The reasons that teachers don’t incorporate queer curriculum, whether it be inclusive or queer theory, into their classrooms are numerous and complex. Some of them are personal reasons, including misconceptions, fears, and prejudices, while others are out of their control, including push back from both parents and legal guardians, as well as administration.
Many teachers are under the impression that when it comes to controversial issues in their classrooms, the best thing to do is, in fact, nothing. They don’t see their classrooms as the appropriate venue for the discussion (or debate) of topics that might leave some students uncomfortable. Nicole Sieben and Laraine Wallowitz introduce the idea of a “neutral” classroom (in which teachers avoid controversial subjects which might include race, gender, sexuality, and class) in their essay, “Watch What You Teach”: A First-Year Teacher Refuses to Play It Safe” in which they argue such a classroom does not exist. They support this idea by stating that teachers’ “neutrality” or silence regarding hegemonic norms is perceived as their condoning of the “behavior of the oppressor” (44). The idea of “classroom neutrality” in order to maintain the comfort/safety of students is problematic because it wrongly assumes that the content being presented to students is also neutral (and it is viewed that way because it adheres to hegemonic norms), and that their students’ identities are reflected within the normative content. By assuming students are represented by normative, teachers absolve themselves of accountability and responsibility to provide otherwise (45). At what cost are we maintaining the “comfort” of some of our students who might view LGBTQ identities as disagreeable?
While some teachers won’t include LGBTQ related content or ideas into their lessons for reasons relating to either their desire to remain “neutral” or personal prejudices they might have, there are also a number of teachers that simply aren’t sure how to. Many teachers don’t believe that LGBTQ content is available in their curriculum. They are not sure of the difference between inclusion and queering and the different implications of each.
Many teachers are under the impression that when it comes to controversial issues in their classrooms, the best thing to do is, in fact, nothing. They don’t see their classrooms as the appropriate venue for the discussion (or debate) of topics that might leave some students uncomfortable. Nicole Sieben and Laraine Wallowitz introduce the idea of a “neutral” classroom (in which teachers avoid controversial subjects which might include race, gender, sexuality, and class) in their essay, “Watch What You Teach”: A First-Year Teacher Refuses to Play It Safe” in which they argue such a classroom does not exist. They support this idea by stating that teachers’ “neutrality” or silence regarding hegemonic norms is perceived as their condoning of the “behavior of the oppressor” (44). The idea of “classroom neutrality” in order to maintain the comfort/safety of students is problematic because it wrongly assumes that the content being presented to students is also neutral (and it is viewed that way because it adheres to hegemonic norms), and that their students’ identities are reflected within the normative content. By assuming students are represented by normative, teachers absolve themselves of accountability and responsibility to provide otherwise (45). At what cost are we maintaining the “comfort” of some of our students who might view LGBTQ identities as disagreeable?
While some teachers won’t include LGBTQ related content or ideas into their lessons for reasons relating to either their desire to remain “neutral” or personal prejudices they might have, there are also a number of teachers that simply aren’t sure how to. Many teachers don’t believe that LGBTQ content is available in their curriculum. They are not sure of the difference between inclusion and queering and the different implications of each.
