Content uploaded by Jill Hermann-Wilmarth
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jill Hermann-Wilmarth on Jul 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
page
436
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
When we tell our preservice teacher stu-
dents from conservative areas of the
Midwest and rural South, respectively,
that they can and should address lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and/or transgender (LGBT) topics in their
elementary and middle school language arts curri-
cula, we watch the questions and protests forming
in their heads create unsure looks on their faces. A
few are eager, but many others have serious con-
cerns: Would administration allow it? Aren’t those
books banned? Is it appropriate for kids to talk about
those topics in schools? And, most emphatically,
what about the parents? These questions and con-
cerns stem from fear and perhaps their own discom-
fort with LGBT topics, but also from the knowledge
that, when it comes to teaching, especially about
identity and difference, context matters. Whether
considering varying amounts of mandated/scripted
curriculum, salient social issues, historical context,
the experiences students bring with them, or books
that are recommended (or, conversely, unavailable),
what is easy for one teacher or school or district to
bring up and take on is not always true for another.
As out lesbian teacher educators who encourage
teachers to address LGBT and other sociocultural
topics in their classrooms, we are particularly sensi-
tive to this dilemma of teaching with speci c books
in speci c contexts. When our preservice teacher
students tell us that there are books or “issues”
they would not be allowed to include in their public
school classrooms, situated as they are in communi-
ties dominated by conservative religious and political
perspectives, we challenge them to push against their
assumptions and stereotypes, but we also understand.
It is true that LGBT- inclusive teaching is happening
in some places around the country (e.g., Chasnoff
& Cohen, 1996; Cowhey, 2005; Ryan, Patraw, &
Bednar, 2013; Schall & Kauffmann, 2003; Tempel,
2011), but we also know that a teacher reading And
Tango Makes Three (Parnell & Richardson, 2005)
without fanfare or protest is much more likely in
some communities than others. For that reason, we
have been working on developing a range of theoreti-
cal and pedagogical tools to offer teachers multiple
ways of addressing LGBT topics in their variously
situated classrooms (Ryan & Hermann- Wilmarth,
2013; Hermann- Wilmarth & Ryan, 2014).
In this column, we highlight how classroom
teachers might make use of these approaches to nd
methods that work for them. Speci cally, we out-
line three approaches to addressing LGBT topics
through literature, each with its own bene ts, draw-
backs, possibilities, and risks: including books with
LGBT characters, reading “straight” books through
a “queer lens,” and queering LGBT- inclusive books.
In these ways, we hope to help teachers shift the
conversation away from what they think they can’t
do to what they could do. We want to move teachers
from considering whether they can include particu-
lar lessons or particular texts in their instruction to
how they might nd multiple, even creative, ways
to address the larger systems that enable homopho-
bia and heterosexism in the rstplace.
The Need for Multiple Approaches
to LGBT- Inclusive ELA Teaching
Research indicates that schools remain unsafe and
unwelcoming for the majority of LGBT students,
impacting both their educational success and
general well- being (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, &
Research and Policy
Doing What You Can: Considering
Waysto Address LGBT Topics
inLanguage Arts Curricula
Jill M. Hermann- Wilmarth and Caitlin L. Ryan
Considering Waysto Address LGBT
Topics inLanguage Arts Curricula
July_2015_LA.indd 436 6/22/15 11:55 PM
Copyright © 2015 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
page
437
RESEARCH AND POLICY | C W A LGBT T L A C
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
Boesen, 2014), including a signicantly increased
risk of attempted suicide. Curricular silences around
LGBT topics contribute to such environments.
Only 18.5% of LGBT students surveyed in grades
6– 12 reported having an LGBT- inclusive curricu-
lum, even though attending a school with inclusive
curricula means that students are less likely to hear
homophobic remarks often or frequently, are less
likely to miss school or feel unsafe at school, and
are likely to feel more connected to their school
community (Kosciw et al., 2014). In other words,
in spite of recent legal victories for marriage equal-
ity, schools remain unmistakably heteronormative
places where heterosexuality is consistently por-
trayed as the only recognized and acceptable way
to create relationships (Blaise, 2005; DePalma &
Atkinson, 2009; Robinson, 2005; Ryan, 2010).
