Kumashiro appears again in Educational Researcher when Butin (2002) writes an article in response to Kumashiro (2001). Butin (2002) uses a “Foucauldian lens…to provide an alternative means by which to further a more constructive and less constrictive classroom environment” than what Kumashiro had proposed in 2001. Kumashiro (2002) offers a rebuttal to Butin (2002). Ultimately, Kumashiro is highlighting anti-oppressive education again as a means to social justice.

2002 also saw the publication of Davis’s (2002) review addressing race, gender and sexuality. In the review, Davis reviews two books: Bad Boys and Subject to Identity. Important to this review is the advancement of sexuality in the language of the conversation: “In the last few years, identity politics has emerged as a critical watchword in educational theory and practice. Special attention given to the intersection of identity categories such as race, class, gender, and sexuality in the academic and popular press attest to a growing interest in the politics of identities” (p. 29). Ultimately, the review calls for “other work that challenges ‘understood’ theoretical positioning of gender, race, and sexuality and the representation of research subjects that occupy these categories” (p. 32).

Educational Researcher did not have another LGBT related article for five years, at which time Asher (2007) came out addressing gender and sexuality as part of multiculturalism. As the abstract of the article describes, Asher “discusses the challenges of educating teachers to engage, rather than deny or repress, differences that emerge at the dynamic, context-specific intersections of race, culture, gender, and sexuality” (p. 65). Asher points out that in teacher education, by 2007, multiculturalism is a given and preservice teachers are expected to take multicultural courses as part of their requirement, yet she still sees “teachers typically let homophobic slurs go unchecked in schools” (p.65). Asher offers practical and relevant advice for operating an open and honoring multicultural preservice university classroom based on her experience doing so at Louisiana State University.

Glasser and Smith (2008) published “On the vague meaning of ‘gender’ in education research: The problem, its sources, and recommendations for practice” in Educational Researcher, Vol 37, No 6. Quite explicitly the authors are addressing the misuse of the term gender for biological sex: “Writers for both academic and popular audiences often use the term gender when considering differences between the educational experiences of male and female students, and the distinction often appears to be based on a traditional understanding of the term sex” (p. 343). Glasser and Smith even criticize Asher (2007) for her vague use of the term gender. They seek to “draw readers’ attention to a more general problem in education research: the lack of explicit clarity about the meaning of gender in researchers’ analyses, especially with respect to the relationship between sex and gender” (p. 343).

Renn (2010) provides a report on the state of LGBT and queer research in higher education. Renn states, “Although colleges and universities are the source of much queer theory, they have remained substantially untouched by the queer agenda” (p. 132). While analyzing the existing literature addressing LGBT and queer issues in higher education, Renn finds that “colleges and universities have evolved to tolerate the generation of queer theory from within but have stalwartly resisted the queering of higher education itself” (p. 132). Even the terms “LGBT”, “queer”, and “queer theory” are contested terms in the literature.

Educational Researcher published Robinson and Espelage in 2011 and 2012. Robinson and Espelage (2011) addresses inequities in outcomes between LGBT and straight students in middle and high school, while Robinson and Espelage (2012) examines bullying as a partial cause of the risk disparities between LGBT and heterosexual students. Robinson and Espelage (2011) present a study in which a “large, population-based sample of students spanning middle school to high school” is investigated looking for “differences between LGBTQ- and straight-identified youth in both psychological and educational outcomes” (p. 315). The quantitative study presented in Robinson and Espelage (2012) suggests that “LGBTQ identification remains a unique predictor of risk after accounting for peer victimization, raising concerns about policies that focus almost exclusively on bullying prevention to address LGBTQ-heterosexual risk disparities” (p. 316).

A review of Review of Educational Research, 1993-2013.

While Educational Researcher had articles addressing our topic of LGBT issues as early as 1997, Review of Educational Research does not have any articles concerning this topic until 2000, at which time the Spring issue presents three articles related to LGBT concerns. One of the articles is by Kumashiro, who appeared in Educational Researcher in 2001 and 2002. Kumashiro (2000) is a precursor to his Educational Researcher articles; i.e., it is an article leading up to his later work on anti-oppressive education. Also in the Spring 2000 issue of Review of Educational Research, Riehl (2000) presents a view of the principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students. This literature review serves to examine how schools can address “the recurrent nature of the theme of diversity [in which] American public schools arguably serve a more heterogeneous population now than ever before and are under increasing pressure to effectively educate a student body that is diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, social class, gender, national origin and native language, sexual orientation, and physical disability” (p. 56). In the same issue, Blount (2000) tackles “Spinsters, Bachelors, and Other Gender Transgressors in School Employment, 1850-1990”. Blount begins, “Young people learn powerful lessons about gender in schools” (p. 83). She importantly historicizes the role of schools in housing gender transgressors in the role of teacher and administrator: “In spite of persistent efforts to maintain the gender status quo, however, schools also have been historically important sites for gender challenges and even rebellion” (p. 83).