The idea of queering their content, by introducing ideas of heterosexism, cissexism, sexism, racism, and ableism and allowing students to critically examine their existence and how they function is something that teachers might not realize is huge opportunity for them to meet the needs of a diverse student body. They can do this without making many changes to their unit plans, and without dealing with many of the challenges associated with inclusion. Providing students with the tools necessary to think critically about oppression enables them to utilize a critical lens which can then with minimal effort be incorporated into every unit. |
Inclusion, directly inserting LGBTQ books/characters/content, into curriculum presents even more challenges. In his essay, “Literacy, Sexuality, and the Value(s) of Queer Young Adult Literature,” William Banks introduces the unfortunate truth that LGBTQ young adult literature (YAL) is usually viewed as being majorly composed of coming out stories. While issues like coming out can be discussed, they’re harder to examine critically than heterosexism, for example (35). It is true that a lot of LGBTQ themed YAL is composed of coming out stories, but it is not the case for all of it, and that can be attributed to the fact that publishers of YAL often seek out coming out stories because the conflicts they present are intriguing (36). Now this presents a whole separate issue for teachers regarding how to introduce LGBTQ themed YAL texts in a way that is not voyeuristic, or perceived by students to be encompassing of all LGBTQ identities and experiences (34). This in itself is a reason that many teachers shy away from the direct inclusion of this type of text, which is intensified by the idea that YAL does not belong in the classroom as something other than a bridge for English language learners or students’ with learning disabilities. However, YAL is valuable for a multitude of reasons, not just as a reward or a bridge, but as the focus of a unit. There is a huge debate in the field regarding straying away from the canon, but examining text complexity, content, style, and ability to meet the demands Common Core State Standards can provide an adequate rationale for its usage. Teachers who do not see YAL as an option for their classrooms, or who do not realize what types of YAL are available to them may feel that they lack the option of inclusion. I interviewed a ninth grade English teacher from Yorktown High School who stated, “I think teachers are fine with [inclusion]. It’s just that there’s not much literature that we currently have that deals with it.” Banks also writes that many teachers who do attempt to provide LGBTQ inclusive curriculum make the mistake of looking for the “best” or “most powerful” LGBTQ book, as if that is even possible (34). While the resources necessary to create either a curriculum that includes LGBTQ identities both literally and through encouraging students’ critical thinking exist, doing so sometimes presents complications that teachers don’t view as worthy of their time, or that they’d prefer to avoid all together.
It makes sense that some teachers would rather avoid conflict that advocate for LGBTQ content because in some circumstances the risks of doing so are substantial. They include losing one’s job, backlash from parents, administrators, and other teachers, as well as censorship. One of the teachers I interviewed was hesitant to even speak to me for this blog once he realized what it was about because he doesn’t have tenure. Some wrongly assume that students aren’t willing or mature enough to engage with complex ideas that challenge hegemonic social norms such as feminism, and critically examining racism, classism, and heterosexism, or the existence of oppression as something that manifests through systems of privilege and disadvantage (Sieban and Wallowitz 44-45). Teachers might also jump to conclusions and assume that administrators and parents won’t support them or openly embrace their decisions, which isn’t always the case.
While the personal beliefs and apprehensions of teachers sometimes serve as enough discouragement regarding venturing into the land of LGBTQ inclusivity, there are other obstacles for those who persist. In many cases, parents are concerned with what their children are learning in schools, especially when the content does not reflect their own values. They sometimes don’t understand the critical approach that can be taken to certain books or topics, or the process that teachers go through in determining what is important to teach students (Kauer 56). In many cases school districts are not properly equipped to deal with parental requests calling for censorship, or they honor the requests to avoid outside scrutiny and media coverage which such issues have been known to gain (Lent 65). One of the English teachers I interviewed stated, “I would think on the surface the administration says that they are embracing incorporating LGBTQ themes in the classroom, but I think it would scare them to death.” The fear of districts and administration to include LGBTQ content is logical for a school that is not prepared to deal with backlash, which is why it is necessary to formulate a plan or protocol to do so. Some districts have specific guidelines and procedures for dealing with censorship. Schools that enforce these procedures have less issues with parents, and have a plan to deal with whatever issues that might come up (Kauer 58). Additionally, these guidelines serve as a tool for teachers who may be unsure as to how to advocate for including controversial material into their classrooms.
There are several things that teachers who desire to include LGBTQ themes into their classroom can do to combat resistance. First, they can educate themselves on queer theory and how it works as a tool for thinking critically about oppression. This will help them figure out how to frame issues that might be considered controversial in a productive way and encourage student engagement with them. Recognizing that oppression persists because of silence is also important, and should serve as motivation against potential obstacles. Additionally, teachers should be fully aware of, and take advantage of, the resources available to them. While some schools do have a mandatory booklist, this is not always the case and with the support of a strong rationale (and maybe some outside funding from an organization like Donors Choose) it is absolutely possible to have the addition of new books approved by administration. It cannot be denied that incorporating LGBTQ topics and themes into classrooms poses several risks to the teacher, however the implications of not doing so are too severe to ignore. With persistence and the right resources, the queering of a classroom will prove beneficial to all involved.