In addition to the fact that employment dis-
crimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or
gender identity remains legal in 32 states (National
LGBTQ Task Force, 2014), teachers of all sexual
orientations who challenge the heteronormative
status quo sometimes face scrutiny from adminis-
tration, parents, or community members (Badash,
2012; Salas, 2004; Smith, 2009), and children’s
and young adult literature with LGBT- related con-
tent remains frequently challenged or banned from
classrooms and libraries (American Library Asso-
ciation, n.d.; Block, 2013; Lowder, 2014). Such sta-
tistics paint the scene for this critical work. We each
have to nd ways we can take action.
We see children’s literature as a key way of
including LGBT topics in classrooms (Black-
burn & Buckley, 2005; Clark & Blackburn, 2009;
Hermann- Wilmarth, 2007) for some of the same
reasons that multicultural literature has been theo-
rized as pedagogically vital. Two rationales are par-
ticularly relevant. First, we concur with Adichie’s
(2009) argument that books can interrupt “single
stories” of people, places, events, and experiences.
Single stories are reductive, denitive, common-
sense narratives that we hold about certain people
or events. These may be based in some fact, but
they lack nuance; they make one perspective stand
in as the only perspective on the topic.
Second, we see value in Bishop’s (1990)
approach that positions books as mirrors and win-
dows. Books act as mirrors when they reect some-
thing of the reader’s identity or experience back
to her, validating it. On the other hand, books act
as windows when they
provide access to identi-
ties or experiences that
are new for the reader,
ones she can participate
in indirectly from afar.
Mirror books allow us
to feel empowered and
included, but may lead
to the false impression
that everyone is like us.
On the other hand, read-
ing window books helps
us learn about people and
places we might not oth-
erwise consider, but learning about others all the
time can leave us feeling alienated. In other words,
all students deserve both. Together, these theories
provide a foundation for thinking about the power
of diverse texts in classrooms, and they guide the
three approaches below.
Creating inclusive classrooms with literature
should matter to all teachers because the effects
of including or excluding LGBT topics from K– 8
classrooms impact all students. It affects LGBT
students themselves, whether they are already out
or will come out later in life. It also affects the
2– 3.7 million children currently being raised by
LGBT parents (Gates, 2014), as well as all other
students who live, go to school, and work in a world
that includes LGBT people. For these students,
exposure to LGBT topics in school may be the
only preparation and support for encountering this
diversity.
Three Approaches to Introducing
LGBT Topics in Classrooms
Including/Contextualizing LGBT Texts
One way to include LGBT topics in K– 8 class-
rooms is to simply read children’s literature with
We want to move teachers from
considering whether they can
include particular lessons
or particular texts in their
instruction to how they might
nd multiple, even creative, ways
to address the larger systems
that enable homophobia and
heterosexism in the rst place.
July_2015_LA.indd 437 6/22/15 11:55 PM
page
438
RESEARCH AND POLICY | C W A LGBT T L A C
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
LGBT characters. These kinds of texts supply pow-
erful windows and mirrors for students and dis-
rupt the single story that only straight people exist
in children’s worlds. These books could be read
in isolation, but they could also be tied to teach-
ers’ preexisting lessons and units across subject
areas. For example, social studies units on the Civil
Rights Movement or the Harlem Renaissance could
include biographies and informational texts about
Bayard Rustin or Langston Hughes, respectively,
or other LGBT- identied leaders. Likewise, genre
study around poetry, prose, and fairy tales can be
enriched by the addition of texts from those genres
that include LGBT characters. And of course, these
books can be vehicles through which teachers
address a wide range of literacy standards and skills
(e.g., making inferences, determining an author’s
purpose) while simultaneously opening the door
to conversations about respecting differences, cel-
ebrating diversity, and combating bullying.
While these are important reasons to use the
inclusion approach, there can be drawbacks. This
approach could threaten a teacher’s job security— a
very real concern, espe-
cially for new teachers
and for those without
employment protections.
