A Safer Place? LGBT Educators, School Climate, and Implications for Administrators by Gianfranco Toledo

The Educational Forum

ISSN: 0013-1725 (Print) 1938-8098 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

A Safer Place? LGBT Educators, School Climate, and Implications for Administrators Tiffany E. Wright & Nancy J. Smith To cite this article: Tiffany E. Wright & Nancy J. Smith (2015) A Safer Place? LGBT Educators, School Climate, and Implications for Administrators, The Educational Forum, 79:4, 394-407, DOI: 10.1080/00131725.2015.1068901 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2015.1068901

Published online: 10 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1257

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=utef20

THE EDUCATIONAL

FORUM

A Safer Place? LGBT Educators, School Climate, and Implications for Administrators Tiffany E. Wright and Nancy J. Smith Educational Foundations, Millersville University, Millersville, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract Over an 8-year span, two survey studies were conducted to analyze LGBT teachers’ perceptions of their school climate and the impact of school leaders on that climate. This article presents nonparametric, descriptive, and qualitative results of the National Survey of Educators’ Perceptions of School Climate 2011 compared with survey results from 2007 to provide insight regarding the workplace climate for LGBT educators and guidance for school leaders in creating an environment that supports these teachers. Key words: administration/supervision, diversity, LGBT educators. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) educators often experience challenging school environments as employees. Before 2007, much of the research conducted in this area consisted of qualitative, small-sample studies. Although these studies revealed important stories of LGBT educators, the research needed to be expanded to demonstrate whether these were isolated perspectives or indicative of larger concerns among LGBT educators across the United States. This article describes the authors’ work to create and administer a survey instrument to ascertain the workplace climate for LGBT educators. Originally developed in 2007 by a team of four researchers, the instrument was based loosely on the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) annual school climate surveys for students. Results from the 2011 administration of the survey are published in this article. This article begins by outlining previous research on the experiences of LGBT educators. Next, the theoretical framework for the 2007 and 2011 studies is described. The results of the 2011 study (reported in comparison to the 2007 results) then follow. Each part is related to the research questions for both studies: (a) How do LGBT educators perceive their workplace climate? and (b) What factors influence them in how they perceive their workplace Address correspondence to Tiffany E. Wright, Educational Foundations, Millersville University, 1 S. George St., Millersville, PA 17551, USA. E-mail: tiffany.wright@ millersville.edu

A Safer Place? Climate for LGBT Educators climate? These questions lent themselves well to the Likert-style survey research design, which was coupled with open-ended questions designed to capture experiences that are phenomenological in nature (Creswell, 2013). To conclude, this article explores the question of whether the workplace climate changed at all for LGBT educators between the first and second iterations of the survey. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the only large-scale quantitative study to attempt to compile such data, which makes it a valuable addition to the larger literature base on this topic.

Literature Review Effective school leaders strive to maintain safety within their schools (Lezotte, 1997). Bucher and Manning (2005) described a safe school as “one in which the total school climate allows students, teachers, administrators, staff and visitors to interact in a positive, non-threatening manner that reflects the educational mission of the school while fostering positive relationships and personal growth” (p. 56). Discrimination against LGBT educators is damaging not only to those individual educators, but also to students who witness it (Eckes & McCarthy, 2008) and to the entire school’s efforts to create a safe environment. Educators need to feel safe and accepted to provide the best education for their students. Leithwood and McAdie (2007) found that teachers who felt safe had a higher level of efficacy. Sergiovanni (2009) highlighted the importance of relational trust among faculty and administrators and described a teacher-centered leader as someone who gives each teacher a respectful place to work. In addition, in recent decades, educators have increasingly included LGBT issues within multicultural education (Rottmann, 2006). This focus has assisted many schools in creating safer climates for diverse populations, including LGBT students and staff. Despite these indications, researchers (Smith, Wright, Reilly, & Esposito, 2008; Wright, 2010) have demonstrated that many LGBT educators have felt unsafe in their school environments. Organizations like GLSEN have surveyed students and staff to understand LGBT students’ and staff members’ experiences and what mechanisms and pedagogy support positive experiences for them (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006; Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012). School leaders continue to struggle with acknowledging and improving the experiences of LGBT educators. Lugg & Tooms (2010) recognized levels of “differentiated citizenship” (p. 82) for LGBT citizens, emphasizing that educators identifying as LGBT have had some of the most historically difficult experiences of all. The literature on this population revolves around three themes: (a) the history of LGBT educators (Blount, 1996, 2000; Khayatt, 1992; Kissen, 1996; Lugg, 2006), (b) the school climates they have faced (Blount, 1996, 2000; Griffin & Ouellett, 2003; Harbeck, 1997; Khayatt, 1992; Kissen, 1996; Yared, 1997), and (c) the individual experiences of LGBT educators or preservice educators (Evans, 2002; Ferfolja, 1998; Griffin, 1992; Jackson, 2007; Jennings, 1994; Juul & Repa, 1993; Litton, 1999; McCarthy, 2003; Melillo, 2003; Rensenbrink, 1996; Woods & Harbeck, 1992; Woog, 1995). The majority of these studies have employed qualitative methods and have focused on small samples of LGBT educators. In a pivotal study (Jackson, 2007), nine LGBT participants identified support (especially administrative support) within their schools as a major factor that influenced their level of The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015 • 395

