ArticlePDF Available

Build a Curriculum that Includes Everyone

February 2013
Phi Delta Kappan 94(5):27-31

Authors:

Scotch Plains - Fanwood Schools

Ensuring that schools are more accepting of LGBT students and issues requires more than passing mentions of diversity in sex education classes.

Content uploaded by Robert McGarry

Content may be subject to copyright.

TROUBLING TEACHABLE MOMENTS: INITIATING TEACHER DISCOURSE

ON CLASSROOM HOMOPHOBIC SPEECH

Robert Alan McGarry

A DISSERTATION

Educational and Organizational Leadership

Presented to the Faculties of the University of Pennsylvania

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education

2008

_____________________________________

Dissertation Supervisor

_____________________________________

Dean, Graduate School of Education

Robert Alan McGarry

2008

iii

DEDICATION

This paper is dedicated to the memory of my sister, Susan McGarry Gorman.

While she is no longer with me in this life, her strength and character and the support she

gave remain a constant inspiration. As an educator, family member, friend or stranger,

Susan always tried to make people feel special, important, respected and loved. As a

special educator and guidance counselor she was passionate about improving the lives of

children and helping them imagine and realize daily lives filled with peace and happiness

and futures filled with possibility. She inspired students to do the same for each other and

in doing so she disrupted the pattern of destructive social interaction into which children

can so often fall. In this and in so many ways, her work is echoed in this paper.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was a collaborative effort of many to whom I wish to express my

gratitude, both those who were directly involved with it as participants and others who

supported the work in various ways. Of course among those to whom I am indebted are

thousands of high school students, especially those around the United States whose

voices are represented in the research conducted by GLSEN that informed this study.

Close to “home,” I am particularly grateful to one student and graduate of the research

site known only as “fabulous” who was brave enough to bring the issue of homophobic

speech to light in the school.

I wish to acknowledge and thank the teachers who gave of their time to participate

in this study. Their willingness to join me in this pursuit and truly interrogate such

troubling moments has given my spirit a renewed sense of hope that the possibility of

disrupting the status quo does exist.

I have been blessed to know and work with many gifted educators in my life and

many of these individuals assisted and supported me throughout this process. I am

thankful to the teachers whose volunteer participation in workshops informed the

development of the conceptual framework for the study and I am grateful to the

administrators who permitted this study to be conducted in their school. Among the

educators deserving special mention are my friends Alan and Janet. They are owed

particular thanks for always listening to me and serving as research assistants (and

typists) throughout.

I have had the distinct privilege of studying alongside members of an exceptional

cohort of educational leaders. Cohort IV of the Mid-Career Doctoral Program at The

University of Pennsylvania, my Penn “family,” is a group of individuals who form the

most amazing human tapestry of educational leaders. The opportunity to work them and

“trouble” issues of social justice and conceive of ways to improve educational outcomes

for all children has truly changed me. I am especially indebted to my two “walking

partners,” Chris and Linda, and of course Maggie, to whom the whole cohort owes a

great deal.

I have had the opportunity to collaborate with three outstanding scholars who

served as my committee. My chair, Dr. Peter Kuriloff, made this process as user-friendly

as possible. Both he and Dr. Sharon Ravitch (who I fondly refer to as “Glinda” for the

way she showed me that I had the brains, courage and heart to be a researcher) were

instrumental in getting me through this degree program and supported this work from the

very start. I am so appreciative to them for everything they have done for me. I am also

appreciative of Dr. Ian Macgillivray, who provided wonderful insights into the literature.

I could not have asked for a better committee.

Finally, I could not have even imagined doing any part of this degree if it weren’t

for my partner Jeffrey. His unwavering belief in me and his love and support have gotten

me through this degree and this study. I am blessed to have him in my life.

ABSTRACT

TROUBLING TEACHABLE MOMENTS: INITIATING TEACHER DISCOURSE

ON CLASSROOM HOMOPHOBIC SPEECH

Robert Alan McGarry

Dr. Peter Kuriloff, Advisor

Research on the school experiences of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender

(GLBT) students suggests that schools continually fail to meet their safety and healthy

climate needs. Among other issues, this growing body of literature suggests that

pejorative, homophobic speech is an epidemic in our schools. Much of this research

depicts teachers as negligent or ineffective, or worse, adding to the problem. While

teachers are clearly an important part of this story, their experiences, their perspectives

and their voices have been absent in the discourse surrounding such issues. This paper

introduces teachers’ voices into that discourse.

This qualitative study explores how teachers in one high school talk about

classroom-based incidents of homophobic speech. Teachers’ conceptions of such speech

and its effects, and their perceptions and enactment of various responsive roles during

such encounters are examined. These ideas and experiences are explicated according to

their relationship with theoretical conceptions of teacher motivation and engagement in

anti-oppressive educational practices. The results of this study, while further explicating

these theories and expanding our understanding of teachers’ experiences, also illustrate

how an act of leadership can create a space for teachers to interrogate their own practices

and the realities of their own classrooms.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ...........................................................................1

The Troubling Context .............................................................................................................. 1#

Troubling Language ................................................................................................ 1

Troubling Language in a Troubling Climate ............................................................3

A Troubling Rendering of Teachers ........................................................................4

The Story of the Questions: Perceptions of Trouble ................................................. 5

Aims of the Study and Guiding Research Questions............................................... 10

Literature Review .................................................................................................. 11

Introduction and Historical Perspective ............................................................. 11

Homophobia and School Climate ...................................................................... 14

Homophobic Language...................................................................................... 17

The Role of Teachers ........................................................................................ 19

Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 29

Methodology and Research Design ....................................................................... 32

Type of Study ................................................................................................... 32

Research Site/Demographics ............................................................................. 35

Sampling ........................................................................................................... 35

Data Collection ................................................................................................. 38

Survey ......................................................................................................... 38

Participant Interviews .................................................................................. 39

Focus Group Interviews .............................................................................. 40

Participant Reflections ................................................................................40

Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 41

Researcher Role .................................................................................................... 46

Generalizability...................................................................................................... 47

Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 48

Chapter Two: An Introduction to and Contextualization of the Findings........................ 50

Practitioner Research and the Act of Challenging Assumptions.............................. 50

Homophobic Language Comes Out of the Closet: Initiating the Discourse ............. 53

A Homophobic Language Primer Emerges............................................................. 58

Echoes of Other Voices.......................................................................................... 62

The Muzzling Effect of the Classroom Door .......................................................... 63

Participants or Observers: Teachers and Homophobic Speech Acts ........................ 69

How Do Teachers Describe Homophobic Speech? ................................................ 72

Emergent Emotions ............................................................................................... 73

Summary of Survey Findings ................................................................................ 74

Chapter Three: Unpacking the Homophobic Speech Moment........................................ 78

Introduction to the Findings .................................................................................. 78

“Co-authoring” Data ......................................................................................... 80

The Participants: “Troubled Members of the Faculty? ........................................... 82

viii

Characteristics of the Study Sample .................................................................. 83

Beyond the Demographic Data: “Thicker Description” of the Participants ........ 87

Participants’ Lives and Intersections With members of the GLBTQ

Community ....................................................................................................... 88

“Outliers?” ........................................................................................................ 90

Study Participation as Professional Development .............................................. 91

Other Conveyed Feelings: Standing on “Squishy” Ground ................................ 96

A Final Word About the Participants ................................................................ 97

Teachers’ Voices: On Hearing Student Use of Homophobic Language .................. 97

The “Troubling” of Words in Discourses of the Abstract and Lived .................... 100

Disconnected Meanings ................................................................................... 105

How Definition Affects Hearing the Problematic Nature of Speech ................ 107

A Summary of Lexical Findings ..................................................................... 115

In the Shadows of the Classroom.......................................................................... 115

Teachers’ “Participation,” Responses and Responsive Stances Explicated ........... 117

Gatekeeper ...................................................................................................... 121

Caregiver ........................................................................................................ 122

Educator ......................................................................................................... 123

Towards a Response: A Combination of Influence and Analysis ......................... 125

Outside the Moment: Diverse Influential Factors ............................................ 127

Inside the Moment: Answers to Unasked Questions ........................................ 128

A Final Word on the Layers of Influence and Analysis and the Findings.......... 132

Chapter Four: Discussion and Implications of “Troubling”......................................... 133

Review of the Purpose of the Study and the Implications of Creating “Space” ... 133

Various Lenses and Resulting Implications ....................................................... 135

Implications for Teaching Practice (and Professional Development) .................. 137

Teaching Practice and Theories of Anti-oppressive Education ......................... 142

Stepping Outside of One’s Curricular Shell...................................................... 144

Teaching and Learning “In the Shadows” ........................................................ 145

Implications for Leadership ............................................................................... 146

My Own Troubling .......................................................................................... 146

Conceptions of Creating “Spaces” for Teachers .............................................. 148

Suggestions for Future Research ........................................................................ 149

Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 151

Appendices.................................................................................................................. 153

Appendix A: Survey............................................................................................. 153

Appendix B: Interview Questions ........................................................................ 154

Appendix C: Focus Group Interview Questions.................................................... 155

References................................................................................................................... 156

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Gender ..................................... 36

Table 2: Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Content Area ............................ 36

Table 3: Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Years of Teaching Experience .. 36

Table 4: Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Years Teaching in the School ... 37

Table 5: Demographic of Student Participants in the GLSEN 2005 National School

Climate Survey.............................................................................................................. 50

Table 6: Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Gender ............. 55

Table 7: Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Highest Degree

Held .............................................................................................................................. 56

Table 8: Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Total Years of

Teaching ....................................................................................................................... 56

Table 9: Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Total Years of

Teaching in This School ............................................................................................... 56

Table 10: Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Content Area

Teaching Assignment .................................................................................................... 57

Table 11: Percentage of Teachers Reporting Experience with Phenomenon................... 62

Table 12: Survey Respondents’ Willingness to be Interviewed ...................................... 80

Table 13: Participants by Gender .................................................................................. 81

Table 14: Participants by Highest Degree Held.............................................................. 81

Table 15: Participants by Content Area Teaching Assignment....................................... 82

Table 16: Participants by Years of Teaching Experience ............................................... 82

Table 17: Participants by Years Teaching in This School .............................................. 82

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework .................................................................................. 30

Figure 2: Phases of Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................... 42

Figure 3: Homophobic Words and Phrases Cited in Survey Responses ......................... 59

Figure 4: Survey Respondents’ Feelings About Homophobic Speech Moments ............ 73

Figure 5: Study Participants .......................................................................................... 83

Figure 6: Teachers’ Voices on Homophobic Speech ..................................................... 96

Figure 7: Homophobic Speech Categories .................................................................. 100

Figure 8: Responsive Roles Enacted by Participants ................................................... 116

Figure 9: Layers of Influence and Analysis in the Formulation of a Response to

Homophobic Speech.................................................................................................... 126

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY: THE “TROUBLING” CONTEXT

Troubling Language

Pejorative, homophobic speech is something of an epidemic in our nation’s high

schools. Phrases such as “you’re so gay” or “don’t be such a fag” and epithets such as

“dyke,” “faggot,” “homo” and “sissy” as well as other heteronormative, hegemony-

driven slurs and even more graphic taunts have become part of the regular vernacular of

the youth in our schools (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). The derogatorily-intended, adjective

use of the word “gay” for example, is so common that some concede it is simply part of

contemporary “teen speak” (Schrader & Wells, 2004, p. 1), while others like myself

refuse to accept the notion that this is a benign evolution of language and contend that its

overuse (and implied acceptance) may in fact be desensitizing us to homophobic speech

in general.

It was not so long ago that the word “gay” was reserved for what was almost

explicit use in degrading put-downs. Today, students as well as adults apply the word to

just about anything that falls outside the accepted local norm, including movies, music

and television programs, articles of clothing, books, homework assignments, speech,

thoughts and much more. There seems to be no limit to the “new” utility possessed by

this word.

Some suggest that “gay” may now be a synonym for “stupid” or “worthless”

(Kosciw & Diaz, 2006, p. 4), which is certainly troubling given that it has remained a

term in the vernacular used by many to self-identify or identify others as possessing a

“gay” or “queer” identity. The risks brought about by this linguistic development for

students who are either “out” or who possess what I will refer to as an emerging sexual

minority (“gay”) identity seem obvious as these students endeavor to navigate their

minority status while making sense of this and the even more extreme anti-gay rhetoric

that is reported to be so prevalent in schools.

Recent polls suggest that about 5% of high school students in the United States

identify themselves as “gay” (Kosciw, 2004). This would appear to be a conservative

estimate of the total sexual minority population in schools given that there are most likely

others who have yet to self-identify as such either because of where they are in their own

process of “coming out” or as a result of the perceived risks that such identification might

present within their specific environment. In any case, neither this statistic nor a debate

over its accuracy should delimit our conceptualization of the extent of the problem of

homophobic speech in schools.

While the preceding discussion may seem to imply as much, sexual minority

students are not the only students about whom we should be concerned in regards to the

implications of homophobic speech. Our schools are populated with students who may

have friends, parents, or other family members who possess sexual minority identities

and there are an increasing number of students with same-sex parents. I would imagine

that anti-gay, homophobic language may be troubling on some level for all of these

students. And there are still other concerns we should consider beyond these. Certainly,

there are students in our schools who may one day have a gay college roommate, a

lesbian boss, a bisexual co-worker or a transgender neighbor. Others may even one day

identify themselves as the parent of a queer son or daughter. Clearly, consideration of just

who in fact has the potential to be personally affected by student homophobic speech

within the school setting creates a compelling and complicated, or what I call a

“troubling” picture. It gives the need for a critical examination or “troubling” of the

many related issues such as the experience teachers have in responding to it greater

urgency.

Troubling Language in a Troubling Climate

Language helps to define “school climate,” a term that is used to describe a

school’s effects on its students (McBrien & Brandt, 1997, p. 89). Among those aspects

of the school that contribute to how its climate is constructed, McBrien and Brandt

(1997) include “teaching practices, diversity, and the relationships among administrators,

teachers, parents, and students” (p. 89). Language is clearly one medium through which

the quality of each of these aspects is expressed and may be understood.

Given that students can have very disparate experiences in schools, it may be

argued that even students in the same school will describe their experiences in very

different climate-relevant terms. While there are many discrete factors that contribute to

how a school climate may be experienced by students possessing sexual minority

identities, one such factor is the language of everyday use within the school. Parker

(2001) suggests that language often serves as a “pernicious and powerful tool” (p. 78) of

hegemony. Surely the existence of certain words and phrases in the aural atmosphere of

a public high school suggests that the “tools” used to express dominance and homophobia

may be found there, but what the presence of these words may also suggest and/or

provide evidence of is a climate that may in fact be “homophobic.”

Matsuda (1993) suggests that such words have an “assaultive” quality when they

are used to “ambush, terrorize, wound, humiliate and degrade” (p. 1). When not

problematized by teachers (and administrators), as is the case in most school settings

(Kosciw & Diaz, 2006), these words are permitted to contribute to, or rather, detract

from, the climate of a school, especially in terms of how students with sexual minority

identities experience it. Whether targeted directly or indirectly to sexual minority

students, such verbal assaults, like all speech, cannot be divorced from a school’s climate.

Research on how sexual minority students experience climates in which such language is

prevalent suggests that such exposure may lead these students to engage in a variety of

unhealthy activities. In fact, research has even suggested that sexual minority youth may

attempt suicide at rates greater than those of their heterosexual peers. (Savin-Williams,

2001b). This is a troubling possibility.

A Troubling Rendering of Teachers

It is a widely held belief in education that all children have the “right to be

physically and emotionally safe at school” (Wessler & Prebble, 2004, p. 4). It would

indeed be a challenge to find an educator who would disagree with this. But as has been

suggested by student informants, one of the ways that teachers regularly fail to keep

sexual minority students safe is by failing to disrupt homophobic speech, even in their

classrooms (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). In the 2006 Kosciw and Diaz study, 40.5% of

students report that staff never intervene while another 43% report that staff only

"sometimes" do so (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). These are troubling statistics. The

juxtaposition of these data with other data from the study that references faculty and staff

responses to sexist or racist remarks illustrates a potentially dramatic disparity in efforts

on the part of faculty and staff. I use the qualifier “potentially” here in that there are

severe research limitations in terms of what we have actually learned from teachers in

this regard. The type of disconnect between belief and practice or intent and action that

this suggests requires further and expanded examination. This study was designed to give

voice to the teachers in one school in order to expand what we know about these

moments from the perspectives of teachers.

The Story of the Questions: Perceptions of Trouble

I am fairly confident that given the bleak picture that is rendered by studies that

have examined the school experiences of sexual minority youth, the questions that led me

to conceive of a study of teachers’ reported experiences and responses to homophobic

speech are ones that many before me have posed rhetorically or simply wondered about.

Certainly, anyone who has done so has brought his/her own experience and interpretive

lens to the matter. For me, these questions emerged from my observation, my identity as

a gay male, my experiences as a student, teacher and administrator and my ongoing

scholarship related to the topic, a combination that is uniquely mine, and the immediate

circumstances of which I shall endeavor to describe.

Like the mission statement of many schools, the Kingsley High School* Mission

Statement conveys a description of the type of climate that many schools aspire to

maintain. The school strives to provide a “positive climate for learning in which all

students can reach their full potential.” However, it is through an examination of a series

of seemingly unrelated incidents to which I have been privy that a contrary view of the

school’s climate reveals itself.

The first and most compelling incident took place one November morning in 2005

as multiple envelopes labeled "read me" (printed in capital letters over a background

* pseudonym to ensure confidentiality

representative of bloody handprints rendered in red tempera paint) were circulated around

the school. More than thirty copies found their way around the building, with each

envelope containing a letter, presumably written by a gay student entitled, "Faggot: a

look at Homophobia in our school." Below this title, the anonymous author began the

letter with the following introductory statement: "It is my profound hope that through this

letter, you can begin to comprehend the despicable nature of some of the students and

more importantly the faculty at our high school." Recipients were encouraged to circulate

this letter to students and staff alike.

With reference to "zero tolerance," a phrase that very steadily entered the

vernacular of school settings since its inclusion in the federal drug policy of the 1980s,

the letter's author contended, "while racial slurs are deemed inexcusable [in the school

setting], the term 'faggot' has become widespread in our high school microcosm." The

author goes on to characterize the use of derogatory, homophobic language as an

"epidemic" in the school. Ironically, Lipkin (1999) makes a similar assertion. He too

claims that a disparity exists between responses to racist remarks and responses to

homophobic speech in schools. Research by the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education

Network (GLSEN), an organization that advocates for sexual minority youth in schools,

suggests the same (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006) while Macgillivray (2000) claims that the

silence surrounding such speech serves as official sanctioning of it. It seemed clear to me

that such disparities needed to be “troubled” and such silences needed to be disrupted.

In a somewhat less conspicuous manner, and many months removed from the

previously mentioned incident, a faculty member who had been targeted with the kind of

pejorative language alluded to by the author of the letter, reported another incident of

homophobic speech on school grounds:

I wanted to convey an incident that happened yesterday afternoon. At

around 3:45, I was headed out to catch a bit of the girls' lacrosse game. On

my way, a student vehicle drove by and the passenger yelled out the

window "hey faggot!" (personal communication, April 17, 2006)

Further into this e-mail the teacher suggested that the incident spoke to a larger culture of

intolerance that he felt existed within the school. "Kingsley is certainly not the only place

where such bias exists," he stated, "but I worry that we as a school, and really, as a

district, are not doing all we can to deal with this issue." Once again, in this

communication, like the anonymous letter circulated around the building in November,

the author alleged that the school's efforts to provide the "positive school climate"

proposed in the mission statement had been and continued to be inadequate. "The fact is

that given the amount of homophobic speech used in our schools, I would consider our

climate downright hostile to a segment of the student population," the faculty author

stated in his e-mail.

Finally, before initiating this study a third story was shared with me by a teacher

who spoke to me of her concern for one of her students who had been "hoarding" late bus

passes in order to avoid the threatening homophobic taunts of those who shared his

regularly assigned bus route. Something about this child’s actions seemed strangely

familiar to me. It was at this point that I realized that although these stories were in the

present they were not all that dissimilar to ones that I, as a gay male and educator, had

lived through in the past. As a result of this collection of stories and my own identity, I

felt compelled to do something.

While I had a specific job to do as a curriculum supervisor in this setting, I

suddenly felt as though I had found what Fullan (2002) describes as a “moral purpose”

(p. 17), one that I have sought to integrate with my work, research and future as an

educational leader. Responding to the local need, I developed and presented a two-day

teacher workshop for our district’s summer staff development program. I described this

workshop, which was open to teachers in grades 8-12, in the following manner in the

workshop catalogue:

The district philosophy is built upon the assertion that “each individual is

different” and as such it implies that “our efforts must be directed toward

identifying and satisfying individual needs.” Research on adolescent

identity development indicates that schools are challenging environments

for students whose emerging identities are of a minority sexual

orientation. In this workshop teachers will explore this concept in depth

and develop strategies to foster respect and acceptance of all students and

staff, regardless of sexual identity/expression.

Twenty-one teachers worked with me for those two days, as we focused on how

teachers might respond to expressions of homophobia in school settings. This was new

professional development territory for all of us. What was most compelling to me as we

worked was the emerging understanding of what motivated these teachers’ responses, or

what their intent was in responding to issues of homophobia. One of the exercises in

which I engaged the participants was their writing of a letter to a former student whose

identity as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender had been “officially” unknown by the

teacher while the student was in his/her class. The object was for the teacher to initiate a

reflective, inquiry-based dialogue with a student focusing on how the student may have

experienced the teacher’s class.

Reading letter after letter revealed to me that these teachers had retrospectively

hoped that these students had felt “comfortable” in their classes, a word and concept that

I pushed them to give deeper consideration to in this iteratively planned workshop. These

teachers seemed to view their role as one of “protector” in this regard and together we

challenged ourselves to consider other intents that one might convey or act upon when

confronting homophobic speech. In terms of my emerging research interest this made me

reflect on whether other “anti-oppressive education” (Kumashiro, 2002, p. 23)

approaches that I found articulated by Kumashiro (2002) and Szalacha (2004) were

enacted within our setting. This query and the approaches I will describe below became

part of my initial conceptual framework as I sought to refine my understanding of

teachers’ experiences with homophobic speech in their classrooms.

Regardless of the perceived or real sexual identity of those to whom it is targeted

(if to anyone at all), homophobic language wounds students. Research studies by

advocacy organizations such as GLSEN have repeatedly demonstrated the pervasiveness

of the problem, not only of the existence of this speech in the vernacular, but how such

speech contributes to the establishment and maintenance of a school climate in which

students who possess sexual minority identities do not feel “safe” (Kosciw & Cullen,

2002).

Much of the student perception-based research renders a very unfavorable picture

of teaching staff (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). Schools and teachers are portrayed as negligent

by failing to curtail homophobic speech in their classrooms. In proposing this study, I

argued that researchers too have been negligent in failing to obtain and present authentic

depictions of teachers in terms of both the given circumstances of homophobic speech

events and related teacher actions. In fact, there is a dearth in terms of relevant research

that has engaged practicing teachers as participants in such inquiries. With the exception

of research focused on examining the lived experiences of sexual minority educators in

schools, the general teaching population has remained an untapped resource in efforts to

further explicate the issues surrounding homophobic speech in schools.

The experience of being confronted with student homophobic speech while

teaching in a high school needed to be explored with teachers. By studying teachers’ self-

reported experiences as witnesses to and participants in situations that involve

homophobic speech, I hoped to avoid further pathologizing of sexual minority students,

who previous to this study had served as the sole participants in relevant research studies

and whose experiences upon which this study was built. It was my hope to in some way

construct and initiate a dialogue between what these students had said and continue to say

and what teachers report experiencing. I believed that such a study might prove to be

fruitful as the search for strategies to work against such oppressive action continues to

evolve.