Even if teachers are able
to take this important step,
there are other disadvan-
tages. For example, some-
times reading a single
book with LGBT characters can further tokenize
these identities, much like reading books with Afri-
can American characters only in February relegates
an entire population to one month of the year. It
can also leave students with the impression that the
book itself is responsible for bringing sexuality into
the classroom. This misses the fact that sexuality
already circulates in classrooms, though usually in
the form of heterosexuality, as when students call
a teacher “Mrs.” or read a book with a mom and
a dad or read a fairy tale where the prince kisses
the princess and they get married at the end. Such
a view also ignores the fact that there are likely
LGBT- identied people in or connected to the
community already. Additionally, while the num-
ber and quality of LGBT- inclusive books for K– 8
readers continues to grow, there are still not many,
and those that exist often fail to include diverse rep-
resentations (Hermann- Wilmarth & Ryan, 2014).
Teachers, therefore, cannot count on inclusion to
provide a window into the full range of LGBT lives.
Reading “Straight” Books
through a Queer Lens
The second approach is a little bit different and
likely more unusual for most teachers. This
approach encourages teachers to read what might
be called “straight” books, or books without explic-
itly named LGBT characters, in ways that still
address larger questions about gender, sexuality,
and normative identities. When considering how
gender and sexuality already are present in com-
mon, non- LGBT texts, teachers and students can
reect on the systems that normalize some forms of
sexuality and gender identity/expression while mar-
ginalizing others, all by introducing books already
on teachers’ shelves. When teachers make use of
teachable moments about sexuality and gender in
all books, students have opportunities to explore
how these identities are not relegated to only LGBT
people, but are parts of how every human moves
in the world. Because it stems from ideas in queer
theory, we call this reading through a “queer lens”
(Ryan & Hermann- Wilmarth, 2013).
If readers are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with
the term queer, they are not alone. Many are famil-
iar with the more dated usage of “queer” as a syn-
onym for “strange” and, contemporarily, as a slur
used against the LGBT community. It is also being
reclaimed and used by many LGBT people as an
umbrella term for non- heterosexual identities, usu-
ally in more radical or political contexts (think of
“we’re here/we’re queer/get used to it,” for exam-
ple). In queer theory, the word queer plays off the
idea of strangeness and refers to making categories
related to gender and sexuality messy and compli-
cated. What are some of these categories? As Butler
(1999) has argued, our cultural norms often lead us
[G]enre study around poetry,
prose, and fairy tales can be
enriched by the addition of
texts from those genres that
include LGBT characters.
July_2015_LA.indd 438 6/22/15 11:55 PM
page
439
rESEArCh ANd PoLiCY | C W A LGBT T L A C
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
to expect people to fall into categories where males
who act masculine desire women who act feminine
and vice versa. This cut- and- dried arrangement
of gender identity/performance and sexual desire
doesn’t hold for all people, but the expectation that it
does is what undergirds heteronormativity. Luckily,
by pushing against and questioning one aspect of the
arrangement, other pieces start to tumble, too.
Many children’s books provide fruitful sites
for examination of these arrangements, helping stu-
dents and teachers call into question what passes
for “normal” and make visible the ways characters
negotiate or disrupt various categories. For exam-
ple, in the Newbery Honor book The Evolution of
Calpurnia Tate (Kelly, 2009), the protagonist, Cal-
lie, pushes against the norms set for girls in Texas
in 1899. She wants to study science with her grand-
father, and has zero interest in sewing, cooking, or
other “female” jobs. She asks, “Could I be blamed
for my nature? Could the leopard change her spots?
And, if so, what were my spots?” (pp. 192– 193). To
begin discussing how binary arrangements of sexu-
ality and gender operate within texts, teachers and
students could consider questions such as:
• Isthestoryshapedbythecharacter’srefusalto
conform to social norms? How?
• Doesthewaythecharacterlookstoothers
match the way the character understands
him/herself?
• Howandtowhatextentarethecharacters
able to resist others’ denitions in dening
themselves?
• Doestheauthorrelyonstereotypesofwhat
makes a boy and what makes a girl?
