Cultural competency in the learning environment: promoting the development of diversity training for pre-service educators

Introduction/Abstract

            Anti-gay bias among teachers within early stages of education can have lasting effects on students identifying as LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Questioning), particularly in terms of hate crime victimization.  Pre-service teachers throughout the country currently have no regulated courses within their curriculum that focus specifically on diversity issues, specifically LGBTQ individuals and the sexual minority as a whole.  Moreover, teachers do not receive diversity training to promote a culturally competent learning environment.  This creates a gap in that the students they teach are not challenged to embrace diversity and the teachers are not equipped to deliver such an environment.  This study will utilize a Systematic Research Synthesis methodology to explore two themes in the literature: victimization and education.  The purpose is to develop a literature search that supports the need for pre-service teachers to be educated on diversity and to identify evidence-based educational practices with this population.

LGBTQ Youth

            Although gaps exist regarding pre-service educator knowledge of minority groups in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, and religion, the sexual minority remains one of the most prominently overlooked minority groups within diversity education (Wyatt, Oswalt, White, & Peterson, 2008).  Because of this lack of education regarding the everyday personal struggles of LGBTQ youth, administrators and teachers are often incapable of providing needed support to those students who are most often victims of bullying and hate crimes due to their perceived sexual orientation.  In a study conducted to synthesize statistics of bullying and victimization of LGBTQ youth, researchers found that LGBTQ youth are twice as likely to be both sexually and physically abused by family members than heterosexual youth between middle school and high school (Saewyc,et al, 2006).  Abuse within schools as well as in the community often leads to LGBTQ youth being most prominent among populations of runaways, homeless, juvenile delinquents, foster kids, and have an increased risk of poor mental health; these individuals tend to experience higher rates of depression, anxiety disorders, behavior problems, drop-out rates, and sexual promiscuity as well.  (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009).  As schools continue to be the setting in which LGBTQ students are most vulnerable to attacks from their peers, the importance of educating future teachers and administrators regarding victimization intervention techniques as well as recognizing “red flags” of abuse continues to rise as sexual minority teens continue to come to terms with their sexual orientation.

The Role of the Educator

            The general knowledge of pre-service educators in regards to the sexual minority and LGBTQ students has been brought to light due to the immense impact educators have upon their students based on their own viewpoints.  The issue at hand is simply if educators do not have a full understanding of LGBTQ students, is it possible for them to educate their own students in cultural diversity and ideas of acceptance. Within a study among pre-service educators in Central and Southern Texas, the candidates showed fairly negative attitudes toward homosexuals - primarily toward gay men rather than lesbian women – yet 69.2% felt they were “moderately informed and educated” regarding the sexual minority (Wyatt, Oswalt, White, & Peterson, 2008).  With educators entering school systems possessing what they feel is a moderate understanding of the sexual minority, LGBTQ students are placed into unsafe situations within schools as  the administrators and teachers expected to provide protection and support for them are unaware of the threat of bullying and victimization faced everyday by a majority of LGBTQ youth. 

A study of attitudes and beliefs of pre-service educators and counselors throughout America revealed that 83% of those surveyed found it “acceptable to ignore slurs against LGBT youngsters” and most completely lacked the experience and knowledge to deal with social issues within schools in general (Rogers & O’Bryon, 2008).  This resulted in 3 out of every 4 students surveyed reporting they had experienced some form of verbal or physical harassment within the past year but felt administrators and teachers did not find it necessary to intervene.  With new educators possessing little to no knowledge of the sexual minority and daily struggles of LGBTQ youth, these students are essentially losing the support system most important in regards to keeping them in school and working toward attaining an education.

The Viewpoint of a Student

            Educators may be expected to maintain a fully unbiased classroom environment, however students identifying as LGBTQ often report their teachers not abiding by anti-bullying standards corresponding directly with victimization of homosexual students.  In a study of students’ perceptions of their school’s administration in regards to general anti-bullying policies, awareness programs, and follow-through with preventing victimization, a majority of those surveyed responded that they were unaware of specific policies targeted toward creating a supportive environment for LGBTQ students.  Participants reported having experienced an array of harassment and abuse ranging from verbal to physical that correlated directly with the existence (or perceived existence) of anti-bullying policies focused on LGBTQ students (Chasir-Teran & Hughes, 2009).  In this sense, bullying occurred at a lower rate within schools that upheld anti-victimization rules and policies as well as within schools in which students believed these policies existed, regardless of whether or not they were actually intact and upheld.

