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.

Heterosexism in high school and victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students

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.

I will be researching the extent of the effort to prevent an anti-gay bias in teachers at all levels of education through both teacher workshops and programs within individual schools. I will also attempt to reveal the positive and negative effects of implementing these programs within schools at various levels of education (elementary, middle, and high school).

The article focused on the existence (or non-existence, in some cases) of “perceived manifestations of heterosexism” based upon high school policies, programs, and social domains as well as an observation of reported victimization experiences from LGBT students throughout the United States (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009). The internet survey used created a forum in which LGBT students could voice their opinions regarding their own thoughts regarding both the commonality and possible tolerance of anti-LGBT harassment and victimization, as well as ways in which administrators and school systems respond (or do not) to these events. Essentially, those who experienced victimization personally saw a general indifference amongst their school administrators in regards to the bullying, and a majority of students who took part in the survey were unaware of any policies or staff programs regarding victimization awareness of LGBT individuals even if the programs were, in fact, a part of their school district. The study found, however, that the existence (or perceived existence) of non-discrimination policies and programs correlated directly with the prevalence of LGBT bullying and victimization.

Although the study was internet-based and therefore closed to many students identifying as LGBT, the results revealed the general consensus that a knowledge of the existence of anti-harassment policies focused primarily on the victimization of LGBT individuals resulted in a lessening of reported harassment and bullying. Any existing victimization may have simply remained unreported, but with teachers and administrators that completed training in anti-harassment and non-discrimination the likeliness of there being an issue with victimization and abuse was lessened to a great extent. A full no-tolerance policy enacted through the administrators of school districts has the potential to create a stable and safe environment for LGBT individuals in which they can learn and interact with their peers without fear of being verbally and physically attacked, thus reducing the prevalence of anti-gay victimization and harassment in general.

Hazards of stigma: the sexual and physical abuse of gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents in the united states and canada

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.

I will be researching the extent of the effort to prevent an anti-gay bias in teachers at all levels of education through both teacher workshops and programs within individual schools. I will also attempt to reveal the positive and negative effects of implementing these programs within schools at various levels of education (elementary, middle, and high school).

The article in focus involved multiple case studies as well as general surveys of LGBT-identifying school-aged students from middle school to high school. Observations ranged from cities within the United States to areas of Canada as well, linking the commonality of negative LGBT attitudes and the general consensus of the area on the subject. These attitudes were represented through analyzed victimization reports, bullying statistics, administrative actions, and protests in general regarding anti-bullying regulations focused primarily on anti-gay harassment. The survey also observed the various forms of abuse experienced by the students that identified as LGBT, finding that 1 in 4 of them experienced some form of sexual abuse in the past, 1 in 3 reported physical abuse from family members, and a general increase in both forms of abuse occurred over the span of 10 years since the first survey of this kind was taken.

Although this article, as some of the others I have reviewed, does not focus primarily on preventing an anti-gay bias amongst pre-service teachers, it helps to illustrate the immense need for these types of programs in order to provide a stable and safe environment for vulnerable students made even more vulnerable by being singled-out due to their sexual orientation. By creating a teacher work force that is educated in the sexual minority as well as ways to prevent bullying and victimization, educators can be given the power to provide LGBT students with the opportunity to learn in an environment that does not section them off as a majority of society has. I believe this article also brings to surface the question of why the students involved in both reported forms of abuse were not given the opportunity to report these events to their teachers – much of the education pre-service teachers are lacking would provide them with the ability to recognize the “red flags” of abuse in order to maintain the safety of the students as well as offer them help within their living situation.

Advocating for social justice: the context for change in school psychology.

Rogers, M, & O'Bryon, E. (2008). Advocating for social justice: the context for change in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 493-498.

            I will be researching the extent of the effort to prevent an anti-gay bias in teachers at all levels of education through both teacher workshops and programs within individual schools.  I will also attempt to reveal the positive and negative effects of implementing these programs within schools at various levels of education (elementary, middle, and high school).

            This article was short and concise but focused on the psychological aspect of hate crimes and discrimination within schools of all levels.  The authors discuss the issue of high drop-out rates for gay and lesbian students due to bullying, hate crimes, verbal abuse, and at times physical abuse.  Dropping out of high school can result in a multitude of problems that continue later into life including health issues, lower earnings from work, a need to receive public and government aid, as well as the possibility of incarceration.  In this sense, the idea of a prevention program as opposed to an intervention program regarding hate crimes seems to be the most prominently proposed idea regarding anti-bulling campaigns as it would prevent the often long-lasting outcomes of being a victim of bullying before any sort of program is proposed.  The article continues to observe the mind-set of surveyed pre-service teachers in 2008 and found that they were almost completely unaware of the challenges facing LGBT students, particularly at a young age, as almost 83% of the surveyed pre-service teachers found it acceptable to ignore slurs against LGBT students (McCabe & Rubinson, 2008).  As found in previous reports, LGBT students that become victims of this form of bullying reported finding no help from administrators within the school, and administrators reacted with a certain amount of hostility when being questioned regarding their personal beliefs of LGBT students.