• Aretheresituationswhereonecharacteristic
(e.g., maleness) is expected to accompany
another (e.g., never crying)? What happens
to characters when those characteristics don’t
come in expected sets?
• Whathappensifcharacterswantsomething
forbidden?
• Howmightthisstorybedifferentifthemale
character were female or vice versa?
This kind of inquiry, pushed further, can invite stu-
dents’ text- to- self connections around these same
ideas:
• Howdoyoulabelyourself?Why?What
characteristics are often associated with those
labels? What happens when the characteristics
of those labels don’t apply to you?
• Dothosecharacteristicshavetobelikethatfor
everyone? What if some people are different?
• Whodecideswhatthoselabelsmean?
• Whathappenstopeoplewhodon’ttin?
• Whatrelationshipsdopeoplemakefunof
andwhy?
• Whatare“rules”abouthowwearesupposed
to act even if they aren’t written down?
Similar to critical literacy work (Lewison, Leland,
& Harste, 2007) that does not include a queer focus,
these questions and this way of reading opens the
door to reection and action about how the world
works and for whom. These questions do not have
right or wrong answers, and conversation around
them will no doubt be messy and unpredictable, but
they can guide conversation to topics around gender
and sexuality that often go unmentioned. These con-
versations can destabilize assumptions about these
categories and open up space for students and teach-
ers to explore how these ideas are portrayed in the
books they read and the worlds in which they live.
Like the inclusion approach, reading straight
texts through a queer lens has pros and cons. It pro-
vides space to talk about LGBT topics in classrooms
without the presence of gay characters, which may
make it possible in more contexts. It even may be
safer for LGBT teachers and students for whom
being out is dangerous, but who still need mirrors
into their own experiences and windows into the
experiences of others. This approach also shifts
the conversation from “other” to “all.” LGBT peo-
ple aren’t the only ones interrupting what counts
as “normal”: everyone interrupts what counts as
normal in some way. However, there can also be a
downside. Sometimes this approach can become
too general. Not using the words “lesbian,” “gay,”
July_2015_LA.indd 439 6/22/15 11:55 PM
page
440
RESEARCH AND POLICY | C W A LGBT T L A C
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
“bisexual,” “transgender,” or “queer” is strategic,
but also maintains silences about specic oppres-
sions that continue to marginalize LGBT people.
Queering LGBT- Inclusive Texts
The nal approach that we suggest, but certainly
not the nal possibility, is the integration of the rst
two approaches: teachers can bring a queer lens not
just to “straight” books, but also to the texts that
are already LGBT- inclusive. This approach might
seem counterintuitive— aren’t LGBT books already
queer? Well, yes and no. Because members of the
LGBT community live in a heterosexist culture,
and have been conditioned to value the privileges
that heterosexuality affords, many gay and lesbian
people assimilate themselves into “we’re- just-
like- them” congurations. People who claim both
an LGBT identity and other typically privileged
identities— e.g., white, upper middle class, male,
Christian, and able- bodied— are able to rely on
their privilege to be culturally accepted, to the detri-
ment of other queer people who don’t share those
identities. That is, they might use their privileged
identities to be “acceptable” gay people, maintain-
ing access to benets others are still denied rather
than changing the overall system. This assimilation
is called homonormativity (Duggan, 2002). Chil-
dren’s books with LGBT characters often represent
this kind of homonormative story, where even the
gay characters are presented in privileged, norma-
tive ways. This creates windows or mirrors of a
very limited group of LGBT people.
For example, books for middle- grade readers
over the past decade have generally included LGBT
characters who were white, middle class adults;
women displayed culturally expected characteristics
POSSIBLE BOOKS TO BRING TO THIS WORK
“Straight” Books Ripe for Queering
These books offer possibilities for bringing a queer lens to straight texts. We’ve included a general age range, but
believe that the picturebooks could be used for all grades.
Horton Hears a Who by Dr. Seuss (grades preK– 4)
This is the story of Horton the elephant who, while he is busy saving a village on a speck on a clover, is also
ghting for his own life against a neighborhood bully who does not like those who think differently.