Review of Educational Research takes several years to return to the issues so aptly addressed in Spring of 2000. Unfortunately, their return is also their most recent publication related to LGBT issues. North (2006) brings us back to the minority LGBT student with “More than Words? Delving into the Substantive Meaning(s) of ‘Social Justice’ in Education”. North discusses ways to solidify the meaning of the term “Social Justice” and enacts examples of these various methods. She says, “The remedying of recognition injustices therefore does not require eliminating group differences…but instead revaluing them or reinventing conceptualizations of the human being that lead to oppression and domination” (p. 514). For North, “With regard to sexual differentiation, for example, which remains largely though not entirely a recognition issue, the transformation of the unjust consequences wrought by a dominant view of heterosexuality as natural and normal and of homosexuality as perverse and despised requires a change in the status of particular social groups rather than an overhauling of the political economy” (p. 514).

A review of American Educational Research Journal, 1993-2013.

The only two articles in American Educational Research Journal related to LGBT issues from 1993-2013 were in September of 2008. Eckes and McCarthy (2008) wrote about LGBT teachers and legal protections while Ashcraft (2008) wrote about teen sexuality. Ashcraft’s article focuses on an ethnography of a community-based sex education program that has been shown to help diverse youth become leaders. Participants included openly gay students and opinions and discussions dealt with LGBT health and political concerns.

A review of Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 1993-2013

No articles in Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis between 1993 and 2013 addressed LGBT issues.

A review of Educational Administration Quarterly, 1993-2013.

Three articles in Educational Administration Quarterly between 1993 and 2013 addressed LGBT issues. The earliest from this journal was six years after the earliest in any of the journals. Lugg (2003) writes, “This article seeks to chart a course through the contested areas of gender and sexual orientation in hopes of establishing a theoretical framework and an agenda for much needed future research” (p. 97). Lugg points out that “neither our Constitution nor our governmental institutions that are bound by Constitutional strictures are colorblind—nor are they classless, gender neutral, and so forth” (p. 95). Lugg even points out that, since the 1970s, ballot initiatives have tried to prevent people suspected of being queer from working in public schools. Lugg’s article builds off of Queer Legal Theory, which developed in the mid 1990s in “response to larger political and legal events” (p. 102). According to Lugg, Queer Legal Theory “is dedicated to eliminating those U.S. legal and social structures that privilege and enforce heterosexuality, patriarchy, White supremacy, and class advantage, with the legal and social liberation of sexual minorities—queers—as its principal focus” (p. 103). Lugg posits that “Much of what is found in contemporary public schooling contains legacies from the cold war” and “Public schools still expect that students should exhibit a high degree of gender conformity, and schools can be intensely homophobic” (p. 110).

Several years later, we find Lugg addressing us again in Educational Administration Quarterly, this time as second author on a 2010 article. Tooms, Lugg and Bogotch (2010), in “Rethinking the Politics of Fit and Educational Leadership”, discuss what is meant by the illusive term fit in the hiring and firing practices in educational leadership. Tooms, Lugg and Bogotch examine the nature of essentializing – “the act of treating a social category as standing for an essence or a set of intrinsic qualities or characteristics residing within a group of people” (p. 114) and discuss the damaging effects of the historical practice of many Anglo-centric cultures by which “school administrators have been historically essentialized as White, Protestant, heterosexual, male” (p. 114). Ultimately, according to Tooms, Lugg and Bogotch, “In educational leadership, this has reduced those persons who are not members of this dominant culture to the status of ‘other’ or, more bluntly, someone who does not fit” (p. 114).

Educational Administration Quarterly is the only journal surveyed with a 2013 article. deLeon and Brunner (2013) share “Cycles of Fear: A Model of Lesbian and Gay Educational Leaders’ Lived Experiences” in the February issue. From the abstract, “The article’s purpose is to highlight a national qualitative study that generated a model for understanding how society’s actions and attitudes affect and inform the lived experiences of lesbian/gay educational leaders” (p. 161). deLeon and Brunner conclude that “study participants moved from silence to voice and back again to silence but with varying degrees of intensity” (p. 196). Ultimately, “Heteroprivilege power often forced the participants to live without emotion” (p. 196).