Aims of the Study and Guiding Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ experiences with student

homophobic speech and the role teachers perceive to possess, and subsequently may

report playing in terms of responding to student use of such language in their classrooms.

It was my belief that an examination of how teachers describe such incidents or

experiences and how they conceptualize the implications of such speech as well as their

responses would add quite considerably to what we know about these “teachable

moments.” The results of this study may help expand our understanding of teachers’

attitudes and self-perceptions of their behaviors and skills relative to responding to

homophobic speech and may stimulate further development of programs designed to

assist teachers and other school staff in this area.

In an interview published by Hackney (2005), Psychologist Susan Fiske is quoted

as having said, “the best science will triumph when a variety of perspectives come to bear

on a problem” (Hackney, 2005, p. 197). As this study took shape, it was clear that there

were perspectives that had not been accessed nor subsequently permitted to shed light

upon the problem of addressing student homophobic speech in schools. While it is true

that some research in the area of teacher education maps onto this topic (Sears, 1991;

Mudrey-Camino, 2002), studies that have sought to describe the experiences of certified

teachers actually working in public high school settings are clearly lacking, leaving

theorists with limited ability to surmise what such experiences might be like for teachers

and how these might or might not contribute to the state of homophobia in schools. It is

for these reasons that I constructed this study, seeking answers to these questions:

1. How do high school teachers describe and characterize their experiences as

witnesses of and respondents to homophobic speech in their classrooms?

2. How do high school teachers say they respond to student homophobic speech in

their classrooms and what informs, influences and motivates the development

and enactment of these responses?

Literature Review

Introduction and Historical Perspective

Several bodies of literature and analogous areas of inquiry helped to inform this

study. In fact, the study would yet to have been conceived if it weren’t for the work of

those who had previously explored such areas as school climate, homophobia in schools,

and school experiences of youth possessing sexual minority identities. Each of these

areas was critical to building a conceptual framework for discussion of how teachers

experience and describe their responses to homophobic speech in their classrooms.

Significant too in informing this study was literature on multicultural teacher education,

especially studies focusing on teacher attitudes, beliefs and behaviors related to sexual

minority issues and homophobia. Each of these literatures conversed quite naturally with

one another and it is from these polyphonic discourses and a singular persistent gap in the

literature that the conceptual framework for this study emerged. The goal of this literature

review is to provide the context for the study and demonstrate both how and where it is

and is not situated within the very brief history of research on students who possess

sexual minority identities and the related research on their experiences in schools.

Much of the research related to sexual minority students and schools is found

within an emerging, more broadly focused body of “anti-oppressive education” that

Kumashiro (2000) describes as “approaches to education that actively challenge different

forms of oppression” (p. 25). This literature includes studies that are focused on

developing further understanding of oppression as well as others that seek to provide

“best practice” strategies for the disruption of it. As such, this body of research is a close

relative to the liberatory pedagogy (Freire, 1970) traditions of multicultural education

(Enns & Sinacore, 2005).

It was not until as recently as the 1980s that research related to the lives of sexual

minority youth in schools received much attention (Strauss, 2005). Ryan and Futterman

(1998) claim that up until the 1990s gay, lesbian and bisexual youth were seemingly

“invisible” (p. xi) and as such they were excluded from research as well as all sorts of

professional literature. It is Ryan and Futterman’s (1998) assumption that this research

and theoretical disregard for sexual minority youth was based on prevailing beliefs that

adolescents were not mature enough to possess such sexual identities, and that possessing

such an identity was an “adult phenomenon” (Ryan & Futterman, 1998, p. xi).

As such, endeavors to draw attention to concerns about the well being of such

students were initially built upon relevant medical research initiated in the 1960s that

sought to define the social and psychological correlations of possessing a sexual minority

identity (Herek, 1988). Although providing a rationale for further study, these were not

direct antecedents to the more liberatory or “anti-oppressive” (Kumashiro, 2000) studies

that followed (Sears, 1991, 1997; Perotti & Westheimer, 2001; Robinson & Ferjola,

2001).

Many of the findings from this earlier work are echoed in more contemporary

studies, such as the fact that sexual minority youth are considered to be of greater risk for

suicide than their heterosexual counterparts (D’Augelli, Hershberger & Pilkington, 2002).

One of these, a 1989 Department of Health and Human Services study stated that that the

leading cause of death among sexual minority teens was suicide. This has since been

discredited (Savin-Williams, 2001b). While the researchers involved with these studies

did not seek to determine the possible causes, causal relationships among school climate,

homophobic speech and suicide are being explored today (Rutter & Leech, 2006). Other

more recent studies have not only corroborated the findings of Besner and Spungin

(1995) but have expanded the list of potential behavioral risks for sexual minority youth

to include alcohol and other drug addiction and a variety of physical and mental health

problems as well as compromised academic performance and significant high school

drop-out rates (Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Biddulph, 2006).

These are certainly compelling findings, and yet the reporting of them has created

other issues. Savin-Williams (2001a) argues that even though such research on youth

possessing sexual minority identities has helped in developing some support for them, a

predilection for studies that continue to place these youth in the role of victim, in essence

pathologizes them (Savin-Williams, 2001, as cited in Strauss, 2005, p. 446). This

concern and the consistency of findings suggests that research needs to widen in scope

and move beyond the perspectives of these students as victims in order to have the anti-

oppressive outcomes hoped for. Clearly, research on sexual minority youth has sounded

an alarm, but for whom it should raise a concern has not been made completely clear. The

researchers who have enlisted sexual minority youth as participants in studies have in

some ways, furthered the hegemony that exists around them by promoting the existence

of a sexual minority youth pathology and portraying such youth as either deviants or

victims (Rasmussen, Rofes, & Talburt, 2004). Rather than continuing to risk further

injury or pathologizing, it seems that other voices need to be given the opportunity to

speak to what it is like to experience homophobic speech in classrooms. Clearly, teachers

must be given the opportunity to converse with the research.

Homophobia and School Climate

The pervasiveness of homophobic language targeted towards students who either

possess or who are perceived to possess sexual minority identities (gay, lesbian, bisexual

or transgender) in school settings in the United States and elsewhere has been fairly well

researched and written about (D’Augelli, 1996; D’Augelli, Hershberger & Pilkington,

2002; Friend, 1993; Russell & Joyner, 2001; Vicars 2006). Much of this research is

focused on exploring the relationship of such student-reported language to school

climate, the unique combination of qualities such as traditions, values, procedures,

policies and culture that combine to define how a school “feels” to those who experience

it (McBrien & Brandt, 1997). Schein (1992) defines this as the “conveyed feeling” and as

such as part of the larger construct of “culture” (p. 8).

Research as to how the use of homophobic language by students impacts school

climate and may be detrimental to the positive development of all students (regardless of

sexual orientation) is lacking. Instead, research focused on sexual minority students

seems to have been of greater interest. For these students, healthy adjustment and the

ability to attain school performance potential are two educational outcomes that may be

compromised when such language is pervasive in the aural environment of the school

(Rutter and Leech, 2006).

Noonan (2005) suggests that although climate is a construct difficult to define, it

remains detectable through the observation of human interaction. As such, he suggests

that climate has a direct relationship to a school’s ability to successfully fulfill its

educative mission. As such it would seem that a school has the responsibility to deal with

issues that negatively affect the climate. Unfortunately, Lipkin (2004) characterizes

schools as negligent in responding to issues of homophobia. He asserts how “schools

regularly challenge other forms of bigotry” but fail to “be proactive in reducing

homophobia.” (Lipkin, 2004, p. xx). He suggests that educators either do not see it as

relevant to their mission or do not possess enough courage to address it. In proposing the

current study, I argued that such a reductionist explanation and hypothesis needed

expansion and testing in order to understand how such stances may develop or how

educators construct them and how they ultimately may be challenged and hopefully

ameliorated. Likewise, Sears (1991) and Fontaine (1997) suggest that students

possessing sexual minority identities are those least likely to have their needs (academic,

social, physical and emotional) met by schools. They suggest that a diminished sense of

belonging and isolation may result not only when these students experience such

language but especially when it remains untroubled by educators.

The research on the experiences of sexual minority youth in schools certainly

supports such accusations and is extremely compelling, especially considering that nearly

three quarters of sexual minority students surveyed in the most recent GLSEN study

claimed that they felt unsafe in their schools because of their identity (Kosciw & Diaz,

2006). Given Lipkin’s (2004) notion of schools as failing such students, one must look to

a variety of indicators and school qualities to understand how he has arrived at such a

conclusion. The most illuminating of these is certainly school climate. The biannual

study undertaken by GLSEN that is described above provides a broad-based view of

schools, albeit through the lens of sexual minority students and not inclusive of other

students or teachers who by virtue of their positionality within the school or their

majority sexual identity may be differently affected. Nonetheless, it seems likely that

homophobic speech may carry the greatest immediate risk of injury for those to whom it

may be targeted, namely, students who may possess or may be perceived to possess

sexual minority identities. It is impossible though, to truly account for all the damage that

such speech may inflict as well as when it may do so or for whom it may have negative

consequences.

Homophobic Language

This body of research suggests that pejorative, homophobic speech is something

of an epidemic in our schools. (Kosciw & Cullen, 2002; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). It is

difficult to imagine that schools in which such language is prevalent could be

experienced as safe or healthy climates for sexual minority students. This language, and

the exclusion of sexual minorities from the policies, practices, and curriculum of the

school deny these students the opportunity to explore their sexuality in healthy ways. But

here again, I argue that the impact of such speech has potential consequences far beyond

that which one might initially consider and for individuals that our immediate concerns

might not include. Certainly, as the research suggests, it carries the greatest risk of injury

for those to whom it may be targeted, but when one begins to complicate this picture, the

complexity of the situation quickly emerges, demonstrating the wider impact that this has

and the population beyond sexual minority students (such as friends of sexual minority

students, children of a gay parent or children of a same sex couple) for whom it is a

concern.

The existing research on students’ school experiences and confrontations with

homophobic language creates a compelling picture. Whether or not explicitly designed to

support reform, longitudinal analysis suggests that there have been few significant

changes in how sexual minority students describe their experiences of school climate

since efforts to study this were initiated (Kosciw & Cullen, 2002; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006).

For example, a 2001 survey of high school students in 48 states and the District of

Columbia who self-identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual found that 84

percent reported hearing a variety of homophobic remarks either frequently or often in

their schools (Kosciw & Cullen, 2002).

In what has become a biannual effort, the results of the same survey conducted

four years later is suggestive of some degree of progress towards improving students’

school climate experiences but no explanation is given for this improvement. I argue,

however, that the findings provide a false sense of optimism. Even though the latest

version indicates that the percentage response on the very same survey question dropped

to 75.4 (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006) it remains nonetheless a large and troubling percentage.

Furthermore, it is interesting that this 2006 iteration of the survey instrument broke out

the phrases, “that’s so gay” or “you’re so gay” as a separate category and as such

identified this usage of “gay” to mean “stupid” or “worthless,” somehow suggesting that

this usage is less homophobic or less damaging. The most recent study indicates an

overwhelming 89.2 % of students reported hearing this alternate usage in their schools

(Kosciw & Diaz, 2006), which is consistent with prior studies in this series.

Schrader and Wells (2004) argue that although like many linguistic conventions,

words such as “gay” continue to evolve in meaning, acceptance of them by adults who

perceive them as contemporary “teen speak,” does not remove the harmful potential they

possess. With or without problematizing the evolution of this word to mean “stupid,” the

usage continues to “label, situate, categorize, define, delimit, and reinforce the

positioning of sexual minorities as ‘other’” (Schrader & Wells, 2004, p. 1). To illustrate

just how these words are used, Stoudt (2006) indicates that boys target one another with

such epithets in order to “locate male femininity in homosexuality” (p. 280) and through

this process assert their own masculinity as they marginalize the masculinity of the

targeted individual and the greater population of those who possess a gay male identity.

One might imagine the existence of a parallel female-oriented phenomenon.

These words are hardly benign teen speak. They are, in reality, linguistic actions

that serve to intensify the heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity (Connell &

Messershmidt, 2005) nurtured by school curriculum, policies and practices. The

implications of the appropriation and use of “gay” by many speakers who intend to

convey “stupid” or “worthless” seems obvious and continues to “other” those who

possess sexual minority identities.

The Role of Teachers

While the GLSEN reports indicate that the majority of homophobic speech is

spoken in locations that are outside the earshot of teachers and other staff, one of the

most compelling statistics in this study is relative to the action of teachers when they are

privy to such incidents. Students were asked whether or not school staff responded to

such occurrences when they observe them. The students surveyed suggest this happens at

a rate of merely 16.5 % (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006, p. xiii).

Clearly, much of this student perception-based research renders a very

unfavorable picture of teaching staff (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). While schools and teachers

are portrayed as negligent by failing to curtail homophobic speech in their classrooms, a

study of teachers indicate that 73% think they have an obligation to foster a safe climate

for their sexual minority students and 53% report that harassment of students is a serious

problem in their school. (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005). The juxtaposition of the two

studies would seem to suggest a disconnect between teacher beliefs and practice.

I argue that researchers have been negligent in failing to obtain and present

authentic depictions of teachers in terms of both given circumstances and related teacher

actions. In fact, there is a dearth of respectful research that engages teachers as

participants in such inquiries. With the exception of research that is focused on

examining the lived experiences of sexual minority educators in schools, the general

teaching population remains an untapped resource in efforts to further explicate the issues

surrounding homophobic speech in schools. Instead, conclusions based upon studies that

have had more accessible research participants such as students in teacher education

programs have served as a proxy in this regard (Sears, 1991; Mudrey-Camino, 2002). As

such, the contextual bounds of such previous research present significant limitations in

terms of the generalizability of the findings to the context of the proposed study.

Among the responsibilities held by teachers is the development of classroom

climate. The enacted decisions that teachers make in each moment influence the climate

that they and their students co-construct. The outcomes for sexual minority students in

this regard have been well documented (Lipkin, 1999). In terms of unaddressed issues of

homophobia in classrooms and schools, the possible outcomes that have been suggested

are many and include further verbal harassment or physical abuse, drug and alcohol

abuse, premature sexual involvement, and suicide. Birden (2005) and Macgillivray

(2004) found that for some teachers the belief that schools should not address social

issues and should instead focus solely on academics seems to persist.

Bransford, Darling-Hammond, and LePage (2005) state, “On a daily basis,

teachers confront complex decisions that rely on many different kinds of knowledge and

judgment and that can involve high-stakes outcomes for students’ futures” (p. 1). In

explicating a proposed framework for teaching and learning, these authors include

classroom management as one of the critical areas of teacher knowledge. While lack of

knowledge and more importantly related skill in this area can certainly compromise

student learning in terms of content, it also stands to reason that such deficits can yield

deleterious effects that may have even higher-stakes outcomes for specific students. As it

affects how students may experience a school climate, a lack of response to homophobic

speech on the part of teachers is of grave concern.

Applebaum (2003) argues that classrooms are reflective of society. Walling

(2006), on the other hand contends that schools do not reflect society implicitly but rather

tend to be even more conservative than society. Regardless of reflection or magnification,

it is agreed that schools, like society, are “cultures of power” (Applebaum, 2003, Delpit,

1995). Delpit (1995) in fact, asserts that classroom cultures are governed by rules for

participation that delineate communication norms. As a culture unto itself complete with

norms, values and beliefs, Macgillivray (2004) and Friend (1993) state that the culture of

the school assists in the development of a heteronormative worldview.

When it comes to classroom management and dealing with student behavior,

teachers generally look for opportunities to adopt “best practices”, preferring to subscribe

to a teacher as technician modus operandi (Apple, 1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2001).

The complex nature of homophobia requires much more than “simplistic formulas or

cookie-cutter routines” (Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 9) and yet those who have

attempted to offer strategies have failed to go beyond listing what teachers might do in

very vague terms such as “stop derogatory remarks” (Baker, 2002, p. 97).

It would seem to follow from parallel literature on teachers’ confrontation with

speech that is racist in nature that learning to confront homophobic speech would require

a similar kind of self-examination. Authors of such literature call upon teachers to reflect

upon and problematize their own racist attitudes and thinking about race. In this context,

these authors argue that such self-examination is necessary to form an understanding of

the psychology of racism and how it plays out in various teaching situations (Datum,

1992). Delpit (1995) suggests, “we all interpret behaviors, information and situations

through our own cultural lenses” (p. 151). Delpit claims that although we wear these

lenses without conscious awareness of them, we must be more active in realizing the

implications of our wearing them. It stands to reason that heterosexist attitudes and

behaviors, including use and perception of language deserve similar examination by

teachers.

For practicing teachers, such examinations would fall under the domain of

professional development while for those yet to enter the profession it would seem to be

the responsibility of teacher education programs. Some research on school staff

development exists, but it is mainly drawn from studies involving Massachusetts which is

the only state that has in place a very specific set of state expectations regarding the

creation of “safe schools” (Szalacha, 2003). This is not to say that staff development does

not exist in other locations; it has simply not been widely studied. What does exist may

be found in studies of students in teacher education programs.

In exploring how pre-service teachers learn to talk about race in their teaching,

Datum (1992) suggests that for would-be teachers such learning conjures up feelings of

anger, shame, guilt and even despair. She suggests that when such feelings are

unaddressed they may lead to resistance. It would seem that failing to deal with

heterosexism and homophobic speech would follow a similar pattern, leading teachers to

fail to problematize their own feelings and related responses to such student speech.

It seems evident that a personally unexamined, technical approach to skill

development in terms of formulating responses to homophobic speech has potential for

failure in “real time.” Such plans afford teachers the opportunity to neglect an important

aspect of their unique response to homophobic speech, which is their own identity and

life history. Sears (1987) identifies self-examination as a first step for educators who wish

to take a “socially responsible” (p. 74) stance. Britzman (1998) suggests that such

situations “requires educators to think carefully about their own theories of learning and

how the stuff of such difficult knowledge becomes pedagogical” (p. 118). Certainly that

which Herek (1988) found to be relevant to the general population’s attitudes towards

gays and lesbians may play a part in the construction of a teacher’s response to

homophobic speech. Herek (1988) found “religiosity, adherence to traditional ideologies

of family and gender, perception of friends’ agreement with one’s own attitudes and past

interaction with lesbians and gay men” (Herek, 1988, p. 451) as central to attitude

formation and operation. Page and Liston (2002) found that teachers who have been

knowingly exposed to sexual minority individuals exhibit less homophobia, but it

remains unclear whether these same individuals confront homophobia in their

classrooms.

Certainly, beyond technical skills, teachers’ life experiences and beliefs, values,

and attitudes may play an important part in the formulation of their response to

homophobic speech. It has also been suggested that teachers may find it difficult to

separate personal beliefs from professional responsibility (Blumenfeld & Lindop, 1996).

In a study of pre-service teachers, Butler (1999) found that those who were possessive of

more factual knowledge relevant to sexual minority issues held and exhibited more

positive attitudes and behaviors. Overall, Macgillivray (2004) contends that school staff

do not have the background knowledge to deal effectively with such issues. His work is

supported by other research that further contends that knowledge itself is insufficient

(Herek, 1988). Teachers also need to be provided with strategies that may work, time to

practice these strategies, and the support of the administration in implementing them

(Macgillivray, 2004). A comparison of results of two parallel studies conducted with pre-

service teachers (Sears, 1991; Mudrey-Camino, 2002) suggests that even though those

entering the teaching profession had generally become more knowledgeable about issues

concerning homosexuality, such increased knowledge did not translate into more positive

personal attitudes and feelings towards homosexuals. This is suggestive of the

personal/professional disconnect that has been alluded to in some theories (Cardona,

2005).

As with any other potentially hegemonic (sexist, racist, etc.) situation that may

arise in the course of teaching in a high school classroom, confrontations with

homophobic student speech force teachers into making difficult choices in crafting what

they believe to be or hope will be appropriate responses. As has unfortunately been

suggested, silence on the part of teachers seems to be a popular response in such

instances (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006; Macgillivray, 2000). Also practiced with regularity

according to Sykes (2004) is the act of silencing such speech, which she refers to as a

“pedagogy of censorship” (Sykes, 2004, p. 80) and Applebaum (2003) asserts is the

exercise of power to disrupt power and as used in such instances is inappropriate.

Nonetheless, Sykes (2004) describes this as “an important, but insufficient response” (p.

77), but as it was not her research purpose, she does not further qualify what might be

considered a “sufficient” response.

The predilection for “silence” is clearly troubling and it is the purpose of this

study to explore this as well as other responses that teachers report making or conceiving

of and the potential reasons and intentions with which they act. In interrogating silence,

one must move beyond a conception of it as inaction or lack of response. What silence or

silencing may, in fact, actually “say” to students is often a more punctuated message than

those found in other pedagogical choices. For as Schlant (1999) asserts, silence is as

much a part of speech as speech itself and as such carries its own intended and received

meanings.

Some have gone so far as to suggest that silence is the most frequently exercised

pedagogical strategy given the type of circumstances described here. In seeking to

explain this, Sears (1991) suggests two possible reasons. First, he suggests that teachers

may fail to act based upon feelings of self-doubt in terms of individual abilities to

perform effectively. Second, and possibly related, he proposes that such inaction may be

grounded in a lack of relevant knowledge. These reasons are relative to what Cardona

(2005) describes in terms of teachers reporting their lack of preparation to teach in a

sensitive manner in relation to issues of diversity. A third, and more complicating reason,

may be teacher collusion.

As has been suggested, silence may bear a message expressive of tolerance for

homophobic speech, which may lead to tacit approval, and ultimately potential negative

outcomes for a wide variety of students and the individual contexts in which they dwell.

This of course leads one to question why silence would be a preferred strategy. Silence,

it would seem, may not be a response constructed when assuming teaching

responsibilities and may in fact be more personal, and life history relevant. Again,

looking at research based in teacher education programs provides insights that may prove

to have relevance. For example, Robinson and Ferfolja (2001) documented their

experiences with widespread resistance from students in teacher education courses to

engage in discourse related to heterosexism and homophobia. A variety of tentative

reasons are suggested including religious and moral positioning, and a failure to realize

the inequalities that exist as a result of a heterosexual/homosexual binary.

A disconnect between personal and professional beliefs, attitudes and behaviors

may provide another partial answer. For example, in a study focused on pre-service

teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about diversity, Cardona (2005) discovered that her

study participants were more likely to agree with issues of diversity in the professional

realm than in the personal realm and that a disconnect between these belief systems might

explain or help understand the associated behavior of teachers. Cardona (2005) proposes

that it is necessary to assess beliefs in both dimensions but it would also seem prudent

then to ascertain where teachers locate the boundaries of these two realms and the degree

to which teachers can and do separate them.

Kumashiro (2002) suggests that researchers have remained divided on various

aspects of oppression including specific causes as well as the most effective pedagogy

that may be applied to eliciting change. Again, research studies employing methods that

engage teachers in discourse on this last aspect remain to be undertaken. Ideas and

theories such as those offered by Kumashiro (2002) as well as Szalacha (2004) and Rofes

(2005) remain untested but are worthwhile starting points and contribute to the

construction of a conceptual frame for such research.

Beyond a lack of reply or an approach that one might categorize as “silence,”

those responses that teachers may enact when faced with homophobic speech would seem

to be constructed within one of the three paradigms articulated by Szalacha (2004). These

paradigms, presented in what would appear to be a hierarchical order in terms of the level

of risk inherent in teacher responses to homophobic speech include “safety,” “equity” and

“critical theory” (Szalacha, 2004, p. 69).