Wright and Smith outness in the workplace. Jackson observed, “As the leader of the school, the principal’s attitude about homosexuality does much to make the school a welcoming or discouraging workplace for gay and lesbian teachers” (p. 9). These findings support Marshall’s (2004) call to include specialized training on leading for social justice in principal preparation programs. In addition, Marshall and Hernandez (2013) found that providing specific training around issues of homosexuality to principal preparation candidates assisted them in disentangling passionate, perhaps religion-based views on homosexuality from attitudes that helped school leaders to consider these issues analytically. Until 2008, only one comprehensive quantitative study (Juul & Repa, 1993) had been published that examined factors that influenced LGBT educators’ job satisfaction. Those results were 15 years old and did not elucidate factors contributing to LGBT educators’ perceptions of school safety. Between 2008 and 2010, articles and conference presentations (Smith et al., 2008; Wright, 2010) highlighted research that deepened understanding of the professional experiences of LGBT educators. The 2007 survey was designed to understand factors related to educators’ workplace climate, including bullying language, principal support, job safety, personal safety, and outness. Conclusions indicated that overall, during the 2006–2007 school year, LGBT educators found that schools were difficult places to work (Smith et al., 2008). Many respondents reported hearing homophobic comments regularly without intervention from colleagues or school leaders; approximately half of the respondents reported feeling unsafe in schools, and many of them reported experiencing harassment. Juul and Repa (1993) provided a groundbreaking look at the climate for LGBT educators, and the first comprehensive quantitative study on the topic until Smith et al. (2008). Jackson’s (2007) qualitative work, along with the other qualitative studies mentioned, helped to narrow the focus on what administrators can do to create an environment that will increase the retention rate of LGBT educators and make these educators feel valued. The current research provides a quantitative perspective on this topic to assist administrators in understanding what factors influence LGBT educators’ perceptions of school climate.

Method Prior to the first administration of the survey instrument, a 90-item survey was piloted in 2006 by a snowball sample. Care was taken to allow respondents to self-identify for demographic items and to discern differences between issues and items related to sexuality and gender identity. Items were developed to ascertain LGBT teachers’ perceptions of the existence of homophobia and gender bias in their workplace and how they were affected by it. Items also addressed who the respondents perceived as contributing to homophobia and gender bias in their workplace and what was done about it. Minor revisions were made to the survey instrument based on feedback from the pilot participants, and the full survey was distributed in 2007. The survey results contained such rich data that multiple articles and presentations have highlighted the results (Smith et al., 2008; Wright, 2010). Four years later, after minor revisions from two of the four original researchers, the National Survey of Educators’ Perceptions of School Climate 2011 was posted on SurveyMonkey for 3 months. Because the LGBT population (like many historically invisible groups) is not easily discernible, a random sample was impossible. In both 2007 and 2011, participants 396 • The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015

A Safer Place? Climate for LGBT Educators were recruited through various educational organizations, liberal faith organizations, academic organizations and conferences, and national LGBT organizations. The link to the 2011 survey was also posted on multiple Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. Researchers (Dixon, Bouma, & Atkinson, 1987; Kerlinger, 1986; Morse, 1991; Patton, 1990) have described this method as purposive sampling. Responses to the survey were anonymous, and confidentiality was guaranteed. For comparison, data from both survey years are provided in the tables and discussion of results that follow. The 2011 sample contained 351 participants who represented teachers in all disciplines, counselors, and librarians from all grade levels.

