Running head: SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

Supporting LGBTQ+ Students and Families Through Multicultural Education

Lindsay Heffernan
Post University

SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

Supporting LGBTQ+ Students and Families Through Multicultural Education

Multiculturalism in education has opened doors to building more
inclusive spaces within multiple educational contexts. Multiculturalism as
described by Gorski (2010) highlights the need for all components of education
including curriculum content and development, teaching methods, and teacher-student
interaction should work together to be fully inclusive of all cultural identities of students both as
it relates to content and interaction with that content. While great strides have been made to be
better inclusive of non-Western racial and cultural identities, the needs of LGBTQ+ students and
families continue to fall to the wayside when it comes to meeting educational needs. Discussions
of diversity in 21st century education must include an analysis of challenges facing the education
of LGBTQ+ students and families. Current trends in education fail to fully embrace or reflect on
the needs of the LGBTQ+ population in schools that benefit the academic, social and emotional
well-being of students. As educators and administrators seek to close achievement gaps and
create environments that are conducive to learning for all, the integration of content that is
sensitive of the unique needs of the LGBTQ+ community as an important facet of multicultural
education must occur. To achieve this, educators must make attempts to better track achievement
gaps related to LGBTQ+ bullying behavior, build safe places that encourage a sense of belonging
for LGBTQ+ community within the larger populations, and strive to eliminate the use of biased
language by students and educators.
Sexual orientation and gender identity are not visible indicators of cultural identity
(Pollack, 2008, p. 370). While studies show that there are 14 million children in the US who
either identify as LGBTQ+ or have a family member who identifies as such, data on LGBTQ+
students can be scarce complicating the ability of educators, administrators and curriculum
developers to plan for the needs of that community (Harrel, 2016; Evans-Santiago & Lin, 2016,

Running head: SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

p. 56). While test scores are readily analyzed along racial, ethnic and social-economic lines to
understand where each group is struggling, LGBTQ+ reporting is currently based primarily on
anecdotal evidence. 25% of educators indicate that they have interacted with or know that a
student in their classroom identifies as LGBTQ+, but this information is unverified in part
because many young students may not yet have self-identified, or may not feel safe to selfidentify (Southern Poverty Law, 2013; Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, 2012). The
comfort for LGBTQ+ students or children with LGBTQ+ family members in being open about
their identity often stems at least in part from the location of the school. Suburban schools in
liberal districts have higher rates of LGBTQ+ student identification than urban. rural areas (Gay,
Lesbian, & Straight Education Network, 2012). Experts are hesitant to push for higher rates of
identification that do not grow from self-identification because LGBTQ+ families can have some
concerns that differ from their heteronormative counterparts. LGBTQ+ families can have
concerns about parental rights and employer policies regarding benefits that complicate their
willingness to identify publicly (Evans-Santiago & Lin, 2016, p.56). Additionally, LGBTQ+
students face bullying at almost twice the rate of their peers making privacy at times imperative
to student safety. (Southern Poverty Law, 2013).
While this information about LGBTQ+ students and families remains difficult to track,
there are certain strategies that schools and education contexts can employ in an attempt to build
this information in similar ways to how information has been mined for other groups. Studies
suggest that LGBTQ+ have higher rates of truancy and lower GPAs than many of their peers
based on what limited information is available (Harrel, 2016). Knowing this and knowing that
LGBTQ+ students and children for LGBTQ+ families often have mental stressors unique to their
peer group related to feelings of isolation, victimization and stigma related to have an LGBTQ+

Running head: SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

identity, educators have an opportunity to track the LGBTQ+ achievement gap by monitoring the
rates of student bullying and uses of LGBTQ+ (Shilo & Mor, 2014, p. 161; Harrel, 2016). By
monitoring and correlating information regarding bullying and mental stressors as well as
enacting policies that are responsive to such problems, educators can begin to understand and
close the achievement gap for LGBTQ+ students and families while also protecting their privacy
(Harrel, 2016).
Possessing the correct data is one key step for recognizing and supporting the educational
needs of LGBTQ+ students, another important consideration in creating spaces that are
conducive to the inclusive learning of LGBTQ+ students and their families is building an
environment that is comfortable and safe for them. This can be a very complex issue to address
because it is without a doubt multifaceted, but it also offers crossover opportunities to benefit
students outside of the LGBTQ+ environment in ways that will promote learning for all. In
discussing a safe space environment, one must first recognize that spaces are social constructs
much as many labels in society are (Kjaran & Johannesson, 2015, p. 42). When these spaces are
informed by specific school cultures, they may seem unwelcoming to those in certain
marginalized groups (Kjaran & Johannesson, 2015, p. 72). For example, a school that puts
special emphasis on traditional gender roles or that supports a hyper-masculinized attitude
related to sports or achievement may be alienating to LGBTQ+ students or children from
LGBTQ+ families (Kjaran & Johannesson, 2015, p. 72). Such atmospheres result in rates as high
as 4 in 10 students feeling unsafe or unwelcome in their schools (Southern Poverty Law, 2013).
Combating this unwelcome feeling requires that educators and administrators develop a
school culture that offers social support and connectedness to a larger community (Shilo & Mor,
2014, p. 161). To develop a social support system, schools and similar education organizations