Within the safety paradigm, Szalacha (2004) includes both the physical as well as

the emotional safety of students. Here, teachers’ actions would seem to be driven by their

intent to protect. This is typically a paradigm in which action is fed by and feeds the

perceived (and heteronormatively constructed) pathology of sexual minority students.

Those acting within the equity paradigm endeavor to not only end homophobic speech

and violence in their classrooms, but also ensure that sexual minorities are included in a

manner equal to others. Finally, the critical theory paradigm is akin to queer theory

(Edelman, 1995) in that it challenges conceptions and applications of that which is

considered normal and the heteronormativity of society.

Similarly, Kumashiro (2002) suggests that responses from teachers and others

may be indicative of a disposition for operating within a specific purpose-related

framework. In defining these, Kumashiro (2002) links these directly to issues of

“othering” or the process of marginalization. An analysis of the work of these two in

this regard illustrates their complementary nature. Kumashiro (2002) suggests four

educational stances, the first of which he refers to as education that is for those who are

“othered,” which is clearly an operationalizing of Szalacha’s (2004) “safety” paradigm.

The second is educating about those who are “othered,” or “equity,” as Szalacha (2004)

might label it. And Kumashiro’s (2002) final two include educating in such a way as to

critique privileging/othering, which seems to be a precursor to his final stance which is

educating in such a way as to change students and ultimately, society. While more

specific and seemingly sequentially articulated, these two fall under Szalacha’s (2004)

reference to critical theory.

As a pragmatist (and former classroom teacher), Rofes (2005) identifies what he

refers to as four key areas of “institutional responses to homophobic harassment and

violence in schools” (Rofes, 2005, p. 39). While not directly drawn from the work of

these other researchers, the responses Rofes enumerates might be seen as operationalizing

of the paradigms of Szalacha (2004) and Kumashiro (2002). These include anti-

homophobia education, support group development, curricular resource development,

and development of in-school role models.

Rofes (2005) alleges that even with the development of related educational

strategies, the most notable in scope which Szalacha (2003) describes is the

Massachusetts’ Safe Schools Program for gay and lesbian students, the mistreatment of

youth possessing sexual minority identities has continued to intensify. Research certainly

suggests that improving the experiences of sexual minority students should be a priority.

The development of education “for the other” as per Kumashiro (2002) or work within

the paradigm of “safety” as per Szalacha (2004) may have some effective attributes, but

as Rofes (2005) has suggested these have been insufficient in truly disrupting oppression.

Disrupting oppression requires more than the prevention of harmful interpersonal

interactions (Kumashiro, 2002, p. 37). This work requires further problematizing, or

troubling.

Conceptual Framework

As I predicted early on, I discovered a dearth of research literature related to the

specifics of the problem I identified. Nevertheless, as I endeavored to develop a

conceptual map representative of my guiding questions, I began to render a complex

image, the tentative result of which I believe was illustrative of my thinking as I entered

the study (Figure 1). Miles and Huberman (1994) describe such a framework as “the

researcher’s first cut at making some explicit theoretical statements” (p. 91). What this

“first cut” depicted was an intersection of not only relevant literatures that through the

process of constructing the framework I discovered helped to inform my study and

refocus my questions but also my “implicit theory” (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 91)

about how teachers might experience student use of classroom homophobic speech.

The junction of literatures that I created with my questions offered a blend of past

research, both past and current theory as well as my preliminary thoughts and the

hypotheses I wanted to test. It built upon extensive research focused on the school

climate experiences of sexual minority youth (Kosciw & Cullen, 2002; Kosciw & Diaz,

2006) conducted under the auspices of GLSEN as well as that of other independent

researchers (Sears, 1991, 1997; Jordan, et al., 1997; Harris & Bliss, 1997; Lipkin, 1999).

More specifically, I developed this study to build upon what these studies suggested in

terms of teacher response to homophobic speech.

Through my search for and analysis of literature, I found the conversational

potential of the work of three authors: Kumashiro (2002), Rofes (2005) and Szalacha

(2004) to be the most interesting and instructive for me in terms of the design of the

study. It was to the polyphony created by these three that I hoped to add my voice and

those of my research participants.

First of all, I owe Kumashiro (2002) for the title of my study. I found his

simultaneous use of the word “troubling” as both adjective and verb so

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework Map

compelling and so relevant to my purpose in proposing this study that I “appropriated” it

for this purpose. With the exception of teachers truly committed to anti-oppressive

education, I entered this study carrying the assumption that the issue of homophobic

speech had previously been “untroubled” by the educators in the research setting and that

by “troubling” it with them I would be able to bring the voices of classroom teachers into

the discourse so they could speak to the existing research on the school experiences of

sexual minority youth. Kumashiro’s (2002) work and the consistently troubling research-

based depiction of how school climate is experienced by youth possessing sexual

minority identities (Kosciw & Cullen, 2002; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006) gave me both focus

of intent and a sense of the research action required to seek answers to my guiding

questions.

Kumashiro (2002) suggests four ways to conceptualize of anti-oppressive

pedagogy. These are: education that is for the “other,” educating about the other,

educating in such a way as to critique privileging/othering and educating in such a way as

to change students and ultimately, society (Kumashiro, 2002, p. 23). These various

pedagogical “stances” certainly seem to suggest more about teacher practice than the

specific context-bound focus of this study. Even so, my hypothesis at the outset of this

study was that beyond complete silence, teachers’ responses to homophobic speech

would fall into one or more of these categories. This is what I hoped to analyze and use in

order to suggest potential “next steps” in my own anti-oppressive education work.

Szalacha’s (2004) meta-analysis of existent research was also quite helpful, not

only in understanding what had driven other researchers to engage in such work, but also

in terms of thinking about how the three paradigms in which such research seems to

operate, “safety,” “equity,” and “critical theory” (Szalacha, 2004, p. 69), mapped onto my

analytical methods in terms of the reported responses that my participants shared as we

“co-authored” (Kale, 1988, as cited in Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 35) the data. I

thought that these concepts, along with other contextual and life history influences might

have served as motivating influences for teachers as they crafted their responses or chose

to ignore homophobic speech in their classrooms. Given the former instance, I wondered

whether teachers responded to homophobic language out of a sense of some protective

role they imagine themselves playing or out of a desire to have students treated equally or

possibly as a way to invoke some social justice agenda. Szalacha’s (2004) paradigm

clearly provided opportunity for the exploration of teachers’ motivations.

Finally, Rofes’ (2005) tinge of pessimism in terms of the lack of change brought

about by programs helped provide the confidence I needed to pursue the answers to my

questions. His work set out a challenge in terms of continuing to look for untapped

perspectives and ways to solve such problems. It was my hope that with answers to the

questions I posed, the participants and I might add to the conversation and in the end

inspire focused and research-based professional development for teachers and school

leaders that more accurately builds upon what teachers actually do (and don’t do).

Methodology and Research Design

Type of Study

The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ experiences with student

homophobic speech and the roles that teachers both perceive possessing, and

subsequently may report playing in response to student use of such language in their

classrooms. It is a qualitative study. It is phenomenological in the sense that it was

designed to describe the meanings or “essence” of the lived experiences of the

participants (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006). The study draws upon the unique and

socially constructed nature of each classroom, the background of each teacher, and the

diversity of the students with whom the teacher interacts, as well as the multiple realities

that exist within any such high school. For example, Physical Education classes are quite

different contexts than English or Social Studies classrooms or Art rooms, and honors or

Advanced Placement teachers typically tend to be less concerned with classroom

management than those who teach in classrooms that are more heterogeneously

constructed in terms of student aptitude or achievement. As such, this study was

designed to uncover and explore as many of the various realities that exist within the

research setting as possible.

Similar to the diversity of experiences presumed above, it is likely that the

somewhat loosely defined concept of homophobia is one that also breeds a plethora of

realities for individuals. In this sense then, this is an interpretive study that relied on local

meanings defined by teachers as well as the reflexivity of the learning environment

(Erickson, 1986). It was presumed that how teachers give meaning to the term

“homophobia” or identify “homophobic speech” impacts the way they identify, frame,

interpret and recount the interactions that to them give life to that which the term implies.

Finally, the dual roles I played as both a researcher and a participant in the setting

combined with the intent of the study, place this within a practitioner research paradigm.

As Anderson, Herr and Nihlen (1994) suggest, “Practitioner research has the potential for

empowerment and the inclusion of a greater diversity of voices in educational policy and

social change.” (Anderson, Herr & Nihlen, 1994, p. 6). The addition of other voices to

the discourse on the pervasiveness of homophobic speech in schools seems significant,

especially since the literature that is most relevant to this study is so focused on the

school experiences of sexual minority youth (Kosciw, & Diaz, 2006). This body of work

has thus far been limited to representation of students’ voices alone with little or no

regard for those others who experience these same settings and moments, albeit with

different lenses and different positionality. These others are an important part of the story

and this study invited them into it.

Certainly it is difficult for outsiders to obtain access to such individuals as

participants in such studies. In fact, Rofes (2005) assigns responsibility for the dearth of

relevant studies to the challenge of researcher access that he claims “serves to derail

performance of such research” (p. 69). “Homophobia, heterosexism and high schools are

a potentially volatile combination for formal research,” (O’Conor, 1995, p. 14) and

access to teacher views and experiences with homophobia may only be readily available

to practitioner researchers whose possession of emic knowledge can be an asset in

securing the kind of access that allows them to “learn from other people” (Spradely, 1979

as cited in Glesne, 2006, p. 51).

It was in the spirit of seeking to bring diverse perspectives to bear on the research

problem and with the hope I have in the possibility of practitioner research that I

proposed this study. I argue that in order to truly work towards disrupting the

homophobic speech that is so prevalent and untroubled in our schools we must provide an

opportunity for those whose voices have been described as either silent, silencing,

ineffective, or at worst, performing a role akin to arbiter of this epidemic, to speak to the

issues. This was the purpose of this study.

Research Site/Demographics

Kingsley* is a suburban residential community located in New Jersey about 30

miles outside of New York City. It is a middle to upper-middle class community that has

high expectations and aspirations for its schools and the children who attend them. The

school district educates approximately 9000 students in eleven school buildings (K-5, 6-

7, 8-9, and 10-12). At the time of data collection (April-June, 2007), the demographic

distribution by race was: 3% African American, 24% Asian American, 4.5% Hispanic

American, .5% Native American and 68% White or Caucasian. The percentage of

students receiving free or reduced lunch was 2.9 % and the ESL population was 2.3% of

the total school population. The high school, the research site, is embedded in this school

system. It houses grades 10-12 and was designated a National School of Excellence in the

1990-91 Secondary School Recognition Program conducted by the U.S. Department of

Education. In 1999 the Star Ledger named it as one of the schools that colleges

recognize as having the best-prepared students. Of the approximately 750 annual

graduates, 95% choose to continue their education at four-year colleges or universities,

two-year colleges or business/technical schools.

Sampling

Given the conceptual map and the hypothesis that each teacher’s response to

homophobic speech in the classrooms is motivated by a personal frame of life

experiences that shapes intent and informs actions, I endeavored to create a “polyvocal

text” (Glesne, 2006, p. 18) that allowed the uniqueness that each participant brought to

the study to be maintained. The participants of the study included high school teachers

* pseudonym to ensure confidentiality

(grades 10-12) whose work in my employment setting was current to the study. In the

spirit of qualitative research I employed an iterative sampling plan. In essence, the study

engaged two unique samples, one of which was drawn from the other. I began with the

Table 1

Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Gender

Gender

Number of Staff in

School

Percentage of

Total Staff

Target Number

for Sample

Yield

Female

115

65.7 %

Male

34.3 %

Table 2

Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Content Area

Content Area

Number of

Staff in School

Percentage of

Total Staff

Target Number

for Sample

Yield

Electives

18 %

3.6

English

11.2 %

2.2

Health

5.5

3.1 %

.62

Phys. Ed.

11.5

6.4 %

1.3

Math

11.3 %

2.3

Science

14 %

2.8

Social Studies

10.7 %

2.1

Special Ed.

12.5 %

2.5

World Language

11.2 %

2.2

Table 3

Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Years of Teaching Experience

Years of

Teaching

Experience

Number of Staff

in School

Percentage of

Total Staff

Target

Number for

Sample

Yield

1-5

22.2 %

6-10

22.2 %

11-20

25.7 %

21+

29.7 %

Table 4

Study Sample Selection: Target and Yield by Years Teaching in This School

Years in

School

Number of Staff

in School

Percentage of

Total Staff

Target Number

for Sample

Yield

1-5

38.8 %

6-10

22.8 %

11-20

17 %

21+

20 %

population of teachers at large and then narrowed the sample of volunteer participants via

an analytical identification process that is described below. I followed an emerging,

theory driven process that intersected and interacted with data collection and analysis

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Through this process I identified a stratified purposeful and

theory-based sample of 20 interview participants.

I selected 20 interviewees based upon responses (and non-responses) on the initial

population survey. Using elements of the conceptual framework that included personal

and professional characteristics such as gender, content area of teaching specialization,

years of experience and years of service in the building, (Tables 1-4) I selected a

stratified purposeful and theory-based sample for further in-depth study. I constructed

and completed a matrix for participation selection based upon the sample return and

attempted to recruit members to fill cells that were under-represented in the survey

returns and/or the interview volunteer list. Given that through the process of data

collection and analysis I came to understand that who these volunteers were was actually

part of the findings, I describe the participants in greater detail in chapter three.

Data Collection

As a phenomenological study, I felt it was vitally important to collect as much

description of the participants’ “lived experience” (Marshall & Rossman, p. 112) with

the phenomenon being studied as possible. I viewed this as a means to develop a deeper

understanding of the way participants made sense of their experiences. As such, and in an

effort to provide for triangulation, I gathered data from three primary sources: surveys,

face-to-face individual interviews and focus group interviews. Following some

preliminary data analysis, I invited participants to compose a brief written reflection on

their experience as participants in the study. These reflections, or analytical thoughts of

the participants in the study provided an additional source of data that also served as a

means of “member checking” (Glesne, 2006, p. 38).

Prior to data collection, I conducted my own self-examination and composed my

own, detailed description of my personal experience with the phenomenon. I did this in

an effort to “bracket” my experiences from those of the interviewees (Marshall &

Rossman, p. 113).

Survey

I administered a confidential survey to the teaching staff of the high school. As

described in Chapter 2, through the analysis of these surveys I rendered a tentative

picture of the participants’, or “native’s experience” (Fetterman, 1998, p. 41) with the

phenomenon. In addition to parameter-driven, categorical information (see appendix A),

I asked the following open-ended questions, giving participants the opportunity to

provide some initial individual interpretations (Fetterman, 1998, p. 43):

1. Do you ever hear students saying homophobic things? What are they?

2. Have you observed/overheard student use of such homophobic speech in your

classroom? Can you give specific examples?

3. If you have witnessed these kinds of things in your classroom, describe one that

was striking to you or one that happens fairly regularly.

4. During the incident described above, how did you feel and what did you think?

How would you describe your reaction and involvement?

I also gave survey respondents the opportunity to volunteer to participate in subsequent

interviews and focus group interviews. This opportunity was made available to

respondents by way of a fifth question which in essence asked, “Would you be willing to

talk to me about this?”

Participant Interviews

Given the reflective nature of the questions I posed, I conducted interviews (see

Appendix B) to elicit participant reflection upon individual memories of specific events

and actions related to the research questions. Maxwell (2005) claims that interviews are

often the only way to gain description of events that are historical in nature and as a result

represent phenomenon that the researcher has no direct opportunity for observation. This

was not completely the case here as the methodology included a surveying strategy to

uncover some pre-interview description that, in an effort to make this process as iterative

as possible, informed and shaped the interview process.

Based upon analysis of the survey responses described in the section on data

analysis that follows and I describe more extensively in chapter two, I developed a set of

questions with which I explored the participants’ experiences in greater detail. I allowed

the participants to narrate their own experiences but also probed their intent in either

responding or not responding to homophobic speech. I conducted one half of the

interviews myself, while a second interviewer conducted the others. This was intended to

control for any interviewer effects that might have resulted from either my positionality

within the school setting or my identity as a gay man. I recorded and transcribed these

interviews for purposes of analysis.

Focus Group Interviews

Following preliminary analysis of interviews and based upon emerging themes, I

constructed small groups for a follow-up group experience. Kreuger (1998) defines a

focus group as a "carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions in a defined

area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment" (p.18). Focus group

interviews (see Appendix C) served two purposes. First, these allowed me to note any

differences in how participants discussed homophobia in private versus more public

settings. Second, they allowed me to explore my interpretations of participants’ intent and

actions relative to my conceptual map, in other words, the focus group provided a means

to conduct a “member check” (Glesne, 2006, p. 38) or testing of tentative conclusions

(Marshall & Rossman, 1999). I conducted these interviews with questions that emerged

from my analysis of the individual interviews. I recorded and transcribed the interviews

for analysis.

Participant Reflections

In response to the reflexive stance I maintained throughout the process of working

with participants, and motivated by my receiving an unsolicited written reflection from a

participant, I asked all participants to share their thoughts and feelings on their experience

of participating in this study. The prompt for these reflections was an e-mail message of

thanks and a simple, open-ended invitation to share any additional thoughts with me

about the topic or the process. The e-mail responses became an important fourth piece of

data and evidence of “member checking” (Glesne, 2006, p. 38) as I suggested above.

Data Analysis

In an effort to maintain a “hand in hand” (Marshall & Rossman, 1999, p. 151)

relationship between data collection and analysis, and because in such a study it is

impossible to divorce one from the other, I described many of my initial, procedural

decisions regarding data analysis in the section above. Figure 2 illustrates the various

phases of data collection and analysis. By highlighting these decisions above, I believe I

demonstrate how the three primary data collection methods and the fourth data source

that grew out of the process were intricately related in this process of methodological and

theoretical data triangulation. These decisions also served to frame the unit of analysis

upon which the study was constructed - the participants’ narratives.

I began the data collection and analysis process with the survey instrument (see

Appendix A). My decision to design and implement this survey was based upon two

significant study-related needs that were necessary to fulfill before engaging in

subsequent phases. First, I needed to solicit study participants in a manner that would

allow me to construct the stratified purposeful and theory-based sample that the research

design called for. Second, and as I describe extensively in chapter two, I designed the

survey as a means to challenge my assumptions about the relationship between the

phenomenon and the research site. I used the survey to determine if and to what extent

the teachers in the research site had experience with the phenomenon. I transcribed all

survey responses and entered them into an excel document for the purpose of analysis.

In addition to quantifying the demographic findings of the sample of teachers who

returned the surveys, I also created a spreadsheet of potential study participants according

to their responses to the prompt, “If you are willing to talk with me more about the above,

Phase

Date(s)

Description

April 9, 2007

Survey instrument presented and

administered to entire high school faculty

(n=175).

April 9 – May 1, 2007

Preliminary analysis of survey data and

sampling for interviews.

May 1 – May 28, 2007

Continuing analysis of survey data and

development of interview protocol.

May 29 – June 11, 2007

Individual participant interviews.

On-going

Analysis of interview data (with survey data)

and development of focus group protocol.

June 18 – 20, 2007

Focus group interviews.

June 21-25, 2007

Solicitation of participant reflections.

June 2007 – February, 2008

Final analyses of all data (survey, interview,

focus group and reflective writing).

Figure 2. Phases of Data Collection and Analysis

please indicate by writing your name here.” I used this spreadsheet and my analysis of the

demographics of the whole school population to construct a sample of study participants

that best represented the overall teaching population of the school.

As I completed participant selection I also conducted a preliminary analysis of

responses to the four open-ended questions. I began by looking for emergent themes in a

variety of areas in an effort to both learn from this data and allow it to inform the

subsequent stages of data collection and analysis in which I planned to test these

emergent understandings (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). First, I catalogued, thematically

organized and quantified the frequencies of the examples of homophobic words and

phrases shared by participants. Second, I developed a matrix to represent the survey

respondents in terms of their experience or non-experience with the phenomenon of

interest and the various characteristics held by respondents. Based on the first two

questions, this step was important in terms of contextualizing how the homophobic

language construct was understood and how pervasive it was perceived to be in the

research setting. Third, I analyzed the responses to the third and fourth questions and

identified themes, coding structures and codes. The nature of the survey yielded an

analysis and set of initial findings discussed in chapter two that was tightly focused on

the research site, relevant language and the use of specific words.

Using my analysis of the survey as a starting point, I made tentative assertions

based upon my readings of this data and continued the iteratively planned data collection

and analysis process with a series of interviews. As a phenomenological study, my work

focused on uncovering and "troubling" the often hidden aspects of the spoken word

including the meanings that individuals gave such words, the socially constructed

perceptions of such meanings and the intent with which such words seemed to be used.

Because all of this was encompassed in the verbalized and layered descriptions of the

participants’ recounted interactions with and response or non-response to such instances,

the analysis required carefully constructed “listening” to the words used by the

participants. This allowed me to stay close to the participants’ recollections and related

feelings, thoughts, and actions as they related to the focus of my inquiry.

Certainly, and as implied by the conceptual framework, there was a great deal to

listen for here beyond the guiding research questions. As the framework implied, it

seemed possible that personal and professional characteristics of the participants as well

unique contextual variables might have proven to play an important role in this study.

These could not be divorced from the guiding research questions, and as I describe in

chapter three, these in fact played a significant role in the analysis.

As I suggest above, I set out to conduct deep and varied “listenings” of the data in

order to interact with and form a relationship with my participant’s spoken experience in

such a manner that this relationship might be able to direct the analytical process

(Gilligan, et al. 2003, p. 169). Gilligan, et al. (2003) describe the “Listening Guide”

method as:

A way of analyzing qualitative interviews that is best used when one’s questions

require listening to particular aspects of a person’s expression of her or his own

complex and multilayered individual experiences and the relational and cultural

contexts within which they occur. (p. 169)

The method involves researcher engagement in a series of “listenings” to interviews in an

effort to “disentangle the many themes raised” (Raider-Roth, 2005, p. 182). It is a three-

step process that includes listening for the plot or story, followed by listening for the uses

of the “I” voice and creating “I poems,” and finally listening for what is called

“contrapuntal voices,” or other layers of voice that speak directly to the questions asked

(Gilligan, et al., 2003, p. 164). As I found the content of the interviews to be so diverse

and somewhat disconnected, I liberally applied a modified version of this process in

analysis of the interviews, using it whenever the participants’ narrative represented an

intersection of the autobiographical with phenomenon-specific discourse such as it did

during the segment that followed this series of questions:

1. Can you tell me about an incident of student use of homophobic speech that is

particularly memorable for you?

2. What was this incident like for you?

3. How, if at all, did you respond to this incident? What did you hope would happen

as a result?

4. What do you think influenced your choice of response? Reflecting on that now,

would you do it any differently today?

While I did deconstruct the data as described above, I also endeavored to treat it

as a whole and frequently returned to it in this way to read it from “cover to cover” as if it

were a collection of stories. Reading the data in its entirety provided a frame that I

believe allowed me to move closer to identifying the processes or constructs that as Miles

and Huberman (1994) suggest “under gird” (p. 27) such a study. Using an approach to

thematic analysis suggested by Boyatziz (1998), I identified and worked with themes

from the data, remaining close to the participants’ voices as I endeavored to make viable

interpretations of their narratives. I followed a process of sensing and using themes as

reliably as possible, developing codes and interpreting all that I found in view of my

initial conceptual frame (Boyatziz, 1998) but I also remained open to other differently

constructed frameworks that might emerge as the themes evolved and clusters of themes

developed. Employing a thematically oriented process allowed my analysis to advance

from one that was tightly focused on language—the use of specific words—to a broader

conceptual structure in which language was nested.