Results Results from the 2007 and 2011 studies included in this article are reported in two ways. Some results are presented using descriptive statistics, including demographic characteristics. In addition, responses to open-ended questions have been analyzed qualitatively, using a hermeneutical analysis to provide additional perspectives from the participants’ own words on the quantitative results (Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 2013). Not every respondent answered every question, resulting in missing data and a different number of respondents for each question. In some cases, questions were skipped, and in others, respondents dropped out of the studies. Further analysis of these patterns may be warranted, and this will be addressed in the limitations. Demographic Information Survey respondents’ subject areas and school levels are presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. In the following subject areas, the percentage of respondents increased from

Table 1. Subject Areas of Respondents 2007 Subject area Art Counseling

2011 %

1.8

3.1

9.9

7.1

Elementary

10.2

12.2

English

13.4

15.3

Foreign language

5.6

Health

6.0

0.0

1.1

0.5

Industry and technology Library Math Music

2.1

2.0

9.5

9.2

2.1

6.1

Physical education

4.2

2.6

Reading

5.6

2.6

Science

6.3

12.2

Social studies

13.4

6.1

Special education

8.8

15.3

284

100.0

196

99.9

Total

Note. n indicates the number of respondents who supplied that answer to the particular item. The total numbers of survey respondents were 514 in 2007 and 351 in 2011.

The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015 • 397

Wright and Smith Table 2. School Levels of Respondents 2007 n

School level

2011 %

K–4 school

1.2

0.4

K–5 school

9.7

11.2

K–6 school

4.1

5.4

K–8 school

5.6

6.7

K–12 school

9.1

5.4

Middle school

20.5

22.0

Junior high school High school

1.2

1.8

117

34.3

41.3

Other

14.4

5.8

Total

341

100.1

223

100.0

Note. n indicates the number of respondents who supplied that answer to the particular item. The total numbers of survey respondents were 514 in 2007 and 351 in 2011.

2007 to 2011: Art, Elementary, English, Music, Science, and Special Education. In other subject areas, the percentage of participants decreased: Counseling, Health, Industry and Technology, Physical Education, Reading, and Social Studies. The rest of the subject areas were similar between the two years. In 2011, many more participants appeared willing to identify the school level for which they worked than was the case in 2007, as seen by the large decrease in the percentage of participants who identified their school levels as “Other” (Table 2). This decrease resulted in an increase in the percentage of respondents in a majority of the other categories. Participants from all regions of the United States answered the survey (Table 3). In the South, Southwest, New England, and Midwest, the percentage of respondents increased from 2007 to 2011. In the Mid-Atlantic and West, the percentage of participants decreased.

Table 3. Respondents by Region of the United States 2007 U.S. region

2011 %

South

11.8

15.5

West

107

31.6

24.1

Southwest

6.2

11.4

New England

7.7

8.2

Mid-Atlantic

28.3

20.0

Midwest

14.5

20.9

339

100.1

220

100.1

Total

Note. n indicates the number of respondents who supplied that answer to the particular item. The total numbers of survey respondents were 514 in 2007 and 351 in 2011.

398 • The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015

A Safer Place? Climate for LGBT Educators Table 4. Race/Ethnicity of Respondents 2007 Race/ethnicity White or European American

229

85.4

195

89.0

3.4

4.6

Black or African American Multiracial

2011

4.5

3.2

Hispanic or Latino/a

2.2

1.4

Native American

2.2

0.9

Asian or Pacific Islander

1.9

0.5

Middle Eastern Total

0.4

0.5

268

100.0

219

100.1

Note. n indicates the number of respondents who supplied that answer to the particular item. The total numbers of survey respondents were 514 in 2007 and 351 in 2011.

Respondents overwhelmingly described their racial or ethnic identity as White or European American in both years (Table 4). In the following categories related to race and ethnicity, the percentage of respondents increased from 2007 to 2011: White or European American and Black or African American. In all other categories related to race and ethnicity, the percentage of participants decreased, with the exception of participants from Middle Eastern descent, which held steady. Homophobia Table 5 compares findings of LGBT educators’ perceptions of homophobia in their workplace climate based on an analysis of descriptive data. Although the vast majority of participants reported hearing homophobic remarks both years, especially from students, 2011 saw a decrease in reports of teachers using them and a reported increase in policies addressing incidents of the use of homophobic language. In addition to the quantitative results indicated in Table 5, respondents made open-ended comments on the existence of homophobia within their settings as experienced through

Table 5. Descriptive Data Related to Homophobia 2007

2011

Heard homophobic comments

434

86.0

273

90.1

Heard homophobic comments from students

463

97.0

319

99.4

Heard homophobic comments from teachers

434

90.1

316

58.5

No teacher intervention on homophobic comments

443

19.0

331

18.7

No administrator intervention on homophobic comments

331

59.8

120

54.2

Schools have policy regarding homophobic language

342

52.3

268

88.4

Item as reported by LGBT educators

Note. n indicates the number of respondents who answered the particular item, and % indicates the percentage of those respondents who answered in the affirmative. The total numbers of survey respondents were 514 in 2007 and 351 in 2011.