Chester’s Way by Kevin Henkes (grades preK– 4)
Chester and Wilson have their own special way of doing things, and they always do them together. When Lily
moves to town, they have to reevaluate how to do friendship.
The Other Side by Jacqueline Woodson (grades preK– 5)
Clover and Annie are two girls who, in spite of their mothers’ warnings about the trouble it will cause, overcome
racial divisions to become friends.
The Tale of Despereaux by Kate DiCamillo (grades 2– 5)
Trouble ensues when a tiny mouse fails to act as he should. He wants to read about beautiful things instead of
scuttle and, worst of all, he falls in love with a human princess.
The Evolution of Calpurnia Tate by Jacqueline Kelly (grades 4– 7)
Callie, the daughter of a wealthy owner of a cotton gin in 1899, loves science, her grandfather, and reading. She
does not love cooking, sewing, or playing the piano— all things expected of a girl of her standing in society.
The Harry Potter Series by J. K. Rowling (grades 4– YA)
The characters in J. K. Rowling’s series challenge norms with regard to identity in various ways throughout the
series. Harry, who begins the series in a closet, shunned by his family of origin, is but the rst of many characters
who can be queered by readers.
July_2015_LA.indd 440 6/22/15 11:55 PM
page
441
rESEArCh ANd PoLiCY | C W A LGBT T L A C
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
of femininity, and men, likewise, expressed their
masculinity in culturally expected ways (Hermann-
Wilmarth and Ryan, 2014). Layering a queer
approach onto LGBT- inclusive texts can highlight
these homonormative stories, help readers notice
where other kinds of privilege intersect with LGBT
identities, and alleviate stereotypes of LGBT people
reied through traditional representations.
The Popularity Papers series (Ignatow, 2010),
for example, are books that have gay characters
and could be productively read through a queer
lens. When approaching the text in this way, read-
ers might notice how the comfortable, normative,
middle class existence of the protagonists is unin-
terrupted by the fact that one of them is raised by
her two fathers. On the other hand, readers might
also notice that other characters in the books man-
age to bring attention to and disrupt what counts as
“normal” in other ways. For example, their daughter
disrupts the heteronormative assumptions of fam-
ily by having her friends use her terms— Papa Dad
and Daddy— for her fathers. Also, in her attempt
to become popular, she and her best friend investi-
gate and make visible the kinds of rules that govern
acceptability in early adolescence, particularly with
regard to clothing and extracurricular activities. In
these ways, this LGBT- inclusive book (as opposed
to “straight” books) affords opportunities to apply a
queer lens, even in the face of homonormative gay
characters.
Like the other two, this third approach has ben-
ets and drawbacks. A strength of queering LGBT-
inclusive books is that it draws attention to how
LGBT people are being represented and the conse-
quences those representations have. It encourages
readers to remember that even when representations
LGBT- Inclusive Texts Offering Queer Possibilities
My Princess Boy by Cheryl Kilodavis (grades preK– 3)
This is the story of a little boy named Dyson who likes pink, sparkles, and to wear dresses. While he doesn’t
identify as a girl, his gender expression clearly troubles heteronormative expectations.
10,000 Dresses by Marcus Ewert (grades K– 4)
Bailey is a transgender child whose family does not support her gender identity. Readers can see how important
this kind of support is and could try to reimagine her life in a more supportive context.
In Our Mothers’ House by Patricia Polacco (grades 1– 3)
This adoptive, multiracial family headed by two moms has a loving and supportive community, even though not
all the neighbors are respectful of who they are.
Totally Joe by James Howe (grades 4– 8)
Joe is an openly gay 7th grader who, through his assigned “alphabiography,” writes about his rst boyfriend, a
homophobic bully, and his sweetly accepting family.
After Tupac and D Foster by Jacqueline Woodson (grades 5– 8)
In this coming- of- age story of three girls living in Queens during the year that rapper Tupac Shakur is murdered,
the protagonists explore who they are through the lenses of racism, homophobia, sexism, and classism that
circulate in their neighborhood.