Lastly, I used initial and continual analysis of the surveys throughout the process I

have detailed here. I continually returned to the survey data as I gained new

understandings of the twenty participants’ experiences. This whole process provided a

means of understanding how participants’ descriptions of their experiences evolved and

how their descriptions were constructed.

Researcher Role

As a researcher, I remained cognizant of two distinct and significant identities that

I carried with me into this study. First of all, I chose to engage in this research because as

a gay man I grew up amidst significant heteronormativity that consistently led me to feel

ashamed of my identity. My history includes not only my own personally relevant

experiences as a student but also my observations and relevant actions as an educator. I

witnessed the affects of homophobic speech upon students in schools in all of these

contexts and as a result I have remained deeply committed to envisioning and working

towards a future in which sexual minority students are not abused, teased, made fun of, or

in any way made to feel “othered.” In this sense, my work here is “education for the

other” (Kumashiro, 2002, p. 23). But as I point out in my “troubling” of the notion of

just who such speech may affect, I am also equally concerned with wanting all students to

develop a healthy understanding, acceptance of and respect for all sexualities. In this

sense then, my research may also be viewed through an “education that changes students

and society” (Kumashiro, 2002, p.23) lens. Clearly it would seem that these anti-

oppressive education practices are not mutually exclusive. I maintained an awareness of

my predilection for these (or any) approaches throughout in order to avoid any negative

research consequences.

My identity as a gay male researcher in a study of incidents of homophobic

speech brings into question issues of “reactivity” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 108). Not only did I

build in some ways to mitigate this effect, I remained acutely aware of how I may have

influenced what my participants told me. One way that I did this was by employing a

second interviewer, also known in the setting, but equally as known in the research

setting by her heterosexual identity as I was by my gay identity.

The other identity I have that I brought to this research is my history as and

current role as an educator, which is equally complex. I have always believed that I have

had a responsibility to “make the lives of children and those who share their lives in and

out of school better” (Noffke, 1999, p. 30) but I consistently reminded myself that this

belief was mine and that not all teachers share this same passion. On the other hand, as a

former teacher who knows well the challenge that teachers face when confronted with

“words that wound” (Matsuda, et. al, 1993) in the course of their work, I possessed some

amount of empathy for teachers and a defensiveness regarding the rendering that

researchers have drawn of their work. My study emerged from a place of wanting to give

teachers an opportunity to speak to that same research that depicted them as neglectful of

their responsibilities. It was my goal to invite teachers into a discourse within which prior

to this they had yet to participate.

Generalizability

Given that this study was of a single setting, it is clearly not appropriate to make

claims regarding the potential generalizability of the account that this research may yield

to other undefined contexts. However, as Maxwell (2005) suggests it is possible to make

claims of “internal generalizability” (p. 115). He claims that it is the “descriptive,

interpretative, and theoretical validity” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 115) of a study’s findings that

correspond to the study’s internal generalizability. I addressed these validity issues

throughout the study and I included such strategies that Myers (2000) claims serve to

promote these types of validity.

First of all, I maximized what was a prolonged engagement in the site. Because

this research took place within my place of employment, the need to spend considerable

time in the site in order to develop an emic perspective was negligible. I therefore had

greater opportunity to focus on making the familiar aspects of my work setting strange

(Erikson, 1986). Secondly, given that I employed three primary data collection strategies

and embraced a fourth (written reflections) that emerged in the process, triangulation was

very much a part of the methodology. Third, I included built-in “member checks”

(Glesne, 2006, p. 38) throughout in the iterative data collection and analysis process.

Finally, I established my reflexivity as a researcher in the description of my role. All of

these design decisions aided in establishing validity and corresponding “internal

generalizability” (Maxwell, 2005, p. 115).

Significance of the Study

The research on the school experiences of sexual minority students renders a

compelling picture that has not changed greatly over the years. It suggests that students

are hurting, feeling threatened and unsafe and actually harmed as a result of a

combination of important issues that need to be addressed. Homophobic speech is only

one of these, but an important one. This study introduces the voices of teachers into the

discourse on how gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students and others experience

homophobic speech in the school setting. In doing so, the study also provides a

theoretical frame for the consideration and construction of relevant professional

development. I am hopeful that it will lead to further troubling of pedagogy and

development of more “anti-oppressive” (Kumashiro, 2000, p. 25) approaches to teaching

and classroom management stances.

I hope that this study provides educational leaders and those preparing

tomorrow’s teachers and leaders an example of how they might engage teachers in a

process of troubling such truly teachable moments. In terms of this, the study highlights

how an act of leadership can help to create a context for teachers to “trouble” aspects of

classroom practice that they may in fact find “troubling.”

CHAPTER TWO

AN INTRODUCTION TO AND CONTEXTUALIZATION OF THE FINDINGS

Practitioner Research and the Act of Challenging Assumptions

Anderson and Jones (2000) suggest that “unexamined, tacit knowledge of a site

tends to be impressionistic – full of bias, prejudice, and unexamined impressions and

assumptions that need to be brought to the surface and examined” (p. 443). The authors

suggest that the possession of such knowledge presents epistemological challenges to the

conduct of research. It would seem to follow that for a study residing within a practitioner

research paradigm the scope of such challenges might be magnified, especially if left

unaddressed. As a practitioner researcher and an insider in the research site, I was quite

aware that I in fact carried significant assumptions into my study. These assumptions

were subjectively constructed through my experiences as an insider and with the many

unqualified impressions of the research site that my nearly six years of professional

experience there had led me to develop. As a researcher, my task in part was to challenge

these assumptions as I collected and analyzed the data. In this chapter I provide the reader

with what I propose to be a preface to the findings and an opportunity to more deeply

understand the assumptions and impressions with which I entered the study. My goal in

this chapter is to offer an explanation of how I came to possess these, how they informed

and shaped the manner in which I initially approached my research, and ultimately, how

the initial findings did or did not speak to them.

The most profound assumption with which I entered the study was that

Kingsley High School was just like other high schools around the United States in

terms of the quantity and quality of homophobic speech present in the school

environment. The student letter that triggered my study certainly seemed to proclaim as

much. In this letter the student asserted that the use of homophobic language in the

school setting had grown to “epidemic” proportions. I found my initial assumption

supported by this “evidence” and subsequently fueled by the work of other researchers

in this area to whom I turned, most notably the research conducted by the Gay, Lesbian,

Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

Table 5

Demographics of Student Participants in GLSEN 2005 National School Climate Survey

Sample Demographics

Percentage of

Participants

Percentage attending public schools

88.6

Percentage attending high schools

80.7

Percentage attending schools in suburban communities

54.8

Percentage living in the northeastern United States

28.5

(Kosciw & Diaz, 2006)

Given the demographic description of the student participants of the most recent

(2005) GLSEN national survey (three-quarters of whom reported hearing homophobic

remarks either often or frequently in their schools) and the self-reported characteristics of

their schools as listed in Table 5, the likelihood that this phenomenon existed to a similar

extent at Kingsley, a suburban public high school in the northeast, seemed an appropriate

assumption to make. It is an assumption however, that for the intent of this study has had

to remain somewhat unchallenged, as in the current study the participants are teachers in

the setting and not students as they were in the GLSEN work. Therefore, a true

comparison of the findings would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, with a certain amount

of resistance to the notion that students and teachers experience aspects of school climate

differently, I believe the quantitative comparative finding that I report later in this chapter

to be worthy of note. It not only seems to confirm what sexual minority students around

the country have said about the use of homophobic language in such settings, but also

suggests that in this research setting, teachers’ experiences (regardless of their sexual

orientation) may in fact very closely reflect those reported nationally by sexual minority

students.

The GLSEN data referred to above led me to surface and confront other

assumptions including those I held about the teachers at Kingsley High School. Even

though the GLSEN research findings are based upon a student perspective, I assumed the

practices of teachers at Kingsley would to a certain extent reflect the GLSEN findings in

terms of the reported frequency of teacher responses given or interventions made by

teachers in incidents involving students and homophobic speech acts. The GLSEN data

suggest that in terms of interventions, homophobic language is “largely unchallenged”

(Kosciw & Diaz, 2006, p. 17) by teachers. My assumption was that had I gathered a

group of sexual minority students together at Kingsley or been able to survey these

members of the student body, they would have suggested the same thing about such

incidents and the teachers at Kingsley. But here again, because my research purpose was

to unpack these moments from the teacher’s perspective and because I did not have

student participants in my study, this assumption has also had to remain unchallenged.

Finally, and built upon the assumptions and impressions described above (the

amount of homophobic language used by students in the setting and teachers’ lack of

response to or challenging of such speech acts), I hypothesized that the teachers in the

setting had had few, if any, opportunities for professional dialogue or professional

development in this area. In fact, because I possessed insider knowledge of the evolving

focus of professional development over time (six academic years) and since I was privy

to faculty meeting agendas throughout this period, I knew that the majority of teachers in

this setting had not had any formal opportunity to “trouble” the kinds of events I hoped to

examine with them. I was certain that no one had pressed the faculty to make this issue as

visible as it needs to be (Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992). In many ways, as I will discuss

throughout the findings, this study did just that and as such confirmed this assumption.

Homophobic Language Comes Out of the Closet: Initiating of the Discourse

Geertz (1973) states, “Every serious cultural analysis starts from a sheer

beginning and ends where it manages to get before exhausting its intellectual impulse” (p.

25). In the case of this study and for the purposes mentioned above, I initiated my

research with an attempt to “thicken” the description of the research setting so that I

might render a study-relevant depiction of the school. Knowing that I had planned to

have a smaller sample of participants whose voluntary interest in taking part in the

research had the potential to affect my results, I viewed this “casting of a wider net” as a

critical step in this process.

I conducted a written survey of the entire teaching staff (n=175), personally

introducing my research topic and the survey instrument (see Appendix A) as I addressed

the group during their regularly scheduled faculty meeting on April 9, 2007. Again, I

viewed this as a significant step in the study and in my related work in this regard, even if

for the simple fact that it made the issue “visible” (Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992). As I

brought this topic “out of the closet” with the faculty, administration and superintendent

of schools listening, I reflected upon what Glesne (2006) suggests in terms of the conduct

of research being a “political act” (p.16). Although I can’t be sure of the extent, I feel

certain that the act of introducing my study to this group of more than 175 educators and

raising the issue in this manner fostered at the very least some independent thinking and

quite possibly even some relevant discourse among faculty members. I was reminded of

that which Anderson, Herr and Nihlen (1994) suggest in terms of how practitioner

research “must challenge the sociopolitical status quo of the setting” (p. 36). As both a

researcher and an insider in the research site, this is exactly how this felt.

As a result of this “political act” it was a challenge for me to divorce my role as a

researcher from the role I already had within the organization. At the same time it seemed

impossible for teachers to do the same. The perception of my role as the "arts supervisor"

seemed to change as a result of my “act.” I was suddenly consulted on a variety of related

topics, asked to give a presentation to administrators about my research and requested to

develop and facilitate additional workshops for teachers. But beyond these very visible

ways, there was something else that changed too. The duality of the roles described above

and my identity as an “out ” gay man seemed to position me as a living reminder of my

research topic (or at least made me feel that way). As a result, I perceived that my presence

in the school seemed to carry new meaning.

I had two study-related goals in administering the survey. The first, as I have

stated, was to gather data with which I hoped to render a more vivid and fully

contextualized picture of the research site and the findings. In essence, since my study

centered on the reported experiences of twenty participants drawn from the population, I

wanted to be able to tell their stories with some sense of the study-related background of

the setting and the reported experiences of the others with whom they share that setting.

As such, the analysis of these data provided a link to and informed subsequent phases of

data collection and analysis. The presence of anonymously gathered and population-

derived data in the study also helped to control for threats to validity of the findings based

upon any insider bias I may have possessed.

The other goal I had in mind as I conducted the survey was much more pragmatic

as I administered the survey to solicit potential study participants with a design goal of

identifying a sample of twenty teachers. I hoped that I would be able to identify a sample

reflective of certain characteristics of the total teaching population of the school. In total,

twenty-nine teachers offered to speak with me further in individual interviews and focus

group activities. From these twenty-nine, I selected a sample of twenty, a description of

which I provide in chapter three.

As I describe below, I do believe that the data I gathered from the survey infused

deeper, more contextualized description of the research setting into my study. This

simple, open-ended survey, with just four questions, provided several opportunities to me

as a researcher. First, I was able uncover how teachers defined homophobic speech and

just how present the student use of it was to the teachers in the setting. Second, I was able

to begin to conceptualize how these same teachers retrospectively understood those

moments in which students used such speech. Third, I was able to develop a sense of

whether or not these teachers had in fact responded to these moments and the type of

responses that they reported giving. These initial, tentative analyses informed all

subsequent data collection and further analysis and allowed me, as I describe above, to

continue to examine the tacit impressions and assumptions I had made about the research

site.

I received a response from 88 teachers, a little more than half of those to whom

the survey was distributed (n=175). I first conducted an analysis of how the returns

reflected the overall teaching population of the school in terms of certain descriptive

information (gender, highest degree held, total years teaching experience, years teaching

in the setting, and content area teaching assignment). The data are displayed in Tables 6-

10.

The sample that resulted from the return of surveys seemed to closely represent

the population from which it was drawn with three minor exceptions, all of which relate

to years of teaching experience. The percentage of teachers with over 21 years of

experience in the actual school population (20%) is greater than the percentage of the

same in the survey sample (12.5%). The same pattern is true of teachers with over 21

years of total teaching experience (regardless of whether it was in this school) and for

Table 6

Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Gender

School Population

Survey Sample

Gender

Number

Teachers

Percentage of

Faculty

Number of

Surveys

Returned

Percentage of

Survey Sample

Male

34 %

34.1%

Female

115

65.7%

64.8%

Unspecified

N/A

1.1%

Table 7

Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Highest Degree Held

School Population

Survey Sample

Degree Held

Number

teachers

Percentage of

Faculty

Number of

Surveys

Returned

Percentage of

Survey Sample

BS/BA

42.2%

48.6%

Master’s

55.4%

51.5%

Ph.D.

.022%

50%

Table 8

Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Total Years of

Teaching Experience

School Population

Survey Sample

Total Years of

Teaching

Experience

Number of

Teachers

Percentage of

Faculty

Number of

Surveys

Returned

Percentage

of Survey

Sample

0-5

22.2%

21.5%

6-10

22.2%

14.7%

11-20

25.7%

37.5%

21+

29.7%

26%

No Data

N/A

Table 9

Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Total Years of

Teaching Experience in this School

School Population

Survey Sample

Total Years

Teaching in

School

Number of

Teachers

Percentage of

Faculty

Number of

Surveys

Returned

Percentage

of Survey

Sample

0-5

38.8%

44.4%

6-10

22.8%

19.3%

11-20

17%

19.3%

21+

20%

12.5%

No Data

N/A

teachers with 6-10 years of total experience. Following from these discrepancies, those

with 11-20 years of total experience make up a larger percentage of the survey sample

(37.5%) than the population this group represents (25.7%).

Given that I used this data primarily to inform subsequent phases of data

collection and to provide more study-related contextual description of the setting, I do not

believe these slight differences had any significant effect upon the overall findings. The

findings discussed in the following chapter further substantiate this claim.

Table 10

Comparison of Survey Respondents to School Population by Content Area

Teaching Assignment

School Population

Survey Sample

Department

Number of

Teachers

Percentage

of School

Faculty

Number of

Surveys

Returned

Percentage

of Survey

Sample

Electives

18.85%

19.3%

English

12%

11.4%

Health

4.5

2.5%

4.5

5.1%

Phys. Ed.

11.5

6.5%

7.5

8.5%

Math

11.4%

9.1%

Science

14.2%

13.6%

Social Studies

10.2%

Special Ed.

12.5%

World Language

11.4%

10.2%

Unspecified

N/A

2.3%

TOTAL

175

100

A Homophobic Language Primer Emerges

Given that my entry into this study was based upon local anecdotal evidence

suggesting that the use of homophobic language by students in the research setting was

problematic and how I set this against a national backdrop of studies of sexual minority

youth experiences in schools indicating a more pervasive problem, my first task was to

try to understand from a teacher perspective just how this group perceived the situation in

this setting.

Analysis of the collective responses of survey participants to the four open-ended

questions that I posed yielded an overwhelming array and accounting of homophobic

words and phrases with which teachers had gained in-school and student-generated

familiarity (Figure 3). Their responses, specifically to the first two survey questions, offer

an indication of the local homophobic speech situation at Kingsley High School. The

responses also attest to the knowledge of the current student lexicon possessed by the

faculty.

Even though the resulting “sound of homophobia” is, as the data suggest,

composed of a mixture of many words and phrases, what one “hears” as one “listens” to

the words that emerged from the experiences of these teachers is much less polyphonic

than one might expect. Perhaps it is the ostinato of repeated words (“gay,” “fag,”

“faggot”) that renders this “sound effect.” Or maybe it is the gendered voice that teachers

refer to as they identify those they believe to be the “culprits” as well as those to whom

they perceive these culprits most often focusing such speech acts upon. This seems

significant in two distinct ways.

First and beyond the sheer breadth of the words and phrases with which teachers

report familiarity, the imbalance between those that are traditionally derived from male-

orientated homophobia versus those more commonly thought of as referring to females is

worthy of note. Of the 146 total citations of words and phrases in the collection, only 10

of these are words that are traditionally thought of as female-oriented or female-targeted

pejoratives. Even that which would seem to be the most common female-oriented

pejorative, “dyke,” is cited only four times in the survey responses.

Second, teachers’ depictions of those they consider to be the predominant users of

such language in the school is also quite gendered. Again, with the exception of one

respondent relating a story of a girl being called a “lesbo” (by a boy), all gender

references (including pronouns), made or cited by teachers in the survey responses, are

male-oriented. These themes suggest that either homophobic speech actually is or is

perceived as a “male-only” issue in this setting or that teachers conceive of it as such,

Word or Phrase

Number of

Citations

Implied use

That’s gay/that's so gay/[something] is gay/it's

gay/this is gay

That's queer

Pejorative slang directed to

some thing, idea, concept or

behavior

Fag/Faggot

Gay

Dyke

Homo

Fudgepacker

Lesbo

Queer

Bitchy dykes

Butt pirate

Faggy

Fairy

Flamer

Fruitcake

Lesbian

Non-contextualized

pejorative slang

I'm not afraid of them I just hate them

Anti-gay Sentiment

[So and so] is gay He's gay/He is so gay/He or

she is gay

[So and so] is a fag/he is a faggot/he’s a fag

[So and so] is a homo/he’s a homo

He has a girlie voice

He's a maricon

He's a queer

Is he gay?

She goes both ways

She's a Lesbo

Third person put-down

Don’t be a faggot

Don’t be gay

Don't be so gay

Stop being a fag

You're gay/You are so gay

You're a fag/You're such a fag

You homo!

They are queer

What are you, a homo?

You are a faggot

You faggot

You must be gay

Second person put-down

Total cites

146

Figure 3. Homophobic Words and Phrases Cited in Survey Responses

applying some specific definition to both their thinking and their experiences in terms of

students and homophobic speech. In regards to the former, there is literature (Stoudt,

2006) that suggests that homophobic language use is pervasive in the hegemonic

practices of male youth. On the other hand, the pervasive nature of this gendering in this

instance may be a result of the construct of “homophobia” and how within such a setting

the term and its’ derivatives such as “homophobic” may be “read” as pertaining to “gay

men.” Furthermore, since I administered the survey myself, my identity as a gay male

provided a cognitive structure for the “troubling” in which I engaged the community that

afternoon. Certainly the data is inconclusive as to a plausible explanation for why this

“gendering” of the terminology emerged.

In any case, in response to “Do you ever hear students saying homophobic

things?” 80% of survey respondents (n=88) reported that they had indeed heard such

language from students in the school. This certainly seems significant. Unlike the

GLSEN survey instrument, the survey used here did not ask participants to indicate the

frequency with which they had overheard such language, as the intent was simply to

ascertain whether such language was indeed something that teachers had noticed in the

general “atmosphere” of the school. Still, some respondents did refer to the frequency of

such aural experiences in their responses, either confirming or disconfirming the

regularity of their experience. This is interesting in terms of how it differs from the

responses to a similar question that placed the locus of the inquiry about homophobic

speech specifically inside the respondent’s classroom. I discuss this finding below.

Overwhelmingly, the words most commonly cited by survey respondents were

“gay,” “fag” and “faggot.” Individual responses to the survey question, “what are the

things you have heard them say?” ranged from simple lists of terms such as “homo,

faggot, fag, dike [sic], fudgepacker, butt pirate,” all provided by just one science teacher,

to more detailed and contextualized responses. With the thicker description and

contextualization, I was able to develop a coding structure, the details of which I describe

in a subsequent section of this chapter (see p. 71). Of the participants who wrote

responses that were more than just listing of terms or phrases, some of these simply

provided more context, such as the math teacher who indicated that “a student may

flippantly say ‘so and so is a homo’,” while others provided suggestions of their own

interpretation of the speech as did a first year elective area teacher who wrote, “ students

call each other ‘fags’ or ‘gay’ when trying to insult one another.” The latter of these two

statements (and others like it) indicate not only the meaning teachers give to such

language, but also provides an indication of the teacher’s perception of student intent -- a

concept that, as the study findings suggests, plays a fairly large role in how a teacher

chooses to respond.

Echoes of Other Voices

While the survey responses suggest some peculiarities in terms of teachers’

thoughts about and experiences with homophobic language, such as the gendered nature

of it in this context, the analysis of the responses to the survey does confirm that from the

teachers’ perspective, this kind of language exists in the aural environment of the school

setting.

What is most interesting in light of my analysis of these responses is how the

percentage of teachers reporting such language use compares with what the GLSEN

researchers’ most recent (2005) national study of high school students who self-identify

themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual discovered in the analysis of student responses to

a similar question (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). Ninety-one percent of these students reported

hearing a variety of homophobic remarks in their schools with 75% stating that they did

so either frequently or often (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006, p. 14). Again, as the data in Table

11 indicates, in the current study 81 % of teachers reported hearing students saying

“homophobic things” which seems to affirm my assumption about Kingsley being similar

Table 11

Percentage of Teachers Reporting Experience with Phenomenon

Teacher Experience

Percentage

of Teachers

Teachers reporting hearing students saying homophobic things

81%

Teachers reporting hearing students saying homophobic things

in their classrooms

68%

Teachers sharing a striking or regularly occurring example of

homophobic speech in their classrooms

62%

to other high schools, albeit from a different interest group’s perspective. At the very

least, it suggests that teachers and students may have very similar experiences with

language use and related school climate.

The Muzzling Effect of the Classroom Door

In essence, I posed the question, “Do you ever hear students saying homophobic

things,” twice in the survey but with the second iteration I placed the locus of the query

within the teachers’ classrooms. In constructing the survey in this manner, I assumed that

the classroom was where teachers would be most likely to engage with such speech acts

and that their memories of these instances would be more readily available for their recall

and reporting. The juxtaposition of these two similarly worded questions and the

comparison of the responses that they were given gave me the opportunity to begin to

understand how teachers “talked” about homophobic language and student use of it in

general terms, as well as how they “talked” about their specific experiences as witnesses

of it, and how and to what extent they made meaning of all of this.