It makes sense that some teachers would rather avoid conflict that advocate for LGBTQ content because in some circumstances the risks of doing so are substantial. They include losing one’s job, backlash from parents, administrators, and other teachers, as well as censorship. One of the teachers I interviewed was hesitant to even speak to me for this blog once he realized what it was about because he doesn’t have tenure. Some wrongly assume that students aren’t willing or mature enough to engage with complex ideas that challenge hegemonic social norms such as feminism, and critically examining racism, classism, and heterosexism, or the existence of oppression as something that manifests through systems of privilege and disadvantage (Sieban and Wallowitz 44-45). Teachers might also jump to conclusions and assume that administrators and parents won’t support them or openly embrace their decisions, which isn’t always the case.
While the personal beliefs and apprehensions of teachers sometimes serve as enough discouragement regarding venturing into the land of LGBTQ inclusivity, there are other obstacles for those who persist. In many cases, parents are concerned with what their children are learning in schools, especially when the content does not reflect their own values. They sometimes don’t understand the critical approach that can be taken to certain books or topics, or the process that teachers go through in determining what is important to teach students (Kauer 56). In many cases school districts are not properly equipped to deal with parental requests calling for censorship, or they honor the requests to avoid outside scrutiny and media coverage which such issues have been known to gain (Lent 65). One of the English teachers I interviewed stated, “I would think on the surface the administration says that they are embracing incorporating LGBTQ themes in the classroom, but I think it would scare them to death.” The fear of districts and administration to include LGBTQ content is logical for a school that is not prepared to deal with backlash, which is why it is necessary to formulate a plan or protocol to do so. Some districts have specific guidelines and procedures for dealing with censorship. Schools that enforce these procedures have less issues with parents, and have a plan to deal with whatever issues that might come up (Kauer 58). Additionally, these guidelines serve as a tool for teachers who may be unsure as to how to advocate for including controversial material into their classrooms.
There are several things that teachers who desire to include LGBTQ themes into their classroom can do to combat resistance. First, they can educate themselves on queer theory and how it works as a tool for thinking critically about oppression. This will help them figure out how to frame issues that might be considered controversial in a productive way and encourage student engagement with them. Recognizing that oppression persists because of silence is also important, and should serve as motivation against potential obstacles. Additionally, teachers should be fully aware of, and take advantage of, the resources available to them. While some schools do have a mandatory booklist, this is not always the case and with the support of a strong rationale (and maybe some outside funding from an organization like Donors Choose) it is absolutely possible to have the addition of new books approved by administration. It cannot be denied that incorporating LGBTQ topics and themes into classrooms poses several risks to the teacher, however the implications of not doing so are too severe to ignore. With persistence and the right resources, the queering of a classroom will prove beneficial to all involved.
Works Cited
Banks, William P. "Literacy, Sexuality, and the Value(s) of Queer Young Adult Literature." The English Journal 98.4 (2009): 33-36. JSTOR. Web. 10 Oct. 2014.
Kauer, Suzanne M. "A Battle Reconsidered: Second Thoughts on Book Censorship and Conservative Parents." The English Journal 97.3 (2008): 56-60. JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
Lent, ReLeah C. "Facing the Issues: Challenges, Censorship, and Reflection through Dialogue." The English Journal 97.3 (2008): 61-66. JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
Sieben, Nicole, and Laraine Wallowitz. ""Watch What You Teach": A First Year Teacher Refuses to Play It Safe." English Journal 98.4 (2009): 44-49. JSTOR. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Kauer, Suzanne M. "A Battle Reconsidered: Second Thoughts on Book Censorship and Conservative Parents." The English Journal 97.3 (2008): 56-60. JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
Lent, ReLeah C. "Facing the Issues: Challenges, Censorship, and Reflection through Dialogue." The English Journal 97.3 (2008): 61-66. JSTOR. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
Sieben, Nicole, and Laraine Wallowitz. ""Watch What You Teach": A First Year Teacher Refuses to Play It Safe." English Journal 98.4 (2009): 44-49. JSTOR. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.