Double Play by Sara Cassidy (grades 4– 8)
Allie loves softball, but Miles, the son of her mom’s girlfriend, does not. Allie’s invitation to play on the boys’
team and Miles’s ght for his right to play on the girls’ team are layered with homophobic bullying around their
parents’ relationship.
July_2015_LA.indd 441 6/22/15 11:55 PM
page
442
RESEARCH AND POLICY | C W A LGBT T L A C
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
are present, attention must be paid to the systems
that create those identities. Questioning taken- for-
granted notions of identity interrupts representa-
tions that are not complex, diverse, or nuanced.
In other words, this approach encourages sophis-
ticated comprehension skills because students are
asked to consider myriad subtleties. Furthermore,
this approach allows us to think outside of “use- it-
or- don’t- use- it” binaries when choosing texts. Even
if LGBT- inclusive books
fail to capture a wide
range of diverse identi-
ties, this approach allows
readers to notice that and
question it as they read.
However, we know that
access to LGBT- inclusive literature is not a guar-
antee, making this “both/and” approach inacces-
sible to some teachers. Also, we know that this kind
of both/and identity work can be challenging, and
teachers may initially nd it more accessible to start
with the rst two approaches before bringing them
together.
Conclusion
As teachers, we are all in different places, both
literally and guratively, but we all want to create
classrooms where our students feel like they belong
and where they can reach their full potential. How
teachers do that, however, will depend on the teach-
ers themselves, their students, their curriculum,
and their context. Whether a teacher’s classroom
is lled with LGBT- inclusive texts integrated into
every part of her curriculum, whether a teacher
introduces a few questions about the systems that
constrain the gender and sexuality of straight char-
acters in his next read- aloud, or whether a teacher is
looking for ways to help students critique the white,
middle class notions of acceptability that pervade
many LGBT- inclusive texts while still seeing their
moments of queer potential, we believe all teach-
ers deserve the tools to help make their classrooms
more inclusive. We look forward to a world where
addressing LGBT topics in multiple ways is the
norm in K– 8 classrooms and where the empowered,
thoughtful, and informed voices of teachers and stu-
dents, engaged together in inquiry around diverse
texts, are a central part of making a more equitable
world.
References
Adichie, C. N. (2009). The danger of a single story [Video
speech]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks
/chimamanda_adichie_the_danger_of_a_single_story
.html.
American Library Association. (n.d.). Frequently challenged
books of the twenty- rst century. Retrieved from http://
www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10.
Badash, D. (2012, May 4). School board wants ring,
arrest of teacher for pro- gay article. Retrieved from
http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/school-
board- member- wants- ring- arrest- of- teacher- for- pro-
gay- article/politics/2012/05/04/39036.
Bishop, R. S. (1990). Mirrors, windows, and sliding glass
doors. Perspectives, 6, ix– xi.
Blackburn, M. V., & Buckley, J. F. (2005). Teaching queer-
inclusive language arts. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 49, 202– 212.
Blaise, M. (2005). Playing it straight: Uncovering gender
discourses in the early childhood classroom. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Block, J. (2013, September 23). Banned books week
2013: Books about LGBT families remain targets of
censorship. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/blog
/free- speech- lgbt- rights/banned- books- week- 2013-
books- about- lgbt- families- remain- targets.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Chasnoff, D., & Cohen, H. (Producers) & Chasnoff, D.
(Director). (1996). It’s elementary: Talking about gay
issues in schools. San Francisco, CA: Groundspark.
Clark, C., & Blackburn, M. (2009). Reading LGBTQ-
themed literature with young people: What’s possible?
English Journal, 98(4), 25– 32.
Cowhey, M. (2005). Heather’s moms got married.
Rethinking Schools, 19(3). Retrieved from http://www
.rethinkingschools.org/archive/19_03/moms193.shtml.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2009). Interrogating
heteronormativity in primary schools: The no
outsiders project. London, UK: Trentham Books.
Duggan, L. (2002). The new homonormativity. In
R.Castronovo & D. Nelson (Eds.), Materializing
democracy: Toward a revitalized cultural politics
(pp.175– 194). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
[T]his approach allows us to
think outside of “use- it- or-
don’t- use- it” binaries when
choosing texts.