When considering their individual classrooms, the number of teachers reporting

incidents of homophobic speech decreased slightly from the number reporting as much

when given less specifics in terms of a setting (see Table 11). Sixty-eight percent of

respondents stated that they had indeed observed or overheard that which they consider

homophobic speech acts perpetrated by students in their classrooms. The percentage

decrease (-12%) was not surprising in light of research that suggests that the majority of

such speech acts occur in “less structured” locations in schools such as in the hallways

and cafeterias, places in which teachers have less opportunity to serve as witnesses of

such speech acts (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). The experiences of the teacher-respondents

reported here simply seem to reflect these other research findings. While this is a

substantial finding in and of itself, the analysis of the responses to this question proved

equally relevant to the study in other ways.

First, the language with which participants responded to this question was

markedly different from the language they used in responses to the less contextualized

question that preceded it. As stated above, when not specifically situated, the respondents

were much more forthcoming with particular examples of student homophobic speech

use. But when reporting on the activities of their classrooms, teachers provided much less

description. In response to the questions, “Have you observed/overheard student use of

homophobic speech in your classroom?” and “Can you give specific examples?” survey

respondents most often indicated that they had simply heard words or phrases similar to

those they had already written in their response to the previous question and noted as

much with the expressions “see previous” or “same as above.”

Such responses as these seemed to either indicate a similarity in terms of language

used in the classroom setting and the rest of the school or something more profound and

connected to the teacher’s in-classroom experience. Looking at the collection of

responses to this question, very few of those who provided a response that differed from

their response to the previous questions did so from the perspective of describing the

experience of overhearing words and phrases, but instead answered with language

focused on the students as the sole actors. In other words, the respondents did not frame

their answers with “let me tell you what I’ve heard” but instead chose a “let me tell you

what students say” frame. For example, without referencing anything specific in terms of

language, one science teacher simply wrote “They seem to use it as slang more so then

meaning what they say,” in response to the question.

I wondered if the collection of vague responses to this question might have

suggested some reluctance on the part of the teachers to divulge too much information or

the kind of information that might have suggested negligence on their part in terms of

dealing with it. While there are other plausible explanations such as the respondents

simply not wanting to go to the trouble of repeating themselves or their perception that

the kind of language they had heard in their classrooms was simply non-homophobic

“slang,” it is possible that by answering the way they did they were attempting to avoid

the “spotlight.” Besides the manner in which they framed these responses and the overall

difference between these responses and those given to the previous questions, it seemed

strange that teachers would avoid direct discussions of this context since teachers

generally see themselves as bearing more responsibility for their classroom response to

these types of incidents than they do for those that may occur in the hallways or other

locations. At this point this was simply a hypothesis on my part, but one that was later

suggested by several participants in the interview phases of the study.

In general, the responses to this survey question suggest a lack of connection to

these in-class moments, in both emotional response of the teachers and in the specificity

of what really happened. “Random boys making ‘gay’ comments – not specifically in

reference to any individual in the room,” is what one English teacher wrote in her

response, clearly down-playing the significance of the moment by imposing her own

conceptualization of the definition of such speech. A response such as this suggests, as

others have (Schrader and Wells, 2004), that phrases such as “that’s so gay” do not

necessarily constitute homophobic speech.

Many seem to believe that the homophobic quality of speech or a speech act is

dependent upon the presence of an intended target on the part of the speaker. “It's not

directed to a homosexual student,” a Physical Education teacher wrote about the language

she overheard. “It is to their friends to call them gay,” she added. As a result, by

eliminating the concept of a “victim” or “target” these teachers seem to remove the

homophobic quality of the words and phrases used by students. This type of

contextualization is less frequent in the non-localized responses, which seems to support

the claim that teachers answered this question in either a very careful, self-preserving

manner and/or in such a way as to relieve students of the responsibility for their verbal

actions.

One teacher offered another explanation for the difference in responses to these

two questions. Teaching in both a health classroom and the gymnasium setting as part of

his dual health and physical education assignment, this teacher provides a good

summation of how he understands his experience. In doing so, he seems to suggest

another reason why teachers might be less likely to report homophobic language when

given the location of the classroom. This teacher suggests that the classroom door acts as

a gatekeeper of student language use. To the questions cited above, this teacher wrote,

“In the classroom setting not as much, no specific examples come to mind.” “The locker

rooms, hallways, and Phys. Ed. classes seem to trigger more of this language,” he added.

This teacher and others who in their response to the first question made similar comments

about the less structured locations in the school seem to suggest that the classroom door

counteracts or controls the homophobic speech impulse that students exhibit in those

other areas of the school.

Another distinct difference between the responses to the previous survey question

and this more “situated” version of it is that fewer responses to this question indicated the

frequency with which teachers had experienced homophobic speech incidents. This

seems to indicate as stated above, that teachers were either reluctant to offer specifics

about that which happens “behind closed doors” or that they perceive a difference

between the two. A third possibility, different understandings of the term “homophobic

speech,” is suggested by the data as well. The following juxtaposition of responses to

these two uniquely contextualized questions is quite striking in how the addition of a

specific locale and stated perception of frequency changes the tone of the response. To

the first question one teacher wrote, “Hardly a day passes where I do not hear a student

equate the words ‘gay’ or ‘faggot’ with a lack of intelligence” while in response to the

second question another teacher wrote, “Just the catchphrase ‘that's so gay’ referring to

anything they don’t like.” The difference in tone seems to suggest a difference in how

the two teachers view these comments and the incidents from which they were drawn.

The first teacher’s comments seem to suggest frustration while the second seems less

personally (or professionally) bothered by the language or simply has a disregard for the

phrase ‘that’s so gay’ as having any connection to homophobia. One can imagine that at

the very least these two teacher’s responses would be differently motivated. I wondered if

the differences in language use and specificity in response to these questions might have

had to do with how the teacher may have responded at the time, and made a note to

follow up on this in subsequent phases of data collection.

Finally, the third survey question asked those who indicated that they had

possessed relevant classroom experiences to share one such experience that they found

either “particularly striking” or one that “happened regularly.” I hoped that responses to

this question might open a window to understanding how teachers both define and

understand these moments. The responses to this question added still more words and

understandings of word usage to the glossary that continued to emerge as I analyzed the

survey results. Of the 88 respondents, only 55 of them shared something that they

considered relevant to the question, with 33 of them indicating the most frequently

experienced or striking moments were those in which a student speaker used the phrase

“that’s so gay” or “you’re gay/you’re a fag” without connoting anything to do with the

literal sexuality of the subject of the statement.

What is also interesting to note in this instance is that here again very few

respondents chose to depict the role they played in the “stories” they shared in their

responses. This is quite similar to that which is referenced above in terms of responses to

the “in classroom” question. Of the 55 “striking” or “regularly happening” experiences

reported, only 12 of those respondents depicted themselves as playing an active role in

the moment. I believe that this too supports the claim that teachers were reluctant to share

anything related to their response to such speech acts. As a result, it also suggests that the

majority of teachers position themselves in such situations as “observers” rather than

“participants” as I describe in the following section.

Participants or Observers: Teachers and Homophobic Speech Acts

As I have stated, my primary goal in administering the survey to the entire faculty

was to “take a read” of the group in order to determine the extent to which the issue I had

set out to explore existed in the lived experiences of the teachers working in the setting.

What I learned from initiating the discourse via this survey proved to be much more than

I had planned. Analysis of the survey results not only revealed an overall sense of the

extent to which teachers perceive homophobic speech to exist in the environment, but

also suggested that faculty members possess quite diverse experiences with,

understanding of and feelings about the presence of such language in their school.

Finally, the data also suggest that faculty possess different perceptions of their role in

responding to homophobic speech in various unstructured school settings and in their

individual classrooms.

In general, the survey responses suggest the existence of two distinct stances that

teachers seem to take in regards to such occurrences. I describe these as “participant” and

“observer.” Those who are “participants” convey in their responses an understanding of

their role and describe (albeit with brevity given the nature of the survey tool), how they

operationalize this role in the responses they give to such speech acts. “I always use this

as a time to teach socially as well as scientifically,” is how one science teacher described

her participation, while a math teacher indicated how her responses are not unlike those

she gives to other language. “I reacted just as I would have if it was the ‘f’ word,” she

indicated. Clearly, while the classroom images these two responses suggest are quite

different, they both identify the teacher as an active participant in the situation.

“Observers,” on the other hand, use language in their survey responses that

suggests a less active stance during such moments. The following comment, written by

an elective area teacher in response to the survey question that asked participants to

describe how they felt or what they thought during incidents involving homophobic

speech typifies the kinds of reflections of those who position themselves as “observers”:

I feel sorry for them that they feel so unaccepting of others who are unlike

them, and that they can't picture how similar they are to people they

believe are so very different. Their ignorance makes me angry.

This teacher, while expressing real concern over student use of such language and the

underlying intolerance she believes it reveals, clearly distances herself from the situation.

That distancing seems to be a common practice of those I describe as “observers.”

The observer stance is also evident in one physical education teacher’s response. “In my

opinion what happens in private conversations that I overhear most of the time I let it

go,” he said. Similar responses, which indicate some action in terms of what the teacher

did or said, still suggest an “observer” role. “I don’t like to hear comments like this and

tell students that I don’t want to hear them,” is how a World Languages teacher described

her response. This teacher distances herself not from the situation, but from her role that

she as a teacher may play in such situations. She frames her response in a more personal

than professional manner.

While I did not pose direct questions on the survey about the kinds of responses

teachers give when homophobic language is uttered by students in their classrooms,

many of them did provide examples in their descriptions of the incidents they chose to

share in response to questions three and four while others, the “observers” indicated a

non-response in how they framed the context of the situation.

Those who did identify some attempt to actively respond, provide a glimpse of

teacher responses, the most common of these falling into direct, one-way communication

category. Variations of the phrase “I tell them [the students]” are cited throughout the

responses. For example, a World Languages teacher described her reaction in the

following written response. “I react simply by telling everyone that this type of behavior

will not be tolerated,” she indicated. “I Tell,” “I ask [them to stop],” “I address [it]” and

“I explain” and others like these indicate a protocol in which the teacher speaks and the

students listen. In most of these instances, it is the teacher’s intent to curtail the use of

such language in their classroom and that is all.

Two-way, teacher-student communication is indicated in only four instances, and

class discussion is referenced in just six responses. For example, one art teacher describes

how she typically initiates discussion about the term used and explains how it affects

others. Of course, the situations are overly simplified in this data set since it was drawn

from brief open-ended survey responses. Even so, this analysis informed each subsequent

phase of data collection and analysis, resulting in a specific sequence of questions

regarding participant’ hopes in terms of the outcome of their responses.

How Do Teachers Describe Homophobic Speech?

As the data analysis presented in Figure 3 (p.60) suggests, the overall analysis of

responses to the survey questions suggests that teachers in this setting hear a wide variety

of homophobic words and phrases and uses of these in the school, and to a lesser extent,

in their classrooms. Exactly how students use the terms seems to be a factor teachers

consider as they identify speech that they perceive as having a homophobic quality. From

the survey data, four language use themes emerged. Teachers identified that students use

words as:

1. Pejorative slang terms that are often applied to some person, thing, idea,

concept or behavior (as in “that is so gay”)

2. Third person put-downs (as in “he’s a homo”)

3. Direct put-downs (as in “don’t be a faggot” or “you’re such a fag”)

4. Expressions of anti-gay feelings

While the first two questions of the survey did not ask respondents to

contextualize the language that they had overheard, many chose to frame how the speaker

had used the language. As I read through the responses to the first question, “Do you ever

hear students saying homophobic things? What are the things you have heard them say?”

I was most interested in the diversity of thought regarding that which one might designate

as homophobic speech. While many simply jotted down words, some indicated factors

that indicate to them whether the speech moment was in fact a homophobic one. Some

seemed to perceive that it was intent of the speaker or presence of a targeted victim that

served as the determining factor in whether or not certain language possessed a

homophobic “quality.” Such is the case in the writing of one social studies teacher who

suggested, “It is not hurtful or mean-spirited,” or the math teacher who claimed, “I’ve

never had a direct purposeful attack on a student that I’m aware of.” Still others seem to

see such language as taking on new meanings as in the pervasive phrase “that’s so gay.”

One teacher stated that students equate the words "gay" or "faggot" with a lack of

intelligence.

One of the major findings discussed in previous sections of this chapter and in the

major findings of the study draws its roots to this very preliminary finding that in

“troubling” these moments teachers tend to focus on speaker and intended target (if any)

and fail to include all those who exist within the classroom at the time as an audience. I

discuss this “shadows” finding further in chapter three.

Emergent Emotions

Finally, and quite compelling, is the spectrum of emotional responses such

moments as these evoke for teachers. I asked teachers to indicate how they felt during

such incidents. Several expressed feelings of surprise or shock at the moment or at the

student speaker, while others who had witnessed actual speech acts that targeted an

individual expressed feelings of empathy for the apparent victim. For example, one

elective area teacher shared, “I felt upset for the students being targeted.”

Others seemed to have experienced more personal and visceral emotions such as

anger or distress. “I was furious,” an English teacher stated. “Students like to tease one

another -- fine, I get that -- but race and sexual orientation are off limits,” she added.

With a different tone, a science teacher indicated that she “was disappointed, but not

surprised,” while “I felt disgusted and appalled by the ignorance,” is how an art teacher

framed her response. Finally, and in a more complex manner, a social studies teacher

expressed layers of frustration, both in the moment as well as in her future thinking about

the limited impact she sees herself and her approach having on students:

I feel frustrated because it [the aforementioned words] seems to be

something so easy for people to say without thinking as the words are used

so carelessly. When students are called out they are apologetic because

they are aware that they are inappropriate but it's questionable if their

attitudes and use of the words will change.

The most frequently cited feelings are listed in Figure 4. It is interesting to note

that even those who did not indicate a specific memorable or frequently occurring

incident still described their feelings and added to the overall spectrum of feelings that

are experienced by this group as they are confronted with such speech acts.

For the “victim”

About the situation

At, by, because of,

in, or toward the

speaker

“Not…”

embarrassed

badly/bad

saddened

sorry

pained

concerned

anxious

fearful

shocked (2)

uncomfortable (3)

upset/very upset (5)

angry/angered (5)

annoyed (2)

appalled

bothered

disappointed

disgusted (2)

distressed

frustrated (3)

furious

offended

surprised (4)

…personally offended

…surprised

…uncomfortable

(#) indicates multiple citations of the word in the data set.

Figure 4. Survey Respondents’ Feelings About Homophobic Speech Moments

Summary of Survey Findings

The survey phase of the study offered an opportunity to examine and challenge

the assumptions that I carried with me into the research setting. As identified in this

chapter, what emerged through the process of thematic analysis were several significant

findings that informed subsequent phases of data collection and analysis. Included in

these findings are:

1. Two important contextualizing statistics that reflect statistics from parallel

GLSEN studies focused on student participants:

a. 81% of survey respondents reported hearing students saying

“homophobic things.”

b. 68% of survey respondents reported hearing students saying

“homophobic things” in their classrooms.

2. An understanding that the homophobic language used by students (as reported

by respondents) suggests that such language is gendered with a prevalence of

male-oriented pejoratives used by male actors as they target male “victims.”

3. A tentative framework for understanding the various ways teachers in the

setting identify homophobic language and their students’ use of it. The four

categories include student use of homophobic language as:

a. Pejorative slang terms often applied to some person, thing, idea,

concept or behavior (as in “that is so gay”).

b. Third person put-downs (as in “he’s a homo”).

c. Direct put-downs (as in “don’t be a faggot” or “you’re such a fag”).

d. Expressions of anti-gay feelings.

4. A tentative framework for conceptualizing the “troubling” nature of these

moments from the perspective of classroom teachers with teachers’ emotional

responses to these moments falling into one of four categories, including

feelings:

a. For the victim (“embarrassed,” “bad,” “saddened”).

b. About the situation (“anxious,” “fearful,” “uncomfortable”).

c. At, by, because of, in or toward the speaker (“angry,” “appalled,”

“disappointed,” “frustrated,” “offended”).

d. “Not…” (“surprised,” “personally offended,” “uncomfortable”).

5. An understanding that in their retelling of relevant stories, some teachers tend

to position themselves as observers while others place themselves in the

stories as participants.

6. A difference in responses to two versions of the same survey question asking

teachers to indicate whether they had ever heard students “saying homophobic

things” (one contextualized to the respondent’s classroom and the other more

open-ended). The differences indicating either a:

a. Reluctance on the part of the respondents to offer specifics about that

which happens “behind closed doors.”

b. Difference in the use of homophobic language in various spaces in the

school.

c. Lack of shared understanding of the term “homophobic speech.”

As will become evident as my discussion of the study findings unfolds, these survey

results provided a starting point for an emerging conceptual framework for analysis. This

framework was at first tightly focused on language and the use of specific words.

Through an iterative process and the subsequent phases of data collection and analysis,

this tentative framework led to an expansion and a broader conceptual structure in which

language is a nested feature within a process that leads teachers to choose to enact

responses to such language. In the following chapter I describe my collaboration with the

twenty participants who joined me in this study and how, through my analysis of their

narratives this structure continued to emerge.

CHAPTER THREE

UNPACKING THE HOMOPHOBIC SPEECH MOMENT

Introduction to the Findings

My purpose in conducting this study was to gain an understanding of how

teachers describe their experiences as observers of student-generated homophobic speech

and how, if at all, they report responding to such speech when it enters the aural

environment of the classroom. In one sense this is simply a study of words and their

meanings. In another sense, and as the findings that emerged from the data indicate, it is a

complicated study of a retrospectively described phenomenon in which words play a

pervasive role. After all, it is words that serve to initiate ones’ experience with the

phenomenon and words that provide the means through which one might describe such

experiences. In this sense then, this is a study of how words are used, heard, thought

about, interpreted, given power, responded to, acted upon or ignored, as well as recalled,

reflected upon and shaped into narratives that the participants shared. It is these various

word-related actions and reactions that make up the thematic core of what emerged from

the data and it is an examination of the participants’ narratives that indicate that while not

originally intended as such, this study served as a self-selected intervention for some of

the participants. In this chapter I describe the relevant themes and how they do or do not

intersect with one another in the co-constructed narratives of the participants’ lived

experiences and their personal concerns for changing their practice as it relates to future

experiences.

In the previous chapter, I described my analysis of the first phase of the study, the

results of which I believe form a “prequel” to the overall study findings. As I made sense

of these initial findings, I quickly realized that the possibility of exhausting the

“intellectual impulse” (Geertz, 1973, p. 25) that had fueled my inquiry was quite far from

becoming a reality. Instead, in addition to providing further contextualization of the

setting, my analysis seemed to invite deeper exploration of classroom homophobic

speech acts from the perspectives of the teachers in the research setting. Fortunately, a

diverse group of survey respondents granted permission for me to delve more deeply into

their experiences and learn more about that, which based upon our conversations, I came

to appreciate as privileged information. As one second year teacher suggested, “the fact

of the matter is that teaching is often a solitary practice,” and for many of the study

participants this seemed to be the first time that they had engaged in professional

conversations focused on this topic. In and of itself, working with teachers to disrupt the

silence about homophobic speech was a worthwhile outcome of the study. In this way,

the study inadvertently became an intervention in the research setting.

Twenty-nine teachers granted the opportunity for me to more deeply learn about

their experiences in their classrooms. Using a stratified purposeful and theory-based

sampling procedure, I selected twenty individuals with whom I continued to explore

experiences with the phenomenon. In this chapter I expand upon and further explicate the

prequel findings with the results of the subsequent phases of data collection and the

process of thematic analysis in which I engaged. In doing so, I identify and describe the

themes that emerged from the data that the participants and I phenomenologically “co-

authored” (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 35) as together we unpacked their experiences

with classroom-based homophobic speech acts and explored their perspectives on these

experiences.

“Co-authoring” Data

Each participant took part in one in-depth face-to-face interview, half of which I

conducted and half a colleague of mine conducted. At the end of each interview, the

participant was invited to take part in one of two focus group interviews and despite some

individual scheduling constraints, all but three participants were able to take part in these

sessions. I conducted both of the focus groups myself. Based upon the unsolicited written

reflection I received from one of the participants, as I thanked the other participants I

invited them to submit a short written reflection about their experience of participating in

the study. Of the 18 focus group participants, eight submitted reflections to me via

electronic mail. The transcripts from each phase of data collection (interviews, focus

group interviews and reflections) along with the survey data set, my own analytical

memos, and to a certain extent, the prequel findings described in the previous chapter,

comprise the data with which I conducted my analyses.

As planned, I paid close attention to the iterative nature of the study design and

allowed each endeavor to inform the next. My initial analysis of the survey data

suggested that when confronted with homophobic speech in their classrooms, some

teachers described themselves as participants and respondents to such speech while

others depicted themselves in less active, observer roles. As a constructivist, and drawing

upon this initial finding, I hypothesized that in order to understand how these stances

were constructed and/or opted for, it was necessary to identify how, as they experienced

them, teachers understood moments marked by homophobic speech in broader terms. As

such, it seemed necessary to deconstruct and examine the individual study-related

perspectives of the teacher-participants, including each participant’s eyewitness

accounting of relevant moments in their past practice, descriptions of any related role

they saw themselves playing in these moments, and their overall understanding of them. I

believed that through such a process, patterns and emergent themes in the data would

reveal themselves.

While I clearly possessed my own theories, biases and assumptions as I described

in the previous chapter, I kept these far removed from the process of gathering and

examining the data. Instead, I remained as open as possible to the story that the data

would eventually enable me to tell. The remainder of this chapter presents a portion of

that story as I identify and describe the themes that emerged from the data.

I begin the story of the findings with an introduction of the study participants

themselves. After all, it is from an analysis of their stories that the findings of the study

emerged. As such (and as the data suggest), it is clear that the narratives of the

participants’ personal and professional lives are critical parts of the larger “story.”

Influenced to a degree by these experiences, that which the participant’s shared about

their lives certainly seemed to inform the stance that they described taking in their

classrooms, especially as it related to homophobic speech acts.

As a part of their life histories, the participants’ in-classroom experience with the

phenomenon also seemed to be an influencing factor in their decisions to take part in the

study. Based on what appears to be some collective self-doubt in terms of knowing how

one “ought to” respond in such instances, many participants seemed to participate in the

study with hopes of learning “the right way” to respond. As one participant wrote in a

reflection that followed the focus group phase of the study:

It helped me consider different reactions to students' comments than I had

previously thought of. There doesn't seem to be one "right" way and reactions

span a wide range from initial ignoring to personal confrontation to embracing the

whole class in a purposeful discussion

As the findings demonstrate, the participants’ narratives of their experiences both

within and outside the realm of teaching map onto other significant themes that emerged

from the data. These themes include the multiplicity of reported functions or roles that

participants perceive potential and/or enacted responses possessing or playing, the extent

to which participants include the “at large” population of the classroom in depictions of

these moments, and the disconnect that seems to exist between the participants’

understanding of homophobic language and how they identify and describe homophobic

speech acts.

The manner in which these various themes emerged from the participants’

narratives is theoretically suggestive of a cognitive process that lies within a frame of

other influencing factors operating beneath the cognitive level. Together with the

cognitive aspects all of these combine into the construction of a participant’s response.

Each of these themes and the resulting theoretical process is described within this

chapter.

The Participants: “Troubled” Members of the Faculty?

Given that the participants’ continued engagement in the study was by design

based upon whether or not each individual offered to remain involved, that which

motivated these teachers to contribute to the study in this way seems worthy of note and

relevant to the findings as I have suggested. In this section I describe the various

characteristics of the individuals that made up the group of study participants. Included in

this description is that which emerged from my analysis of what these participants

suggested had compelled them to volunteer for the study.

Characteristics of the Study Sample

In terms of the research design discussed in chapter one, I was fortunate to have

more than enough survey respondents volunteer to take part in the study as designed.