            This article brings to light the question of how to educate future educators about the LGBT community without offending their already existing ideals.  Although the educators do not necessarily need to “accept” the lifestyles of LGBT individuals and students, as educators they are required to understand and respect those choices in order to remain unbiased and provide the same education and opportunities to gay and straight students alike.  Remaining “blind” to the issue of bullying of LGBT students may allow teachers to keep their own ideals intact, but in fact fails to provide a safe environment for students to learn within and therefore often results in the student suffering abuse and a failed support system due to a refusal for teachers to be educated about a minority group that is often ignored.

Promoting school success for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning students: primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention and intervention strategies

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.

            I will be researching the extent of the effort to prevent an anti-gay bias in teachers at all levels of education through both teacher workshops and programs within individual schools.  I will also attempt to reveal the positive and negative effects of implementing these programs within schools at various levels of education (elementary, middle, and high school).

            This article focused on the idea that the school environment is key to developing a safe and neutral ground for the “sexual minority” student to develop and grow within in order to become comfortable with their own identity.  According to the text, in 2005 less than 40% of school districts within the United States offered any sort of educational program regarding sexuality in any level of the education system.  The authors suggested the use of a system of programs tailored toward the general needs of the students – a “Primary Prevention” program would reach all students at all levels and promote an environment of respect and safety; a “Secondary Prevention” program would target select students who are deemed to be at-risk due to the possibility of developing mental health issues such as lack of self-esteem, behavioral problems, and depression; a “Tertiary Prevention” program would target those already experiencing more serious emotional problems such as being at-risk for drop-out, victims of bullying and general physical violence, and those suffering from depression and often attempted suicide.  Each is adjusted to properly target students at various levels of maturity as well as prevents a generalized view of the subject of LGBT bullying, considering a student already “out” may take verbal bullying regarding their sexuality in an entirely different way than a student who is in the first stages of questioning their sexual orientation.

            Although the article did not observe specifically educator-focused programs, it does support the idea that if educators continue to lack in knowledge regarding LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) students, other students will remain uneducated on the topic as well and therefore allow for bigotry and bullying to ensue.  By educating teachers about the LGBT community and general process a young individual goes through when “coming-out” while at a young school age, it can open doors to create programs such as those listed above that focus on creating a safe environment for LGBT students to thrive in and to prevent the high rate of drop outs that often comes with a generalized perspective of gay students.

Are tomorrow's teachers ready to deal with diverse students?

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.

            I will be researching the extent of the effort to prevent an anti-gay bias in teachers at all levels of education through both teacher workshops and programs within individual schools.  I will also attempt to reveal the positive and negative effects of implementing these programs within schools at various levels of education (elementary, middle, and high school).

            The idea of pre-service teacher education is focused on allowing future educators to understand various populations of students they may come into contact with during their work so as to provide a healthy and accepting learning environment for students otherwise neglected by their peers and often other members of society.  The article focused on studying the attitudes of pre-service educators (meaning those still in school studying Education) toward both gay men and lesbians.  The study stated that there had not previously been a study specifically measuring the sexual orientation biases held by teachers educating at any level in the education system, and conducting a survey such as this could potentially reveal gaps within the education system into which gay and lesbian students tend to fall due to an inability to find support from their administrators and teachers alike.  The study was conducted at two Central/South Texas universities and was mostly comprised of female candidates; the method of research was a detailed questionnaire questioning beliefs, general knowledge, and attitudes about sexuality and the sexual minority that were held by the pre-service educators.  The results of the study found that although a majority of the candidates felt they were well-informed in terms of sexuality issues, their knowledge regarding the struggles of gay and lesbian students was far from satisfactory in terms of creating a safe and supportive environment for these minority students to attain a higher education.

            This article pertains directly to my research topic as it reveals that educators are far from being adequately trained to work with gay and lesbian students although they often receive extensive training on the cultural and social aspects of ethnic minority students.  Teachers and educators in general have an immense influence on whether a student is successful as they have the power to provide an environment in which the student feels comfortable learning and gaining experience for their future careers and varying life paths, as well as the responsibility to do so.  With 64 % of surveyed sexual minority students reporting feeling unsafe in their schools in 2006 (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006), the drop-out rate for gay and lesbian students is steadily climbing along with the number of homosexual youth that become secluded, depressed, and at times suicidal.  The issue of sexual orientation bias among teachers is a topic not often touched upon but one that must be thrust into the spotlight in order to attempt to prevent future students from suffering from under-educated and biased educators.