Running head: SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

should engage with Gay Straight Alliances (GSA) on campus (Southern Poverty Law, 2013).
GSAs offer LGBTQ+ students and family members to find allies within their schools that share
values and offer opportunities to change the school culture to positively reflect the inclusion
required by multicultural education (Southern Poverty Law, 2013). What is imperative, however,
is that GSAs be empowered to play active roles in planning and executing events that engage the
entire school and equal representation throughout the school on par with other clubs and
organizations (Southern Poverty Law, 2013). GSAs and inclusive school environments must all
be aware of students First Amendment rights, ensuring that students are aware of what
protections they have to express themselves, their gender and sexual identity at school (Southern
Poverty Law, 2013).
In addition to creating opportunities for social engagement among LGBTQ+ students and
family members within the school community, educators and administrators must also adopt
anti-bias language within their classrooms to fully support students. Anti-bias language is not
limited to discussion of LGBTQ+ students, but also students who have other cultural
sensitivities. Bias language refers to language used by students or teachers that undermines the
identities of certain students (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network, 2012, p.2). In regards
to LGBTQ+ populations this may include phrases such as thats so gay or the use of homophobic
slurs (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network, 2012, p.2). The reason such phrases are so
problematic even when not directed at LGBTQ+ students is that they suggest that there is
something other or wrong about those who do identify as such things (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight
Education Network, 2012, p. 7). To combat such language and to adopt an anti-bias model,
schools must set clear consequences for using such language and give teachers policies to follow
that allow them to track and monitor how students are using such language (Harrel, 2016).

Running head: SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

In addition to language that may seem purposely biased such as using gender identity and
sexual orientation related language to denigrate individuals, bias language can extend to include
language that excludes certain students because of the use of labels. For example, if an educator
or school creates events that are geared specifically to one gendered parent or another such as a
Mothers Day event, there is an opportunity to exclude children who have same-sex parents
(Evans-Santiago & Lin, 2016, p. 56). Similarly, educators should seek to use activities, books
and other materials that are supportive of non-traditional families and lifestyles to ensure that
students who may be grappling with their identity or living in an LGBTQ+ family have the
opportunity to feel engaged and safe in school (Evans-Santiago & Lin, 2016, p. 56).
In exploring ways in which LGBTQ+ students and family members can be engaged and
included in a multicultural education model, it becomes clear that techniques and opportunities
for working with this group stand to benefit school or organizational culture as a whole. The
creation and implementation of anti-bullying policies, tracking students who identify as specific
groups to understand achievement gaps and using anti-bias language to engage groups in safe
spaces are not things that are limited to LGBTQ+ students. Working with these students to better
serve them and better serve their educational needs will improve performance and help to bridge
community support gaps between LGBTQ+ students and families and the larger school
community.

References
Evans- Santiago, B. & Lin, M. (2016, May). Inclusion with sensitivity: Teaching children with

Running head: SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

LGBTQ families. YC: Young children (71), 2.

Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network. (2012). Playgrounds and prejudice: Elementary
school climate in the United States, a survey of students and teachers. New York:
GLSEN. Retrieved from: http://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/Playgrounds%20&
%20Prejudice.pdf.
Gorski,.P.C. (2010, April 14). The challenge of defining "multicultural
education" [Web log
post]. Retrieved
from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/initial.html.
Harrell, J. (2016, February 2). The LGBT achievement gap needs to get out of the closet.
Huffington post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-harrell/the-lgbtachievement-gap-needs-to-get-out-of-the-closet_b_3890764.html.
Kjaran, J. I., Johannesson, I.A. (2015, March). Inclusion, exclusion and the queering of spaces in
two Icelandic upper secondary schools. Ethnography & education, 10(1). doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457823.2014.925409.
Pollock, M. (2008). From shallow to deep: Toward a thorough cultural analysis
of school
achievement patterns. Anthropology & education quarterly, 39(4).
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2008.00028.x.
Shilo, G. & Mor, Z. (2014, August). The impact of minority stressors on the mental and physical
health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths and young adults. Health and social work,
39(3). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hsw/hlu023
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2013). Best practices: Creating an LGBT-inclusive school

Running head: SUPPORTING LGBTQ+ STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

climate. Teaching Tolerance. Retrieved from: http://www.tolerance.org/lgbt-bestpractices.