Table 12 illustrates the number of teachers from the survey sample who volunteered to

participate in the subsequent phases of the study while Tables 13-17 provide additional

descriptive data about the individuals, who as a result of a stratified purposeful and

theory-based sampling procedure, were selected to engage in the post-survey phases.

These Tables illustrate how the participants reflect the larger school population of

teachers from which they were drawn.

Table 12

Survey Respondents Willing to be Interviewed

Response

Number

Percentage of Respondents

67.1%

Yes

32.9%

Even though less than half of the survey respondents (32.9%) offered to take part

in the subsequent phases of the study, I was still able to construct a sample that reflected

the overall population of teachers in the research setting. One minor difference between

the study sample and the overall teaching population in the research site is found in the

ratio of females to males. The study included a greater percentage of males and a smaller

percentage of females than found in the population of the school. A similar discrepancy

may be found in the range of years of experience that participants had within this setting.

In this demographic, the majority of the volunteers fell in the category of 0-5 years of

experience while volunteers with over 21 years of experience were underrepresented in

the pool of potential study participants. As a result, when compared with the overall

population of teachers in the school setting, the study sample had more teachers with 0-5

years of experience in this school setting and less of those with 21 years and over. While

this may seem to suggest a cohort effect, this concern is mitigated by the demographic

breakdown of the sample in terms of total years of teaching experience, which more

closely represents the overall teaching population of the school (see Table 16). Several

of the participants (Jackie, Jared, Fran, Margaret, Grace, Jason and Gretchen) held

significantly more total years of teaching experience than the number of years they had

taught in this setting. To avoid a cohort effect, I took characteristics such as these into

account as I made decisions regarding the construction of the sample.

Regardless of these somewhat contrived demographic categories, the diversity in

terms of years of teaching experience among the participants was quite substantial. While

two teachers were in just the second year of their teaching careers three others possessed

over 30 years of experience with 36 years serving as the upper limit of the total range.

The range of experience in the school setting was similar, with one teacher reporting to

be in his first year in this setting and another again reporting 36 years. Other than in the

ways described above, the sample that resulted from the stratified sampling selection

process seemed to closely reflect the composition of the faculty in terms of the desired

Table 13

Participants by Gender

Gender

Number of

Participants

Number in

School

Percentage in

School

Percentage in

Sample

Male

34 %

45 %

Female

115

65.7 %

55 %

Table 14

Participants by Highest Degree Held

Degree

level

Number of

Participants

Number in

School

Percentage in

School

Percentage in

Sample

BS/BA

42.2 %

45 %

MA/MS

55.4 %

50 %

Ph.D.

.02 %

5 %

Table 15

Participants by Content Area Teaching Assignment

Department

Number of

Participants

Number in

School

Percentage in

School

Percentage in

Sample

Electives

19 %

20 %

Humanities

35 %

Phys. Ed./Health

7 %

10 %

Math/Science

26 %

25 %

Special Ed.

13 %

10 %

Table 16

Participants by Total Years of Teaching Experience

Range of

Years

Number of

Participants

Number in

School

Percentage in

School

Percentage in

Sample

0-5

22.2 %

25 %

6-10

22.2 %

20 %

11-20

25.7 %

35 %

21+

29.7 %

20 %

Table 17

Participants by Total Years Teaching in this School

Range

Number of

Participants

Number in

School

Percentage in

School

Percentage in

Sample

0-5

38.8 %

50 %

6-10

22.8 %

20 %

11-20

17 %

15 %

21+

20 %

15 %

characteristics. I provide a listing and limited demographic description of all twenty

participants in Figure 5.

In terms of my relationship with the participants, since I held a fairly visible

position in the school and district, I am confident that all of the participants knew me, at

least to the extent that they could identify me by sight. I, on the other hand, because of

my specific staff supervision responsibilities, only knew seven of the twenty prior to

working with them in the study. Of those I knew, five were teachers that I had hired,

supervised, or evaluated during the six years that I had worked in the setting. While the

other two who were familiar to me I knew from work on various committees and

Years of Teaching

Experience

Participant

Gender

Total

In this

School

Content Area

Taught

Focus

Group

Jackie

Science

Jared

Soc Studies

Fran

Elective

Joyce

English

Jack

Phys. Ed.

Skip

Elective

Geof

Special Ed.

Margaret

Elective

Laura

Soc Studies

Grace

Science

Jason

Special Ed.

Dan

English

Matthew

Elective

Fiona

4.5

English

Sylvia

World Lang

Trish

Health

Dodi

Science

Drew

Math

Gretchen

English

Chris

Science

Figure 5. Study Participants

district professional development activities. Lastly, besides knowing my role in the

setting, I am fairly confident that all twenty knew that I identified myself as a gay man.

My confidence in this is the result of the district-wide announcement of my civil union to

my partner that had been broadcast via electronic mail just prior to my initiation of the

study

Beyond the Demographic Data: “Thicker Description” of the Participants

As I got to know each individual through our work together, I of course began to

discover similarities and differences among and between the participants that extended

beyond the demographic data with which I had selected them for the study. In terms of

life experiences, the collected narratives showed that the majority of the participants had

grown up in the local area and with the exception of for the purpose of attending college,

only six had ever lived outside of New Jersey (two of these were born and had lived in

Germany). Of the two German-born participants, one of them was educated in the

country and ultimately received a Ph.D. in anthropology from a German university while

the other moved to the United States as a young child and thus was educated in the

United States. In terms of where the others attended post-secondary institutions, seven

participants attended schools outside the state of New Jersey while twelve held degrees

from one of New Jersey’s state universities with the majority of these completing their

studies at Rutgers, the local university. At least two participants had served in the military

and only 14 had joined the teaching profession after completing an undergraduate teacher

preparation program while the other six indicated that public school teaching had not

initially been what they had planned to do.

As part of the data analysis process, I used the demographic data with which I

constructed the sample to “take on” various lenses through which I viewed the data sets

in order to identify any common themes or patterns that might have been related to

various sub-groups to which the participants belonged. While analysis by the categories

and various groupings of categories illustrated in Figure 5 failed to produce any

significant findings, what I did find significant was another lens that emerged from the

data collection process itself and the use of which added to the description of the

participants. I discuss this in the following section.

Participants’ Lives and Intersections With Members of the GLBTQ Community

How the participants described the roles played by lesbian, gay, bisexual or

transgender individuals in their lives seemed to be a factor in how they described their

participation in homophobic speech moments. Those with more significant relationships

with such individuals seemed to conceive of the problematic nature of such speech in

broader terms. Out of the twenty participants, eleven identified that gay, lesbian or

bisexual individuals had played significant roles in their lives. For the purposes of this

study, I identified “significant” as a role greater than that typically played by someone

who might be referred to as “an acquaintance.” “Significant roles” played by gay, lesbian,

bisexual or transgender individuals included friends, roommates, siblings, close or distant

relatives, mentors, and the participants themselves (two gay male teachers). Of these two

gay men, one (Matthew) revealed this aspect of his identity in the course of his interview

while the other (Chris) did not do so in the course of the study, but later revealed this

during an unplanned meeting in a social setting that occurred one week after the data

collection process had ended. Subsequent to this chance meeting and in an effort to

explain why he had not revealed this aspect of his identity, even in response to a very

direct question about the roles that those with sexual minority identities had played in his

life, Chris shared that he was uncomfortable with the idea of being an openly gay teacher

in this setting. Even the “safety” that the interview process provided did not allay his

fears about being “out” in the school. It is interesting to note that Chris also chose not to

participate in the focus group interviews.

When asked about the roles that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people had

played in their lives, seven other participants characterized their relationships with such

individuals as casual or acquaintance-like while two male participants, Jack, a veteran

physical education teacher, and Jared, a social studies teacher with just over 10 years of

experience, initially denied any significant connection to such individuals. Later, both of

these participants unknowingly recanted this as they shared more about their lives. Jared,

for example, shared a story about his roommate from a summer study abroad program

that he had participated in three years earlier. He conveyed the disappointment he had felt

at the outset of the program as he met his assigned roommate who he identified as “gay.”

He paraphrased his thoughts as he told the story. “Oh, we’re not gonna [sic] have nothing

in common,” Jared claimed to have thought. He then went on to describe him as a “really

cool guy,” and a “great friend.” Jack, on the other hand, responded to the same question

with a quick, “none” but then described two female colleagues who he seemed to

recognize as a same-sex couple. “They’re very close friends of mine,” he said.

I am not exactly sure why these two seemed to resist sharing the roles that such

individuals had played in their lives, but other aspects of their participation in the study

suggest that they may possess some unresolved homophobic feelings themselves. Jack

confessed as much in both his interview and the focus group interview while Jared, as I

will describe below shared his view of “friendly” male to male use of certain language as

both homophobic and unproblematic.

“Outliers?”

In addition to the demographic criteria described above, and in an effort to

incorporate those who appeared, as a result of the survey data analysis, to be “outliers,” I

purposefully selected two participants from the pool of volunteers who in their survey

responses suggested that they had not had any classroom experiences related to the

phenomenon being examined. Jared, the teacher described above was one of these two,

and Margaret, a teacher of electives, was the other. Among the reasons that I chose such

participants is, as Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest, that I thought it would give me

the opportunity to look at such alleged exceptions as a way to “test and strengthen the

basic finding” (p. 269) that might emerge from the study.

As these two participants shared their experiences in the interviews it became

apparent that Jared did in fact have relevant experience. “Kids, the boys, like to tease

each other,” he stated. “Part of what their teasing is calling [sic] somebody gay or fag,”

he added as he responded to a prompt that requested participants to share examples of

homophobic speech that they had heard in their classrooms. As referred to above, there

was clearly a disconnect between what he thought the term “homophobic” implied and

his thinking about that which is problematic.

Margaret’s stories, on the other hand, confirmed that which she initially indicated

on her survey in terms of her lack of experience with the phenomenon. Interestingly, in

explaining her lack of experience, Margaret claimed that the kinds of students who enroll

in her classes (music and theatre) tended to be more “open to homosexuality.” Because

of this, she suggested, they do not use such language. While Margaret’s thinking about

her classroom and students may have been based on her own ideas or stereotypes, it does

suggest that some spaces in the school (art, music and theatre classrooms) may in fact be

safe places for students. Margaret’s assertion about her classroom also seems to suggest

that she thinks other classrooms in the school are not as “open.”

Study Participation as Professional Development?

Marshall and Rossman (1999) suggest that the conduct of such research involves

some reciprocity between researcher and participants. Many of the participants suggested

that by participating in this study, they had hoped to learn more about how to “deal” with

such situations when they arose in their classrooms. “It becomes so all-encompassing that

you don’t know how to address it or on what level to address it,” stated Dan, an English

teacher. “That’s my main reason that I wanted to be involved in this,” he added. While I

did not promise “answers,” the reflections that several of the participants wrote at the end

of the study certainly suggest that they had benefited from their involvement.

With the exception of Jack, the veteran physical education teacher, and Margaret,

the teacher described above, the collective narratives of the other participants seemed to

suggest that the majority of them had chosen to take part in the study out of a desire to

improve their practice as it related to responding to homophobic speech acts. Jack again

proved to be an outlier in the group as in the course of his interview he shared how, over

the years, many administrators had reprimanded him for his use of racist and sexist

speech. In the same interview he admitted using phrases such as “What are you gay with

that outfit you got on?” during class. Hypothetically, given what Jack suggests, he may

have volunteered to participate in the study in order to give his supervisors the

appearance that he was addressing their concerns, or in other words to demonstrate to

them that he had acted on their suggestions that he participate in what he referred to as

“sensitivity training.” Margaret, on the other hand, seemed to volunteer simply out of

some desire to demonstrate her supportiveness for sexual minority students.

Many participants came to the study with the hope of learning specific strategies

for dealing with homophobic speech acts in their classrooms. They seemed to assume that

“best practice” strategies existed and that they simply had not been “schooled in these.”

Many suggested that this void in the skill set of teachers was a result of some deficit in

teacher preparation programs and professional development offerings. “I don't think that

we're taught how to deal with it, which is pretty much the case in all education courses,”

stated Dodi, a second-year Science teacher. “You kind of fly by the seat of your pants

when you come in,” she added. Dan, an experienced English teacher, reflected a different

motivational perspective. “This is the main reason that I wanted to be involved in

this…because it becomes so all-encompassing that you don’t know how to even address

it or what level to address.” Dan reiterated this sentiment later in the interview when he

said, “I almost feel like I’d want a better rule set for – you know, how it should be

addressed.” By way of his reflecting on his experiences, Dan’s thinking clearly suggests

that he perceived a need to explore changing his practice; however, in considering what

might help teachers to improve their practice, he resists thinking about or articulating an

idea and instead states, “See, that’s what you and the administrators are supposed to tell

us.” Similarly, at the end of one of the focus group meetings, Jason, a Special Education

teacher, spoke for the group when he addressed me and said, “I was kinda [sic] hoping

you were gonna [sic] tell us how we should deal with it. I’ll say it since nobody else will.

I’m waiting for you to hand out the playbook, you know?”

How teachers differed in what motivated them to participate was in whether their

desire emerged more out of a concern for students or more from a professional concern

that had to do with job performance. Some, on the other hand, seemed compelled to

participate as a result of some combination of these two. In seeking expanded skills and

knowledge, many clearly reflected Dodi’s experience and her student-focus, while others,

like Jared expressed a concern about needing to be viewed by school authorities as

dealing with such moments appropriately. “I gotta [sic] figure out how to handle this

properly because I might get called on this later,” he said during one of the focus group

meetings. Fiona, an English teacher, seemed to connect the two. “And so I think part of

you is thinking, like, okay, we need to squelch this so that I don’t hear back a week later

about how so and so went home and cried all night about this—or someone else, you

know, got into a fight later on because of it—or whatever it may be,” she said in the other

focus group. In her post-interview reflection, Sylvia suggested how such concerns are

layered among other concerns and as such contribute to the stance or response one

chooses to take in the classroom. “At the same time, school policies and legal concerns

are in the back of our heads as well, and these factors can influence how we react to

what's going on in our classrooms,” she stated.

Still others like Matthew, a teacher with two years of teaching experience who

teaches a popular senior elective, echoed Jared’s sentiment and in so doing suggested that

he thought that this was a fairly common feeling among teachers. Matthew also shared

why he thought teachers might avoid such confrontations, noting a language-based deficit

on the part of teachers in his surmise. “I’ve experienced conversations with colleagues

who really are genuinely afraid to speak to students about this topic, you know, because

they don’t feel equipped with the language,” he said. Fiona, a fourth-year English

teacher seemed to have confessed as much when she stated, “I just feel like I don’t know

enough.”

The “fear” that Matthew refers to does not seem to be a function of those

instances alone in which the participants took on the role of teacher. In fact, as I listened

to the spoken words of many of the study participants, especially those who identified

that individuals with sexual minority identities had not played a significant role in their

lives, what emerged was a sense of awkwardness in speaking about the topics most

directly related to the issue. There was a noticeable difference in the speech patterns of

these participants whenever the focus of the interviews shifted to issues involving

individuals with sexual minority identities and homophobic speech. To me this

awkwardness seemed to convey that this was an unfamiliar discourse for many of these

teachers. A comparison of Dan’s initial utterances following open-ended interview

questions provides an aural illustration of what the awkwardness of this seemingly

unfamiliar discourse “sounded like.” The first, Dan’s response to the question, “What

aspects of your life, would you say, have shaped who you are, your belief system, and

your values?” establishes the kind of speech patterns that Dan uses when thinking

through a question and delivering a “cold” response.

Hm. That is an open, general question! What, uh – I don’t - but I guess

professionally, like, I think I started, uh – growing up being of the child of

teachers, you know, my parents were always like, “Oh! You should look into

teaching,”

The second is Dan’s attempt to answer the question, “What roles have gay, lesbian,

bisexual, or transgender people played in your life, thus far?” In this instance, he replied:

Um, whoa. Not, a – I don’t have a spec – a specific role – you know, if you

wanna use the – I don’t have a gay friend. That I don’t have – you know, the, uh,

um, I, you know, I have acquaintances who are homosexual. Um, but I don’t – I

don’t – I – I wouldn’t say it – “role they’ve played in my” – I don’t – I don’t –

there’s not a specific, definable role –

There is a noticeable difference in these two responses. In the first, there is an

understandable delay in formulating the answer while thinking it through. In the second,

Dan obviously had a more difficult time formulating his response even though the answer

is quite simply, “none.” His seemingly ill at ease repetition of “I don’t” (seven times) in

the latter of these two answers certainly illustrates the awkwardness of the unfamiliar

discourse that I have suggested and is reflected in the narratives of many others to a

similar degree. One participant conveyed awkwardness in a totally different manner,

posing the question, “This is all confidential?” before offering a response.

Lastly, and as I invited teachers to reflect upon their experience as participants in

the study, what seemed at first a perception on their part that their involvement in the

study was “professional development” subtly began to resemble reflections on a lived

professional development experience. As Matthew wrote:

This was the first time that I had really discussed the act of teaching itself with

these people, and we all seemed equally eager to have the space for conversation.

There was an immediate trust and level of comfort--perhaps because we had all

volunteered for this study in the first place--which was particularly striking at the

end when one participant asked the group about something she does herself and

whether or not it made her a bad teacher. I was impressed and pleased that she

was willing to take such a risk and put herself in such a vulnerable position.

The study may in fact have been both research and professional development, depending

on how one stood in relation to it and the lens worn --it may have been an intervention for

some.

Other Conveyed Feelings: Standing on “Squishy” Ground

Overall, the level of concern and related feelings expressed by the teachers in the

interview phases of the study reflects the spectrum of emotions that emerged from my

analysis of the survey data and supports the notion that these truly are troubling moments

in classroom practice for many teachers. Grace, a science teacher, described how she

imagines most teachers feeling when they are confronted with such speech acts. “They

don't know what they should or shouldn't be doing,” she said as she described the

uncertainty that may lead a teacher to feel as though they are standing on what she

described as “squishy ground.” Among others, Sylvia claimed as much during one of the

focus groups as she said, “I still have problems knowing how do I [sic] respond

appropriately.”

The reflective writing of those teachers who composed and submitted their

thoughts to me via e-mail as the process of data collection drew to a close seemed to

punctuate this finding in regards to teachers’ perception of their study participation as

professional development. Perhaps it was her skills as an English composition teacher

that allowed Gretchen to capture the essence of the experience of those who participated

in her focus group when she wrote:

Though I had hoped to get "the answer" for how to deal with students' various

manifestations of homophobia, what I got out of participating was more than that:

a sense of my own concerns, values and assumptions that play into the ways I deal

with students whom I perceive as needing protection or correction in class.

In this rather poignant statement, Gretchen not only touches upon that which

motivated her and many of her colleagues to participate in the study, but in this one

sentence she fuses together several of the other findings that emerged from the study.

These include allusions to the variations in responsive stances (“protection or

correction”) as well as the personally-derived influencing factors (“concerns, values, and

assumptions”) that seem to play a role in how a teacher forms a response. I discuss these

in greater detail in subsequent sections of this chapter.

A Final Word About the Participants

Finally, while it could be argued that this set of participants seemed to have an

investment in personal growth in this area which may have led them to volunteer for the

study, the triangulation of these data with what the larger population of teachers who

participated in the survey suggests that the experiences of these participants are likely not

all that different from those who did not volunteer who were not chosen to participate in

the study in this manner. The participants in the study did not possess “the answers” to

the types of classroom practice-oriented problems that we explored and in fact many

actually came to the study in search of answers. As such, it may be that what set this

group of teachers apart from the other teachers in the school was the degree to which

such issues “troubled” them.

Teachers’ Voices: On Hearing Student Use of Homophobic Language

In addition to gaining an understanding of how the participant’s made meaning of

the term, “homophobic,” which I describe in the following section, what emerged as I

listened to and thematically analyzed all three data sets was an identification of three

distinct “voices” teachers seem to employ when either speaking about such words and

phrases, describing the moments in which the language enters the aural environment or

characterizing the student speakers. In terms of analysis, these three voices offered

insight into the ways teachers seem to “hear” such words and phrases and provided some

sense of how they describe or discuss such hearing experiences. Through these voices,

the participants offered their interpretations of student homophobic language, their ideas

about what such student language use communicates in terms of the speakers’ beliefs or

opinions, and their understanding of the evolution of the individual student’s use of such

language. These voices (interpretive, associative, and explicative) offer a window into

understanding the respondent’s experience with homophobic language -- an

understanding that they seemed to bring with them into such moments. Figure 6 provides

examples of how teachers used these “voices” in the interviews and focus groups.

Through the interpretive voice a teacher might convey an understanding of a

given speaker’s use of such language. This voice indicates, from the teacher’s

perspective, what the language “is” or represents for the speaker. For example, in

descriptions of specific circumstances, teachers described student use of such language as

“teasing,” “mocking,” “insulting,” or “labeling” or a means by which students might

disparage someone or something in the course of constructing a “put down.” This voice

most often described verbal action, or the intent of the speaker as it was understood by

the teacher.

A teacher’s associative voice is similar in that it is used when teachers reveal that

which they believe such speech communicates. It differs from the interpretive in that it

indicates the teacher’s deeper consideration of why an individual chooses to use such

language, or in other words, what is perceived by the teacher to be “behind” or

“underneath” the words. With this “voice” a teacher might suggest that homophobic

words and phrases are expressions of disgust, disrespect, hegemonic masculinity or

intolerance of difference. In a completely different manner, a teacher might employ this

voice to suggest that such language is devoid of any homophobic, anti-gay or hate speech

connection. Instead, the associative voice might suggest that such words are ones that

have taken on evolving meanings such as “gay” as a synonym for “stupid,” “lame,

“corny,” or one of many other pejoratives that may be applied to any person, place or

thing.

The third voice through which a teacher might speak about homophobic language

is the explicative voice. In this voice, teachers communicate in very broad terms just

how they perceive such language. This voice is the most complex of the three voices and

may often reference the perceived source or influence of such speech, the potential

victims of such speech, or the effects that such speech can have upon the classroom and

students. In this voice, teachers suggest the “split second” analytical process that they

describe engaging in as they consider how to respond. The suggestion of such a process is

another significant theme that emerged from the data. I describe this in greater detail in a

later section of this chapter.

Given that this study relies to a certain extent upon participant recollections, some

of the data would seem to reflect how the participants understood homophobic language

and their experiences with it in “real time,” while other data would suggest how these

experiences were more retrospectively understood. I endeavored to remain sensitive to

the temporal space that existed between the story of an incident and the participants’

retelling of it. Such time-oriented positionality was particularly evident in how, with the

100

Interpretive Voice

Associative Voice

Explicative Voice

“You use that as if it’s an

insult” (Jackie)

“Kids, the boys, like to

tease each other. Part of

what their teasing is calling

somebody gay or fag”

(Jared)

“…anything that's

demeaning that's, uh,

demeaning toward, uh,

sexuality or preference – or

a race or anything like that”

(Skip)

“…using it as an adjective

to mean any number of

things from, you know,

‘stupid’ to ‘inappropriate’.”

(Dan)

“I think a lot of times when

boys use it, it’s not –

they’re not espousing

hatred of gay people. I

think it’s kind of a rite of

passage of boys” (Jared)

“It’s part of the teenage

vernacular” (Gretchen)

“Things that usually come

out without thinking”

(Sylvia)

“Most of what I hear I

don’t believe is malicious”

(Jason)

“…part of the common

vernacular meant to be

insulting” (Jackie)

“Is a derogatory racial term

equal to the word ‘gay’?”