A review of Educational Leadership, 1993-2013.

The second largest collection of articles from any one journal comes from Educational Leadership with 6; however, this journal has the lowest impact factor of all those surveyed. As in Educational Researcher, April 1997 is the earliest issuance of an article in Educational Leadership addressing LGBT issues. While the earliest article in Educational Researcher was a film review, the April 1997 article in Educational Leadership is a call to action titled “Let’s Stop Ignoring Our Gay and Lesbian Youth” (Edwards, 1997). Edwards describes gay and lesbian youth as a “hidden minority” (p. 68) and calls educators to follow some simple guidelines to make schools safer and more equitable for gay and lesbian youth, such as, “Use the words gay, lesbian, bisexual”; “Provide classroom speakers”; “Display or wear a gay-positive symbol”; “Challenge homophobic remarks”; “Provide positive role models”; “Demand inservice training for all staff”; Include discussions of gay, lesbian, or bisexual issues in class”; and “Create social situations for both gay and straight friends” (p. 70). However, the article does not address transgender students at all.

In October of the same year, Educational Leadership published Gevelinger and Zimmerman’s (1997) article “How Catholic Schools are Creating a Safe Climate for Gay and Lesbian Students”. Gevelinger and Zimmerman begin with the acknowledgement that “In schools across the county, students are struggling to deal with issues of sexual identity” (p. 66). They, like Edwards (1997) give advice to schools and school leaders for making schools safer and more equitable for lesbian and gay youth. “Make careful decisions about the messages we convey to students concerning gender roles”, say Gevelinger and Zimmerman.

Lamme and Lamme (2001) present strategies for welcoming students from diverse families, those with gay parents, into schools. They use “gay” as “an inclusive term that refers to sexual orientation…include[ing] gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people” (p. 65). Their suggestions are that schools become informed about LGBT people and “the issues that influence their lives” (p. 66), provide diversity training for faculty and staff, teach respect, provide quality counseling, and encourage activism and inquiry.

Four years after Lamme and Lamme (2001) appeared in Educational Leadership, Salas (2005) talks about using theater to address bullying with a tagline of “Acting out personal experiences with bullying fosters compassion and empowers all students—bullies, victims, and witnesses—to stand up for what’s right” (p. 78). Salas relates how the theater experiences empowered a gay youth to overcome the bullying he had been facing at school through voicing his experience in front of others. Salas says, “We have found that this sense of altruism is not unusual” (p. 80).

Another six years pass before another LGBT related article appears in Educational Leadership, at which time we find McGarry (2011) writing on stopping antigay speech. McGarry describes an incident in which a gay student stands up for himself in others by speaking back against homophobic slurs. The gay student, pseudonym Fabulous, “articulated a key factor that he believed perpetuated homophobic language in schools—the silence of educators and other bystanders” (p. 56).

The final article in Educational Leadership was also about bullying. Weissbourd and Jones (2012) report statistics on bullying in United States schools and describe schools where “adults tout respect for others yet fail to act when they hear students using harmful language like ‘That’s so gay!’ or see boys making lewd comments to girls” (p. 30).

A review of Review of Research in Education, 1993-2013.

Only two articles appear in the annual Review of Research in Education—one in 2000 and one in 2007. Epstein, O’Flynn and Telford (2000) present the article “ ‘Othering’ Education: Sexualities, Silences, and Schooling” in which they present a review of literature on sexuality and education in response to “media across the Anglophone world [being] preoccupied with questions surrounding sex education, young people, and sexuality” (p. 127). They report that “heterosexuality has been the unmarked, the norm, the assumed but invisible” (p. 128). Specifically, they “have focused on using the literature to make an argument about the normalization and policing of heterosexualities, through homophobia and heterosexism, in educational institutions in late capitalist Anglophone countries” (p. 128).

Mayo (2007), in “Queering Foundations: Queer and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Educational Research”, says “Since the beginning of the modern homophile movement, gay people have made education of themselves and heterosexuals central to their political project” (p. 78). Mayo’s purpose in the chapter presented in Review of Research in Education is to discuss the theme “of the place of coming out in LGBT and queer research in educational foundations” (p. 79). Mayo uses “a wide range of published research as well as some observations from [her] own research on queer youth…to show that youth are as involved in the complexity of questions researchers ask as the researchers themselves” (p. 79).

References available in portfolio.