July_2015_LA.indd 442 6/22/15 11:55 PM
page
443
RESEARCH AND POLICY | C W A LGBT T L A C
Language Arts, Volume 92, Number 6, July 2015
Ryan, C. L., & Hermann- Wilmarth, J. M. (2013). Already
on the shelf: Queer readings of award- winning
children’s literature. Journal of Literacy Research, 45,
142– 172.
Ryan, C. L., Patraw, J. M., & Bednar, M. (2013). Discussing
princess boys and pregnant men: Teaching about
gender diversity and transgender experiences within an
elementary school curriculum. Journal of LGBT Youth,
10, 83– 105.
Salas, K. D. (2010). Teaching controversial content. In
T. Burant, L. Christensen, K. D. Salas, & S. Walters
(Eds.), The New Teacher Book, 2nd ed. (pp. 199- 205).
Milwaukee: Rethinking Schools. http://www.rethinking
schools.org/publication/newteacher/NTFired.shtml.
Schall, J., & Kauffmann, G. (2003). Exploring literature
with gay and lesbian characters in the elementary
school. Journal of Children’s Literature, 29(1), 36– 45.
Smith, J. (2009). Overcoming an identity of privilege to
support LGBTQ inclusivity in school. In M.Blackburn,
C. Clark, L. Kenney, & J. Smith (Eds.), Acting out!
Combating homophobia through teacher activism
(pp.114– 126). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Tempel, M. B. (2011). It’s ok to be neither. Rethinking
Schools, 26(1). Retrieved from http://www.rethinking
schools.org/archive/26_01/26_01_tempel.shtml.
Children’s Literature Cited
Ignatow, A. (2010). The popularity papers: Research for
the social improvement and general benet of Lydia
Goldblatt and Julie Graham- Chang. New York, NY:
Amulet Books.
Kelly, J. (2009). The evolution of Calpurnia Tate. New
York, NY: Square Fish.
Parnell, P., & Richardson, J. (2005). And Tango makes
three. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Gates, G. J. (2014). LGB families and relationships:
Analyses of the 2013 national health interview survey.
Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School
of Law.
Hermann- Wilmarth, J. (2007). Full inclusion: Understanding
the role of gay and lesbian texts and lms in teacher
education classrooms.Language Arts,84, 347– 356.
Hermann- Wilmarth, J. M., & Ryan, C. L. (2014): Queering
chapter books with LGBT characters for young
readers: Recognizing and complicating representations
of homonormativity. Discourse: Studies in the
Cultural Politics of Education,VOL: 000– 000. doi:
10.1080/01596306.2014.940234
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen,
M. J. (2014). The 2013 national school climate
survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York,
NY: GLSEN.
Lewison, M., Leland, C., & Harste, J. (2007). Creating
critical classrooms: Reading and writing with an edge.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Lowder, J. B. (2014, September 5). Should libraries stock
anti- gay books? Retrieved from http://www.slate.com
/blogs/outward/2014/09/05/are_libraries_banning_anti_
gay_books_conservative_activist_laurie_higgins.html.
National LGBTQ Task Force. (2014). LGBTQ people
and discrimination in the work place. Retrieved from
http://www.thetaskforce.org/static_html/downloads
/reports/fact_sheets/employment_factsheet_10_8_14.pdf.
Robinson, K. H. (2005). “Queerying” gender: Hetero-
normativity in early childhood education. Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 30(2), 19– 28.
Ryan, C. L. (2010). “How do you spell family?”: Literacy,
heteronormativity, and young children of lesbian
mothers (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses
database. (UMI No. 3425382)
Jill M. Hermann- Wilmarth is a professor at Western Michigan University and can be reached at
jill.hermann- wilmarth@wmich.edu. Caitlin L. Ryan is an assistant professor at East Carolina University
and can be reached at ryanca@ecu.edu.
Like “Language Arts
Journal” on Facebook
July_2015_LA.indd 443 6/22/15 11:55 PM