(Dan)

“…this is coming from a

place of you don’t know

better or you are ignorant or

maybe you are openly

intolerant” (Matthew)

“Sometimes I think it is

thoughtless; you know, I

think it’s done just from

hearing other people saying

it, and I’m just passing

through.” (Joyce)

“…which is probably a

learned behavior from

families” (Trish)

“I know that that's slang

and that it doesn't mean

certain things.” (Dodi)

“Like he wasn’t even

aware, sort of, of what was

coming out of his mouth”

(Matthew)

Figure 6. Teacher “Voices” on Homophobic Speech

voices described above, the teachers framed their discussions of the kind of language that

they identified as “homophobic.” It was also evident in the specificity of the examples

that they shared and the related thoughts and ideas they held about the issues involved. I

explain the various discourses about language in the following section.

The “Troubling” of Words in Discourses of the Abstract and the Lived

As I suggest, how participants describe the process of making meaning of spoken

language, especially that language that they might have considered homophobic in

101

nature, played a pervasive role in this study. In this sense, interpretation was as much a

part of the process of data analysis as it was the actual data itself. In fact, much of what

the participants and I explored in this study grew out of or could be traced back to how

they seemed to interpret one word, the term “homophobic.” Central to all other themes

that emerged from the data is how teachers understand that which the term implies and

the interpretive lens they describe taking on when such speech presents itself within the

confines of their classroom. How relevant speech and speech acts were recalled and

described by participants, and the responses that the participants suggested enacting in

these moments all seemed to be, in addition to other contributing factors, contingent upon

the individual’s working definition of this term.

Like the sample of teachers who responded to the survey, the twenty volunteer

participants seemed quite familiar with a variety of homophobic words and phrases that

students used in the school setting. Similar to the larger group of participants from which

they were drawn, these teachers again readily shared relevant linguistic knowledge

throughout the individual interviews and during the subsequent focus groups in which

they took part. Further exploration of the homophobic language-based analysis of the

survey data in these phases led to a somewhat clearer codified structure of the differences

that I noted as a result of the survey analysis. What emerged from this more deeply

contextualized analysis was identification of what is really three unique discourses

focused on aspects of teachers’ experiences with homophobic speech that blend together

to create the larger discourse on the subject. This larger discourse combines how such

language use is characterized by teachers, the interpretations they make of its meaning

102

and their perceptions of the social and emotional power they may identify such speech

possessing.

Not at all surprising, the most often cited homophobic words and phrases that

teachers in these two phases of the study reported hearing were the same ones that had

been suggested by the participants in the previous phase. Overall, “gay,” “fag” and

“faggot” were the most often reported upon homophobic words in teachers’ narratives,

and as such, it would seem that they are the most frequently spoken homophobic words

used by students in the classrooms of this school.

As discussed in the previous chapter, my analysis of the survey responses yielded

a fairly comprehensive glossary of homophobic terms that teachers reported hearing in

the research setting. This glossary though, provided very little contextual description of

the incidents within which this language had been uttered. Instead, the resulting list

simply confirmed the presence of such words and phrases in the aural environment of

classrooms in the research setting and confirmed that teachers in the setting had

familiarity with a wide variety of such words and phrases. This listing was insufficient

though, in attempting to conceptualize how teachers understood the speech acts from

which the words had been extracted. As a result of the limitations of the prior data

collection and analysis, I determined that how participants understood the use and

presence of homophobic language in their classrooms was something that needed further

exploration in the subsequent phases of data collection and analysis. I hoped that by

exploring this more deeply I would be able to further explicate the themes that emerged

from the survey data.

103

Through the closer examination of the participants’ experiences that the

interviews afforded, I was able to identify two distinct ways, or in essence, two variables

that teachers seemed to reference as they talked about the context in which they had

heard such language. In their descriptions, the participants first expressed how they

understood their students’ usage. Second, they described what they believed such

language use conveyed and in so doing offered their interpretations of how they thought

the students themselves had intended its use. Ultimately these considerations or variables

are what informed the way teachers named, labeled or categorized student use of such

language. For example, “I think it is thoughtless,” was the way Joyce, an English teacher,

characterized some of the speech she reported hearing, highlighting, as others did, her

perception of the “careless” nature of adolescent speech. “There’s just that silly,

competitive teasing boy behavior,” Gretchen, a department colleague of Joyce stated,

suggesting both a different image of its use and intent and, as many survey respondents

suggested, how teachers in this setting most often associate homophobic speech with

males (as both perpetrators and targets). Jason, who teaches special education, described

how he sometimes perceived student use of such language as “knocking,” or in other

words as a way students had of making fun of one another.

My “prequel” analysis of the survey data and what I learned from the participants’

interviews, provided the opportunity for me to enter the subsequent phases questioning

not whether or not teachers had heard such words, but a question of how teachers heard

them. This was something that I followed up on during the focus group meetings as I

attempted to have teachers collaboratively develop a definition of the term. Through the

process of data analysis, I identified six sub-themes that emerged in terms of the ways

104

Perceived

Nature of

Speech

Sub-theme

Number of

Citations

A means of expressing disgust, disrespect, hegemonic

masculinity or intolerance of difference.

A form of teasing, mocking, insulting, labeling or a way of

disparaging or putting down someone or some thing.

Problematic

(66)

Possessing a harmful or hurtful potential for individuals

who might find it offensive.

Careless or thoughtless student speech.

A part of contemporary “teen speak” or language derived

from the high school student lexicon.

Non-

problematic

(82)

Not necessarily homophobic, anti-gay or hate speech, but

instead words that have taken on evolving meanings. For

example, “gay” as a synonym for “stupid,” “lame,

“corny,” or a plethora of other pejoratives and applied to

any person, place or thing.

(#) Total number of citations in the category

Figure 7. Homophobic Speech Categories

teachers named, labeled or categorized the homophobic language that they had heard

students use. Of these, only half seem to hint at the problematic nature of homophobic

speech while the others seem to be based on a different lens. These categories and sub-

themes are illustrated in Figure 7.

In addition to naming or labeling the language of use in the setting, teachers often

described their understanding of the various sources or influences of such speech and

speech acts at work in the students’ lives. For example, Drew, a math teacher in the

school for 32 years, suggested that families were responsible for influencing the lexicon

with which a high school student spoke. He added how he thought this was probably

similar to how a student might acquire a racist lexicon. “It’s like the kids learn racism

from their parents,” he said, surmising that students passively develop the use of such

language by hearing it in the aural environment of the home. Jackie, a science teacher

105

added, “their parents have probably led them to this point” while Trish, a health teacher

succinctly described student use of homophobic language as a “learned behavior from

families.”

From these considerations, a second layer or what might be considered a second

part of a language coding matrix began to emerge. It includes the following six sources or

factors that teachers perceive as influencing a student’s use of homophobic language:

1. Culture: society, community, school, or “teen” and/or “pop culture”

2. Students’ homes, their parents or religious institutions

3. A lack of impulse control

4. Ignorance or lack of knowledge

5. Hegemonic masculinity

6. Sexuality issues

Disconnected Meanings

What is most interesting in the interview and focus group interview data sets (and

reflective of a similar finding based on the survey data) is the variability that many

participants demonstrated as they described and applied the term “homophobic” in the

course of our discussions. The resolve with which the participants listed homophobic

words and phrases without regard to actual incidents was clearly different than the

resolve with which they spoke about these as they drew them out of direct experience. In

one sense, when asked to identify the kind of homophobic language that students used in

their classrooms, the participants readily identified a variety of related words and phrases.

“I think the most common is, like, ‘Oh, that's so gay,’” said Dodi, a fairly new science

teacher in the school. Skip, an art teacher, paraphrased one of his students as he

106

responded to the interview prompt. “Oh, my God, that's the gayest thing I've ever seen,”

he exclaimed as he reenacted a discussion between two students in which the student

speaking was referring to “something” that had happened outside of class. In addition to

simply sharing relevant words and phrases and examples of use, teachers sometimes also

offered a glimpse of their understanding of the student lexicon. “This is like their

favorite insult,” Jackie said as she described students’ use of the term “gay.”

Descriptions such as that which Jackie and Dodi and all of the participants provided

allowed the naming, labeling and categorizing coding structure to emerge from the data.

In a different sense from the discourses described above, when extrapolating the

language from recollections of lived experiences, the participants seemed to withdraw

from applying the homophobic designation to the very same words and phrases they had

in another discourse already listed as an example of homophobic speech. Instead, in these

instances the participants questioned the homophobic quality of the language that they

reported hearing. For example, as she described her experiences with what she perceived

to be homophobic speech, Gretchen told the story of two boys in her class who engaged

in what she described as ‘horseplay.” As she portrayed what she suggested can happen in

such instances, the “play” escalated to the degree that one of the boys shouted, “Stop

touching me, you fag!” to the other. In reflecting upon and describing how she made

sense of the boys’ interaction Gretchen stated, “I don’t even know that it is homophobic.”

With this, she seems to suggest that the students’ use of the word “fag” in this instance

had an intent (and as a result a meaning) that was incongruent with her understanding of

the “homophobic speech” construct. This contextual confusion over definition is

pervasive in the study. What is particularly striking in this regard is how closer

107

examination of this pattern across participants suggests that as those like Gretchen drew

themselves into the “spotlight” of the recounted story, the less likely they were to

describe the language of the speech act itself as “homophobic” and/or the less resolute

they became in applying their definition of the term “homophobic” to the given situation

and the language inherent in it.

The difference between the descriptions that teachers provided in this instance

and the more abstracted descriptions of homophobic language that they gave in other

circumstances seems to suggest a disconnect between how teachers describe homophobic

language of use and how they explain the same or similar language in use. This is another

primary theme that emerged from the data and it is one that I believe adds to my assertion

that these are indeed troubling moments in a teacher’s practice.

How Definition Affects Hearing the Problematic Nature of Speech

The participants’ professed understanding of the word “homophobic” as used in

reference to speech and speech acts seems to affect both how they describe “hearing”

such words and phrases as well as how they choose to “name” or “label” either such

language or the incidents in which such words appear. The participants’ various

understandings of the word “homophobic” also seemed to influence the descriptions of

the possible responses they might give and/or those they actually report having enacted.

In other words, the specific working definition of the term “homophobic” possessed by a

participant seems to contribute to the composition of an interpretive aural “lens” through

which the participants ultimately operationalize their understanding in either thought or

reported action.

108

The multiplicity of definitions possessed by participants and the variability in

individual definitions as per the “abstract/lived” or “of use/in use” disconnect posited in

the preceding section also suggests that the participants possess varying understandings

of how and in what ways such speech may be problematic. As a result of the lack of a

shared definition throughout the setting, the conception of the problematic nature remains

a function of the local classroom and teacher. It is not a shared understanding throughout

the school. To a certain extent, this explains how a teacher like Gretchen can characterize

some of what she hears in her English classroom as “silly, competitive, teasing boy

behavior,” while Matthew, a teacher of an arts class, labels the same type of utterance as

a “remark of general intolerance” while Dan asked, “Is a derogatory racial term equal to

the word ‘gay’?” during his interview.

Some participants focused their discussion of such speech solely on themselves as

respondents and the student speaker, while others included their perceptions in terms of

“victims” or “targeted” students as Drew did when he shared his lack of response because

of his perception that the speech was “not openly threatening” anyone. Very few included

the other students in the classroom at the time in their depictions of the incidents.

Another striking feature of how the participants described homophobic speech is

how, as they shared examples of words and phrases, the participants used fairly

declarative statements such as "the only two words I usually hear are, ‘gay’ and ‘fag’,” as

Chris, a science teacher replied. While there is variation in thinking in terms of the

definition, the tone and content of such statements suggest that the participants believe

that they possess a fully developed concept of that which constitutes homophobic speech.

They appear confident in this regard. Their resoluteness in identifying words in the

109

abstract also indicates to a certain degree some acknowledgement of the problematic

nature of such language. However, when asked to provide descriptions of actual, lived

experiences many of the participants seemed to retreat from maintaining such a

declarative tone of voice, and instead seemed to either question the problematic nature of

the language in use or simply failed to see it as problematic at all. Joyce, an English

teacher, suggests the former and indicates that she feels that the homophobic quality of

the language is often ambiguous. “Sometimes it’s meant really to imply homosexuality

and sometimes something else,” she said, indicating her interpretation of the meaning

held by the student speaking. Others even expressed that in certain contexts they have

had difficulty discerning whether a speech act was in fact homophobic in nature.

While not limited to this phrase alone, student use of “that’s so gay” or phrases

with similar insertions of the word “gay” seemed to be those that provided the greatest

challenge to participants in terms of articulating or committing in action to their

understanding of what the phrase “homophobic language” implies. For example, in

responding to a prompt asking participants to share examples of such language that they

had heard in their classrooms, Dodi, a science teacher said, “Um, I think the most

common is like, ‘Oh, that's so gay’.” “Like, they say that, and they really don't mean

anything by it,” she added. Here Dodi identifies the phrase as homophobic, and while

she acknowledges her perception that the student’s usage is not necessarily derived from

homophobic feelings, she does not allow it to diminish the homophobic quality that she

believes such words can possess regardless of the intent with which they are spoken.

The debate over whether phrases such as “that’s so gay” ought to be considered

forms of homophobic speech continued in the focus group setting. In one focus group, the

110

participants seemed to concentrate on what it would be like for sexual minority students

to consistently hear others make a correlation between the word, “gay” and the host of

pejoratives for which it might serve as a placeholder. This group seemed to share an “I

am concerned for the unknown glbtq student in the room” stance towards such speech.

The consensus in this group was that this and similar uses ought to be considered

homophobic and while it was not spoken out loud, the group seemed to intimate that it

ought to be responded to accordingly. There was much less resolve on this topic in the

other focus group and more of an acceptance of the proposition that that the word “gay”

had evolved in meaning. Members of the group seemed to resist the temptation to debate

the homophobic quality of the phrase and instead insisted that it only differed from more

directed speech like “you faggot,” in terms of the intent of the speaker. Again, the lack of

consideration of the others in the classroom at the time (another finding described in a

subsequent section of this chapter) seemed to justify the acceptance of this proposition,

although I noted in my reflection that some in the group seemed reticent to contradict

those who had initially put forth this idea (Jack and Jared). Laura’s reflection, as it

pertained to the climate of this focus group seemed to suggest as much. “Each member of

the large focus group seemed to have an agenda/background,” she said. “To my surprise I

was not really comfortable…I felt judged,” she added. As I noted in my research journal,

the group dynamic seemed to impede discussion. This seemed to result in the dominance

of certain perspectives and the marginalization or complete lack of vocalization of others.

Many chose to shut down in response to the climate that Jack and Jared seemed to evoke.

As I have suggested the “that’s so gay” debate was a group and individual

phenomenon. In her individual interview, Gretchen shared, “So you’re not quite sure of

111

whether ‘that’s so gay,’ or you know, ‘it’s gay,’ is homophobic language or not.” In still

another interview, Fiona (also an English teacher) framed her discussion of the very same

phrase by stating, “that’s really the only, um, like, outwardly homophobic thing that I see,

and I don’t even know that it is homophobic.” Later in her interview, Gretchen indicated

that she believed that the lack of clarity impedes her ability to reply as she confessed,

“…and so sometimes it’s better just to not say anything and just to move on, and, you

know, ignore that it even happened.” An extreme case, it is nonetheless poignantly

illustrative of the disconnect that exists between how participants talk about such

language in the abstract and how they talk about it from a practice perspective and the

impact such variability has upon seeing the problematic nature of the speech.

As stated above, teachers’ lack of clarity or confusion over the definition of

“homophobic” does not appear to exist only in cases of the “that’s so gay” variety. What

does appear throughout the data is a pattern in which teachers readily name familiar

words and phrases but when asked to discuss their lived experiences as teacher witnesses

of these words and phrases in their classrooms, they either avoid, retreat from, or resist

the label “homophobic.” The disconnect between abstract meaning (language of use) and

meaning in action (language in use) comes through in both the individual interviews and

the focus group interviews and may in some instances, as I have suggested, indicate a

lack of awareness of the implications of the use of homophobic speech in the classroom.

The following excerpt from an interview with Jared, a social studies teacher with eleven

years of teaching experience illustrates the disconnect between understanding the abstract

and applying the same in lived language that exists in many participants’ experience.

112

Jared: Yeah. Kids, the boys, like to tease each other. Part of what their

teasing is calling somebody gay, or fag, or –

Interviewer: Okay.

Jared: And “that’s –“ or “that’s so gay,” they say something that’s

synonymous with ridiculous, or corny, or, you know, stupid, or, you

know- but it’s mostly it’s like generally mostly the boys –

Interviewer: Mostly the boys, yeah.

Jared: Teasing each other, you know.

Interviewer: Yeah, teasing each other. Okay. Um, can you tell me

about an incident where a student might’ve used homophobic speech that

particularly sticks out in your mind, or is particularly memorable to you?

Jared: Um, naw, nothing – nothing that’s, I think, beyond the ordinary, or

that was like particularly grave or offensive. I think it’s –

Interviewer: So basically like the examples you gave me like calling

somebody gay, but have you ever heard any other words being used?

Jared: You know, fag, faggot, homo, you know.

Clearly, Jared seemed to reveal, as many others did, the degree to which such language is

prevalent in student classroom lexicon. He identified it as “homophobic” in one sense,

but then through the application of how he understands that term, he chose to downplay,

diminish or failed to conceive of the broader role that such language may play in

classroom discourse. He almost seemed to suggest some collusion-like thinking here, as

his “beyond the ordinary” statement seems somewhat permissive or accepting of such

language.

Not only does Jared’s story illustrate the disconnect described above, but it also

speaks to another significant theme that emerged from the data that while hinted at

throughout this discussion, will be described in greater detail in a subsequent section.

These stories and the related theme suggest how during such incidents teachers seem to

113

move the “at-large” members of the class into the “shadows” of their recollected

experience which is where they may in fact position the class as they formulate and enact

their response in the given moment.

My “prequel” analysis of the survey data provided the opportunity for me to enter

the subsequent phases questioning not whether or not teachers had heard such words, but

a question of how teachers heard them. This issue of understanding the term

“homophobic language” was something that, as a result of the tentative analysis of the

interview data, I explored with the participants during the two focus group interviews and

I had hoped to have teachers collaboratively develop a definition for the term. In both

settings this initiated lively discussions as I asked each group to respond to the prompt,

“How might we define what constitutes homophobic speech for our discussion purposes

today?” Initially I had hoped that each participant would reply in sequence, but instead,

what evolved seemed to build off the first response given within each focus group setting.

The first proffered definition also seemed to set the tone for the responses that would

follow. In one focus group the conversation began as Jared articulated his resistance to

the term.

I don’t understand what that term homophobic means. It’s an odd term for

a discriminatory-type of speech. It almost sounds like a psychological fear

rather than a discriminatory speech. So, I don’t know. I personally

wouldn’t use that term. I would use more of like “hate speech” or

“discrimination speech.”

The first speaker in the second focus group was Jason, a special education teacher.

I think anything that’s said with a disparaging tone. Um, a comment like

“that’s so gay” or “fag” or “homo”—um, not that they have positive

connotations, uh, but they’re not always directed at somebody who’s

homosexual…

While both conversations ended up in similar “places,” the entry into each was quite

114

different and affected how each conversation evolved. As may be recalled from the

discussion of the participants, Jared and Jack seemed to me to resist fully engaging in the

discourse. As I discussed previously, the presence of these two together in one of the

focus groups seemed to negatively influence the atmosphere in the room and the group’s

ability to trouble or problematize these concepts seemed somewhat impaired as a result.

As stated earlier, Laura suggested as much in the reflection she wrote following the

experience. “In the group, I felt judged,” she stated. “Each member of the large focus

group seemed to have an agenda/background,” she suggested, “I felt that some members

were more tolerant than others.” In what appears to be a more cynical view than Laura’s,

Jackie, a science teacher echoed Laura’s feelings in such a way as to suggest the focus

group had been less than successful from her perspective. “I do have to say that talking

to others made me wonder what does go on in other classrooms. I imagine much that we

would object to,” Jackie wrote in her reflection. In the course of the focus group

interview, Jackie tried very hard to counter the resistance put forth by Jared and Jack. The

following counterargument of Jackie’s is a good example of the kind of response that she

and others gave to the arguments that Jack and Jared put forth:

Well, I’m just not sure I really agree that they’re that oblivious to it. I

think they know perfectly well what gay means even if they call an

assignment gay, I think they know the connotation is homosexual and the

reason that it’s a, a negative thing to say about anything is because

homosexuality is negative for them.

Jackie’s comment opened up a great deal of discussion and debate and even led Jared to

concede in agreement with her (and others) that homosexuality is in fact “a negative” for

students.

115

A Summary of Lexical Findings

To summarize the findings related to how the term “homophobic speech” is

understood (and ultimately operationalized in responses) by the participants, the

narratives offer six distinct categories of definitions (see Figure 7). While an individual

may change his/her definition based upon the context of the story told, an individual’s

definition also seems to depend upon the relationship in which he/she stands to the

speech. That is, the participants’ descriptions of such speech “in the abstract” tends to be

quite different than how it is described when based upon lived experiences. The former of

these tends to be more clinical in nature and as a result may be more readily or easily

defined. The latter tends to represent a more deeply contextualized amalgam of the

participants’ interpretations and explications of and associations with such speech.

Ultimately, it is in the lived interaction of these three variables that teachers are led to

identify the speech they hear as problematic or not.

In the Shadows of the Classroom

As the participants framed our discussions of those words and phrases that they

did or did not define as “homophobic” many chose to employ lived examples to illustrate

their points. As they did so and in the process of searching for an agreed-upon working

definition of the term “homophobic language,” most participants focused on the users of

such speech, ignoring in their recollections all others who, like them, may have overheard

or witnessed the very same speech act. Teachers’ narratives tended to focus almost

explicitly on those actors whose words prompted the incident in the first place. Beyond

these perpetrators, some participants chose to place themselves in the story and still

others chose to mention the intended target or victim (whenever one was appropriate to

116

the incident). In fact, one of the very first things I noticed about how teachers framed

their discussions of homophobic speech moments was how few “characters” they

included in the stories they told.

Rarely did participants speak of the population of the classroom without

prompting from the interviewer. “Generally when somebody says something like that, I’ll

just call them on it,” is how Jared responded when asked to share a specific memorable

incident. In self-critiquing an approach in which the offending student is taken into the

hallway for disciplinary reasons, Jason said, “Um, the student who was affected by it,

may not have realized, um, that the perpetrator was, at least, verbally warned or – being

disciplined.” With this, like others, Jason suggested that he clearly sees such incidents as

having a very limited impact upon the class-at-large, but instead affects only a very

specific type of student. Responses like this seem to suggest that teachers see these as

moments to “default” to the position of disciplinarian, or “gatekeeper of language” as I

will describe in a following section, with little regard for how others in the room might be

affected by the speech or the resulting discipline.

Even more vivid recollections than this, and ones that clearly involve the presence

of others in the classroom were recounted with little or no regard of those others. For

example, one teacher described an incident that involved a student passing back graded

essays to the class all the while perusing these for the writer’s chosen theme out of his

own curiosity. The assignment was for students to trace the evolution of a word and one

student in the class had chosen the word “gay” which prompted the boy passing our the

papers to repeatedly ask why he had chosen that word. The teacher describes her very

emotional response to the situation, the writer’s face and the other boy’s laughter, but the

117

rest of the class remains absent from the narrative. This suggests another default position

that teachers’ responses suggest, that of “caregiver,” which, like “gatekeeper’ will be

discussed in a subsequent section of the findings.