            The idea of “heterosexism” refers to the general process of privileging heterosexual individuals (particularly students) over their homosexual peers.  This ideal stems from a lack of LGBTQ support within administrative staff and educators alike, as well as a failure to promote support from peers through programs such as the Gay-Straight Alliance clubs found within some high schools.  (Chesir-Teran, 2009) In various areas of the country, GSA groups are banned from being created completely due to a lack of support from the community as well as the parents of a majority of students attending the schools.  Heterosexism has the power to create a rift between heterosexual and homosexual students which can disillusion heterosexual youth with stereotypes and stigmas while isolating LGBTQ students that need support while making decisions regarding their own lifestyles and personal identities.

Existing Policies and Procedures Regarding Diversity Training

            Various programs have been attempted within the past decade in order to educate future teachers about the sexual minority and LGBTQ students, but few have resulted in a noticeable change in the knowledge possessed by pre-service educators.  A majority of these diversity programs have specifically focused on the at-risk population of LGBTQ students – those just coming to terms with their sexual orientation and experiencing frequent bullying – rather than general prevention of victimization and bullying of sexual minority students.  Research has began to uncover various “setting-level predictors” which can be used to prevent anti-LGBTQ victimization and harassment by taking into account what causes the bullying and therefore what can be done to prevent it from occurring in the future (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009).  The main observed issue is that either schools have relatively no policies regarding anti-LGBTQ bullying, or they have the policies intact but do not follow through with them with the creation of inclusive school programs and groups which would provide students with necessary support to stop victimization and begin accepting LGBTQ students.

Future Work and Prospects

            School programs used to spread an anti-bullying message are being rewritten and reprogrammed in order to become up-to-speed with the ever changing social culture of varying levels of school and the changing populations of students.  A newly-developed anti-harassment program focuses on the specific needs of students at varying levels of harassing others or being harassed themselves rather than blanketing a program to effect only at-risk LGBTQ students.  Within this program, the Primary Prevention focuses on all students and creates a general knowledge and understanding of the sexual minority, the Secondary Prevention targets at-risk students who may have experienced victimization but not to a great extent, and the Tertiary Prevention focuses on students already experiencing a great deal of bullying and harassment due to their sexual orientation (Fisher et. al, 2008).  With this education program, students are grouped according to their individual needs rather than being compiled into a group of generalized youth, resulting in a more cohesive school environment encouraged by knowledge of social issues and bullying threats that affect not only the at-risk sexual minority students but their heterosexual counterparts as well.

 

Oesterle, S, Hawkins, J, Fagan, A, Abbott, R, & Catalano, R. (2010). Testing the universality of

 the effects of the communities that care prevention system for preventing adolescent

 drug use and delinquency. Society for Prevention Research, 11, 411-423.

(Oesterle, Hawkins, Fagan, Abbott & Catalano, 2010)

Rubin, A, & Babbie, E. (2008). Research methods for social work. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole,

 Cengage Learning.

Wyatt, T, Oswalt, S, White, C, & Peterson, F. (2008). Are tomorrow's teachers ready to deal with

             diverse students?. Teacher Education Quarterly, 171-185

Kosciw, J. G. and Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 National School Climate Survey: The

experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation's schools. New York: GLSEN.

Rogers, M, & O'Bryon, E. (2008). Advocating for social justice: the context for change in school

 psychology. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 493-498.

Fisher, E, Komosa-Hawkins, K, Saldana, E, Thomas, G, & Hsiao, C. (2008). Promoting school

            success for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning students: primary,

            secondary, and tertiary prevention and intervention strategies. The California School

            Psychologist, 13, 79-91.

Woodiel, K, Angermeier-Howard, L, & Hobson, S. (2003). School safety for all: using the

            coordinated school health program to increase safety for lgbtq students. American

             Journal of Health Studies, 18(2/3), 98-103.

Chesir-Teran, D, & Hughes, Diane. (2009). Heterosexism in high school and victimization

among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students. J. Youth Adolescence, 38, 963-975.

Saewyc, E, Skay, C, Pettingell, S, Reis, E, & Bearinger, L. (2006). Hazards of stigma: the sexual

and physical abuse of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents in the united states and canada. Child Welfare League of America, 195-213.