Other similar stories suggest another role, but one that is still tightly focused only

on the individual speaker. In describing what an incident of homophobic speech was like

for him, Matthew remarked (framing his response as an example of what his thought

process might be like as he considered how to address a student), “You’re my student and

it is my job to teach you and change your behavior, or lead you to a place where you will

change your own behavior.” Again, while this is suggestive of a completely different

response, it still places the focus of the response on the student who uttered the language

and does not take into consideration the impact that the teachers’ response may have on

the others in the classroom.

Beyond the teacher/narrator and the student speaker, the targeted individual or

perceived victim of the speech, who is also most often a student perceived to be a sexual

minority is, as I have suggested, the next most frequently cited character in the teachers’

narratives. Typically, these individuals were spoken of with great concern on the part of

the narrator. In adding the image of such students to the discourse, teachers often spoke

of their role, as Matthew did. “It is now my responsibility to make sure that person still

feels safe and comfortable in this classroom,” he said.

Teachers’ “Participation,” Responses, and Responsive Stances Explicated

Just as they did as they described their thoughts about both how students used

homophobic language and how they described “hearing” homophobic language, the

participants also employed unique voices in the narratives of their lived experiences,

118

especially as they described the various responses they had chosen to enact in such

moments. As I described in the previous chapter, my analysis of the survey data had

suggested that when faced with what they perceived to be homophobic speech, some

teachers depicted themselves as “observers” of the action while others very clearly

positioned themselves as part of the story, or in other words, as “participants” in the

action. Depending upon the incident, the participant, and the account, the participant’s

portrayal of themselves as an actor within the story or an observer of it seemed to be

driven by a variety of influencing factors that affect the teacher’s description of the

moment and their response, and how the experience is reported. The interview phases of

data collection and analysis offered the opportunity to further unpack the latter of these

stances in an effort to understand the various types of responses that teachers reported

giving and the motivation that informed each specific kind of response.

As I coded the participants’ descriptions of their responses, three unique themes

emerged, each representative of a different “approach” that participants reported taking as

they responded to homophobic speech acts in their classrooms. Those who had in fact

depicted themselves as “participants” in such moments described enacting responses that

seemed to position them in one of three stances. The participants responded either as

“gatekeepers” of the language used in their classrooms, “caregivers” of the real or

perceived victims, or “educators” on issues of social justice.

The identification of these three roles emerged not only from the narrative, self-

reported descriptions of participant responses, but also from the description of the role the

participants seemed to conceive of playing and/or the outcome that motivated the type of

response they “typically” had given. Because most homophobic speech acts are perceived

119

by participants as having a unique nature in terms of context and because the participants

also posses varying understandings of the character of such language and the potential

consequences it may possess, the resulting stance they take, role they play and/or

motivation acted upon seemed to vary from situation to situation. This is true both across

participants’ stories and across the stories of individual participants. In other words, what

motivates a teacher in one instance might be different given other language, students, or

circumstances.

As indicated in Figure 8, analysis of the participants’ narratives suggested that

half of the teachers who participated in the study shaped their “in the moment”

responsive stance based upon their understanding of the circumstance and the outcome

they desired. Of these ten, three of them provided evidence that suggested that they had

played each role, while others seemed to have played only two with all but one of these

participants’ pairings including the “caregiver” stance. The other half seemed to have a

predilection for enacting one certain type of response. Of these ten, there were six

“educators,” three “gatekeepers,” and two “caregivers.”

In addition to the types of responses that participants reported giving, Figure 8

also illustrates what might be considered to be each participant’s overarching responsive

orientation. I based this determination on responses to a question that asked the

participants to describe the type of outcome they had hoped for in the responses they had

given to homophobic speech acts. I determined that nine of the participants possessed

“educator” orientations while five were “gatekeepers” and four were “caregivers.” Two

others (Jack and Geoff) did not offer a response to the segment of the interview from

which I determined the participants’ orientation.

120

A comparison of orientation and enacted responses suggests that most of the

participants reported enacting responses consistent with how they conceived of their role.

Almost all of those who had illustrated “educator” responses also possessed this as their

orientation. The only two exceptions to this pattern were Sylvia, whose narrative

suggested a “gatekeeper” orientation and Gretchen, who described herself as a

“caregiver.”

Because the “educator” orientation and responses are conceived of differently and

Responses Enacted

Participant

Gatekeeper

Caregiver

Educator

Responsive

Orientation

Jackie

Educator

Jared

Gatekeeper

Fran

Educator

Joyce

Educator

Jack

N/A

Skip

Educator

Geof

N/A

Margaret

Caregiver

Laura

Educator

Grace

Educator

Jason

Gatekeeper

Dan

Gatekeeper

Matthew

Educator

Fiona

Gatekeeper

Sylvia

Gatekeeper

Trish

Caregiver

Dodi

Educator

Drew

Educator

Gretchen

Caregiver

Chris

Caregiver

Figure 8. Responsive roles enacted by participants

more broadly, it could be hypothesized that this orientation is more pervasive and

relevant to other aspects of a teachers’ practice.

121

Gatekeeper

In their reported responses, half of the participants’ described acting as a

“gatekeeper” of language usage at some point. When acting upon such motivation and

conceiving of or actually playing this role, teachers seem to suggest that they respond to

student use of homophobic speech out of a sense of responsibility to maintain a certain

“acceptable” environment within their classroom. In so doing, they seem to view

themselves as being in control of the aural climate of their classroom. As such, they see

holding students accountable for “appropriate” language as part of fulfilling this

responsibility. “In the classroom it is our job to sanitize the language,” Jared suggested to

the focus group participants, who subsequently seemed to accept his assertion. “My

concern is that it’s not acceptable behavior, I want it ended,” he stated, as he further

clarified his gatekeeper stance.

Ten of the twenty participants described taking such a stance or acting in such a

way that seemed to be derived from a gatekeeper of language role perception. “I just

don’t allow certain things to be said or done in my classroom,” Sylvia stated, suggesting

that she enacts this role not only in such situations, but as other incidents arise as well

such as when responding to racist or sexist speech. Of the ten participants who seemed to

use this approach, Jared, Dan and Fiona were the only three whose reported reactions fell

exclusively within this category. Of these three only Dan seemed to acknowledge the

limitations inherent in this stance. His imagining what it would be like to go beyond such

an approach indicates as much. “I don’t know how to tell them why they shouldn’t [use

such language],” he stated. As mentioned previously, Dan, like many others, seemed

hopeful that participating in this study was an opportunity for professional development

122

on this topic. Like Dan, Jason clearly acknowledged the limitations of such approach.

“I’d realistically figured that it wouldn’t happen in my classroom anymore,” he stated. “I

realize that what I did wouldn’t do anything past that,” he commented.

In general, gatekeepers want to feel in control of their classrooms and as such the

outcome for replying to student use of homophobic speech that they typically hope for is,

as Fiona stated, “That they wouldn’t use it in my class anymore.” Dan echoed this as he

described his gatekeeper stance. “Just that it shouldn’t be used in my classroom,” he said

in response to the interview question that asked what participants hoped for as a result of

their responses.

Caregiver

As they shared their recollections, many teachers expressed concern for either the

known or presumed sexual minority student who might have been present at the time of

the speech act, whether the act was directed at that student or not. Words like “safety,”

“supportive” and “comfortable” and phrases like “a safe space” ” and “feeling

comfortable” were used quite frequently in teachers’ descriptions of their actions and

desired outcomes. In expressing as much, teachers clearly positioned sexual minority

students as the potential “victims” of such language, regardless of whether or not they or

anyone else was in fact “targeted” by the perpetrators of the speech acts they described.

The caregiver stance or role is sometimes masked by one of the other two roles

enacted in tandem. As a result, it appears more like a motivation behind the more easily

discerned role. For example, in describing what appeared to be a gatekeeper stance,

Chris offered a view of how another stance, hidden from view of the class, was very

much in the forefront of his thinking. “If there are kids in the class that are gay or lesbian

123

and, like, again, aren’t comfortable with themselves, they realize that people do defend

them and do stand up,” he said. Matthew expressed something similar when he said,

“I’m thinking about…creating a safe environment in my classroom” while Trish

expressed a similar sentiment in her desire to “make the environment more comfortable

to these students.”

Caregivers also often spoke about trying to position themselves as supportive

resources for sexual minority students. Dodi, for example, expressed the value she places

on taking on such a role as she described the impact she had seen it have upon one of her

students:

And then I had another student at the beginning of this year, um [sic] had never

come out to a person before, and it was something that they were very afraid to

do, and after school, she, uh [sic], felt that I was a safe person to express this to,

you know. And now she’s going through a lot of turmoil with her family, but she

at least feels that my room is at least one place where she can be herself.

While this clearly positions Dodi as a caregiver in this instance, this story again, like

Margaret’s description of her classroom as a safe space for her “type of students,”

inadvertently suggests that there are other spaces in the school that are not safe for some

students. Dodi intimates this with her suggestion that her room is the “one place” in the

school where this student can “be herself.”

Educator

The educator role, stance or motivation seems to emerge and is enacted when a

teacher considers the broader implications of his/her practice or how the work of a

teacher encompasses more than transmission on content. In the following statement,

Dodi, one of the three teachers whose narratives suggested that she had played each of

the three roles, made a bold statement about how she sees her purpose as a teacher. “Let's

124

be honest – they might never need to know what mitochondria is. They might never need

to know the structure of DNA, but if they can learn how to act, I'm happy.” Dodi later

described the educator role in the following manner:

I kind of, um, I get disappointed when kids are, you know, nasty to each other, but

I kind of like it when it happens because, like I said, I'd prefer that I be there when

something like that happens because I – I have an opportunity to do something

about it.

In one of the two focus groups, Fran put forth a similarly reactive, yet still educator-

oriented stance. “As teachers and as parents...it’s our job to make them aware,” she said

in response to Jack’s statement of resistance to what he described as a social over-

emphasis on “politically correct” speech.

In describing her educator-oriented response Grace said, “I literally stop the

whole class, and I get very assertive and I'll say – and I'll get right up to the kid and go,

‘Do you know exactly why you are using that term?’” As she recounted this story, Grace

seemed to take on the kind of emotional state that such moments evoke for her. It was

clear that student use of such language troubled her. Skip, on the other hand seemed

much more calm as he shared what he hoped for by responding as an educator. “I wanted

to educate them on what that word actually means,” he said. In this statement, Skip’s use

of “them” is significant in that those who enacted educator responses were those most

likely to bring the class as a whole into their discussions. Gretchen articulated this when

during a focus group setting, she said, “I feel like in that frozen moment that you

described, I’m thinking not only about the possible homosexual student in the room, but

every kid in the room.” This kind of broadly conceived role, which is one that considers

all of the students in the classroom at the time into the story, is a role that just less than

half of the participants seemed to imagine themselves playing. This statistic clearly

125

connects these findings to those previously discussed regarding the frequency of

teachers’ considerations for those in the “shadows” of the classroom.

Towards a Response: A Combination of Influence and Analysis

Thus far I have discussed the findings from the perspective that teachers’ ideas

about the construction of homophobic speech acts and the understanding they possessed

of related language appears to have been drawn from their unique experiences that they

reported to me. I have also described the potential links that the data suggest exist among

the extent of a participant’s relationships with individuals possessing sexual minority

identities, the participants’ unique experiences with the phenomenon as described from

their perspective, and the various stances they reported enacting and that their narratives

suggest that they may have enacted within such moments. As the relationships between

these themes unfolded and as my analysis iteratively shifted back to the initial research

questions and then to a more abstracted look at the data, what began to take shape was

what Boyatziz (1998) describes as a clustering of themes. As Miles and Huberman (1994)

suggest:

You begin with a text, trying out coding categories on it, then moving to identify

themes and trends, and then to testing hunches and findings, aiming first to

delineate “deep structure” and then to integrate the data into an explanatory

framework. (p. 91)

In the case of this study a cluster of themes was built as I explored the potential

integration of data and the links that seemed to exist.

Differing from the initial and more linear conceptual framework with which I

entered the study (see p. 30) what the responses cited throughout these findings hint at is

the existence of a more layered process. It is a process that combines individual life

126

experience-based variables with “in the moment” teacher reflection and assessment. As

such, the process is activated by utterances of perceived homophobic speech acts and

informed by both the situational context and those other aspects that the participants

bring with them to the moment. The resulting cluster of themes seemed to suggest that

teachers’ reported responses to homophobic speech are the outcome of a fairly complex

cognitive process that is nested within many layers of distinct influences. As the

participants tried to discern how or whether to react to their students’ use of homophobic

language, they seemed to engage in a process of analysis that, as the narratives indicate,

occurred in “real time.” The clustering of themes around the response, seems to suggest

that while this process is initiated in and by the moment, it is not only those features

present in the moment that influence the participant’s response. Other equally significant

factors residing outside the moment seemed to take part in how each participant engaged

in the process. Figure 9 is illustrative of what the data suggests in terms of this interplay

of influencing factors, participant analysis of the moment and the resulting response that

is constructed and enacted. Teachers’ responses to homophobic speech seemed to sit at

the center of a series of loops and these loops seemed to represent the various factors that

inform how individuals construct their responses.

The organization of the rings and the placement and orientation of the arrows

within the diagram suggests several things. First, as I described above, it suggests the

existence of layers of influencing factors that although not consciously present in the

moment seem to have a bearing upon the outcome. Some, such as the teacher’s

familiarity with and understanding of homophobic speech, or what several participants

described as how such language exists within a teachers “radar,” exist “outside the

127

moment.” Second, the diagram suggests a hierarchy of the factors in terms of the degree

of influence each has upon the participants’ response. The closer the loop is to the

response, the greater the consideration or effect it has in the moment. Lastly, the arrows

suggest how the concept within a loop or layer relates to others within the diagram. For

example, a teacher’s understanding of and familiarity with homophobic speech, an

“outside the moment” factor, would seem to play a part in the assessment that is made of

the speaker’s intent, which itself, is part of the analytic process that resides “in the

moment.”

Outside the Moment: Diverse Influential Factors

While, due to the limitations of the study there may be other factors that did not

emerge, I identified three distinct “outside the moment” influencing factors, all of which I

have described in previous sections of this chapter. The first of these is the participants’

life experience and the degree to which individuals with sexual minority identities have

played a role in the participant’s lives. For some, like Skip, this is very apparent in his

narrative. As he described how he responded to one homophobic speech in his classroom

Skip reflected on his “in the moment” thought process, “Like, every time I hear the word,

like “gay,” their images flash in my mind,” he said referring to his friends and former

roommates. For others, including those with relatives or close friends who possessed

sexual minority identities, the influence was stated more subtly, yet it was still present in

their narratives. Still others like Dan brought past experience directly into the moments

they endeavored to describe. As he talked about his responses, Dan integrated the

following lived experience into his narrative:

I was at a party with Alice, my friend, um, in Highland Park – this was five, six,

seven years ago, a long time ago. Um, and her friend Chris, who is gay, was there

128

at the party. And Alice said to me the next day, she’s like, “You know, you said,

you said, ‘Gay,’ like ten times.” Not meaning anything by it –

It was clear that this incident, and his exposure to the gay male friends of his friend, had

made a fairly substantial impression upon Dan.

Most teachers who participated in the study (and most of those from the greater

population of the school who submitted surveys) seemed to possess what several of the

participants referred to as “a radar” for detecting the kind of words that provide the

linguistic material from which homophobic phrases are rendered. However, how a

teacher’s radar might be “calibrated,” a metaphor offered by Matthew, seemed to depend

upon their responsive orientation (gatekeeper, caregiver, educator, none) as well as their

understanding of homophobia in general. In much the same way that Freire (1970)

suggests that we learn to read the world before we read the word, it seemed that teachers’

discernment in terms of what language might be considered homophobic was informed to

a certain extent by a combination of their life experiences and the stance towards issues

of social justice that they both articulated and reported enacting in their practice. A

participant’s understanding of such speech and the acuity of the radar directly affects the

first loop of influence that lies within the moment: the analysis of the speaker’s intent

when employing such language.

Inside the Moment: Answers to Unasked Questions

As I “listened” to how teachers described the process through which they

constructed their responses to homophobic speech, what emerged was a pattern of

answers to questions that I had not posed. The participants’ responses suggested a

progression of relevant questions that they seemed to pose to themselves as such

moments unfolded. Among this litany of considerations, participants noted that prior to

129

offering a response to a speech act they thought quite a bit about the language and its use.

They considered how the words were used, for what purpose they were used, and why

they were used. They also considered to whom, if anyone at all, the words had been

addressed or by whom they might be considered offensive or in some way harmful. What

this suggests is that the aural “lenses,” or “radar” as the participants described them, not

only detect these words when they enter the aural environment of the classroom but also

activate a process. In this way, these lenses work in concert with the teacher’s analysis of

the intent of the speaker.

The considerations noted above seemed to inform the type of desired outcome

that the participants use as a criterion in constructing their responses. “Assessment of

speakers’ intent” is clearly tied to the participant’s understanding of homophobic

language as I discussed in a previous section. This layer seems to provide a framework

for consideration of the “possible effects” and provides the basis for formulating a

possible response. Jason’s description of the chronology of the moment is suggestive of

the link between the first two “inside the moment” layers: “So you’ll hear the speech and

I know that – I presume the intent is not harmful,” he said, indicating that he still deemed

the speech “ not acceptable” and inferred his “gatekeeper” response. The assessment of

intent was a pervasive element of the participants’ descriptions. Many, like Drew

indicated as much. “Like, it’s usually not directed at a gay person,” Drew said. Few

participants seemed to share Dodi’s stance on intent. “I’m not sure that intent’s the only

thing that matters, but also how it’s perceived by others,” she said. Dodi clearly connects

these two layers. Joyce, on the other hand, seemed to suggest that although she

considered intent, her response emerged from a more profound consideration of “possible

Saying Gay: Young Adolescents’ Reported Benefits of LGBTQ+ Inclusive Sexual Health Education

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2024

Sexual health education in the United States is seeing increased attention and is often viewed as a controversial topic. To better understand young adolescents’ experiences within an LGBTQ+ inclusive sexual health education program (Get Real), we utilized Situated Expectancy-Value Theory to investigate 53 responses from 30 students about what they deemed most beneficial after program completion, specifically that pertaining to LGBTQ+ topics. Four themes were identified: allyship/civility, safety, learning, and ongoing need for increased inclusion. Results suggest inclusive sexual health education is valued by middle school students and that there is a need for increased (and improved) inclusive LGBTQ+ sexual health education. Designing and implementing sexual health education curricula which fosters inclusion and LGBTQ+- friendly topics may lead to increased allyship, civility, and respect toward others. Additionally, inclusive sexual health education may promote an increased sense of safety in learning environments for all students. Policymakers and educators may wish to better understand students’ experiences within sexual health education programs as they aim to improve sexual health education efforts.

LGBTQ Inclusive Curriculum in Higher Education in Africa

Chapter

Full-text available

Dec 2024

Bellita banda Chitsamatanga

Linguistically Invisible: The Experiences of Transgender Students in Spanish Language Courses

Article

Jun 2021

Jillane Baros

More research is needed to understand the experiences of transgender students, including nonbinary students, in K-12 educational settings. Transgender students may experience unique stressors in World Language courses which impact their learning outcomes. In this study, three transgender adults in their twenties were interviewed about their experiences studying Spanish. Findings revealed that while binary transgender students may not feel language- and culture-specific stressors, nonbinary student identities may be rendered linguistically and culturally impossible. However, the impact on learning outcomes is ambiguous and may be mitigated by other factors and coping mechanisms. Implications for educators include increased awareness of transgender student experiences, including those specific to nonbinary students, and explicit efforts to queer the curriculum and provide opportunities for critical analysis and discussion. Additional research with larger and more diverse samples is needed to understand transgender student experiences, perceptions, and outcomes.

Gender Nonconforming Individuals and Business Education: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2020
J Manag Educ

Our understanding of gender is evolving from a binary system to a continuum whereby gender is fluid, multifaceted, and individually defined or expressed. Businesses, through owners, employees, and customers, as well as company policies and practices, play a role in the acceptance and inclusion of gender nonconforming individuals. One group with a responsibility in relation to gender inclusion is the business education system—undergraduate and graduate business programs that deliver business curriculum, shape business practices, research business issues, and produce business leaders. The purpose of this study is to examine the peer-reviewed literature to identify if and how the interpretation of genders, one that includes gender nonconforming individuals, exists in business education research. While 17 articles were found that cover topics within this general area, an overall lack of academic literature examining business education and gender nonconformity may leave business educators ill-equipped to include gender nonconforming individuals and topics in their classrooms. This work may inform business educators regarding the status of business education in relation to the evolving understanding of gender and identify areas for future work to help ensure that business educators are equipped with the knowledge to enable full gender inclusion in the business classroom.

LGBTQ Inclusive Curriculum in Higher Education in Africa

Chapter

Feb 2024

Bellita banda Chitsamatanga

The Myth of the 50-Minute Epiphany: #MeToo and Implications for Teaching

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

Because university campuses are microcosms of broader political and social climates, the increasingly polarized climates outside universities can permeate the classroom, challenging faculty who teach topics characterized by controversy and discomfort. We conducted a lesson study project at a college in the southeastern United States in three first-year courses from different disciplines to examine how the broader tensions of the #MeToo movement emerged and affected a class activity focused on gender. We sought to understand our students’ responses to a moment of discomfort generated by discussions of sexual roles, consent, and assault—issues that are relevant in both this cultural moment and in the lives of many first-year college students. We observed responses ranging from affirmation to resistance in what felt at times like our own failure. Without this collaboration, each of us may have been left with a narrower view of what the students learned and an incomplete sense of our own work. What began as an investigation into students’ transformative learning experiences ended as a transformative experience in our own understanding of the acts of teaching and the complexities of student learning.

On teaching philanthropy

Article

Aug 2022

Lindsey M. McDougle

This commentary focuses on teaching philanthropy using an innovative pedagogy known as experiential philanthropy. Experiential philanthropy allows students to study social issues and nonprofit organizations and then make decisions about awarding funds to nonprofits working to address the social issues they learned about. The pedagogy is considered to be transformative for students across a variety of disciplines (e.g., business administration, marketing, public administration, and social work). In this commentary, I raise an important consideration for those who teach philanthropy using this pedagogy and I conclude by issuing a call to action.

Comprehensive Sex Education—Why Should We Care?

Article

Apr 2022

Problematizing White Allyship in the Civil Rights Curriculum of Studies Weekly®

Article

Apr 2022

The American Civil Rights Movement has often been misrepresented in textbooks, children’s literature, and other curricular materials. With knowledge of the ongoing curricular distortion around Black history in P-12 curricula in mind, this article explores how a commonly used social studies curriculum, Studies Weekly®, represents the Civil Rights Movement in its Standing for Freedom Civil Rights curriculum package. Through a quantitative and qualitative content analysis, we reveal how the Studies Weekly® Civil Rights Curriculum distorts the Civil Rights Movement history by centering a White ally, Joan Trumpauer Mulholland. Ultimately the curricular materials portray Mulholland as a central figure in the movement, thereby marginalizing Black activists and offering a narrative of the movement that relies nearly exclusively on Mulholland’s life and experiences. In doing so, we conclude, the Studies Weekly® curriculum does harm to the civic learning and potential of all students by failing to offer an appropriate vision of White allyship and activism.

Educación LGB+. El derecho fundamental a educación básica contra la discriminación por orientación sexual

Article

Jul 2019

Bruno Doig Gonzales Otoya

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.

Build a Curriculum that Includes Everyone

Abstract

Recommended publications

My Two Cents on Changing Times

Identifying Teacher Practices That Connect Home and School

Assessing Spatial Development: Implications for Map Skill Instruction

The effects of academic competition upon school system support, teacher-sponsor operational behavior...