The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015 • 399

Wright and Smith interactions with administrators, colleagues, students, and families. In both years, respondents reported that parents had their children removed from the respondents’ classrooms, questioned what was being taught in the classrooms, accused the respondents of making their children gay, and remarked that the respondents promoted being gay. It was also reported that parents complained for religious reasons about their children being in respondents’ classes. According to participants, colleagues made “stupid” comments, anonymously put antigay literature in their school mailboxes, and ignored or avoided gay colleagues. One respondent observed, “Usually, students, parents, and teachers of the right-wing Christian faith are the root of harassment.” A part of what breeds harassment is the concept of heteronormativity (Melillo, 2003), meaning that only heterosexuality is perceived as the norm. One manifestation of heteronormativity is the assumption that people are married, single, or divorced. In the 2011 survey, respondents described their responses when asked whether they were married. More than half made a clear statement of being in a “married” or “committed” same-sex relationship. Some said that they acknowledged this status to adults but not students. Some also used the opportunity to make a case for social justice for same-sex couples. Rather than revealing their same-sex relationship status, other respondents chose to provide alternate answers. For example, one respondent said, “It’s none of your business.” Several made use of their former heterosexual status as divorced or widowed. One respondent lied to questioners, and another said he or she keeps the professional and personal life separate. The public entities involved in providing negative consequences to out LGBT educators included the local news, the school board, and public organizations. Respondents cited examples of these negative consequences, including an article appearing in the local newspaper and a school board member being informed. One respondent commented, “Religious organizations such as Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) and others have sent me threatening and harassing emails.” Perceived Safety Table 6 compares findings of LGBT educators’ perceptions of their safety in their workplace based on an analysis of descriptive data. “Safety” can be conceptualized as feeling safe in one’s job status or in feeling a sense of personal safety (Wright, 2010). In both years, one third of respondents felt as though their jobs were at risk if they were out, and approximately one quarter reported experiencing harassment. Of those who experienced harassment, approximately three fifths did not report it. The 2011 survey saw a large increase in perceived feelings that the attitude in the community was unsafe and in those reporting having rumors spread about them. Outness Survey items in both 2007 and 2011 (not described in tables here) addressed the negative and positive consequences of being out. In 2007, almost an equal number of participants completed the items about negative (n = 219) and positive (n = 215) consequences of being out. In 2011, there was a large disparity in the participants who completed the negative and positive consequences items: More respondents (n = 207) completed the item about the negative consequences of being out than positive consequences (n = 116). 400 • The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015

A Safer Place? Climate for LGBT Educators Table 6. Descriptive Data Related to Perceived Safety 2007

2011

Feared job loss if out to administrators

396

35.9

280

33.9

Feared job loss if out to students

395

53.2

283

61.1

Item as reported by LGBT educators

Had rumors spread about them at school

235

43.8

110

73.6

Experienced harassment at school

395

27.1

293

20.8

Attitude of community unsafe

342

41.2

254

78.0

The negative consequences the participants had experienced as a result of being out were generally similar. The degree of the negativity ranged from feeling uncomfortable to harassment of various types and job loss. In the open-ended comments, the respondents described feeling invisible or isolated, depressed, anxious, and stressed. Other negative consequences noted by participants in 2007 and 2011 were the result of actions and behaviors by students, colleagues, administrators, parents, and public entities. Negative consequences from students were described as student hostility, students’ comments to the respondent, and comments to others about the respondent. The 2011 survey responses included the role of social media; for example, students created fake Facebook pages for the respondents that outed them. Very serious negative consequences related to administrators. In 2011, respondents reported being threatened with job loss, not having contracts renewed, being reassigned and investigated, having payment for extra duties withheld, not being promoted, being denied merit pay, receiving action plans perceived as unfair, and having services for their students withheld. In the 2007 study, a respondent reported losing a job and moving to another state. Perceived Support Table 7 compares findings of LGBT educators’ perceptions of support in their workplace based on an analysis of descriptive data. There was a lower level of perceived support by state law, union contract, and local ordinances reported in 2011. Many participants who reported feeling supported were also the ones who reported being more out. In 2007, 86.1% of LGBT teachers reported feeling comfortable being out to someone in school, but 13.9% were “closeted,” meaning not out to anyone with whom they worked. In 2011, 87.8% were out to someone at school, but 12.2% were not out to anyone at work. In both studies, more than two thirds of participants reported a lack of LGBT issues represented in curriculum. A majority reported very little professional development around LGBT issues. Table 7 reports other aspects of support that LGBT educators felt from others or felt they could demonstrate to students. In both surveys, 31% of participants reported having domestic partnership benefits offered from their schools. Close to 40% in both years felt uncomfortable talking to supervisors about LGBT issues. Interestingly, there was a roughly 20% decrease from 2007 to 2011 in respondents who reported feeling comfortable supporting LGBT students. The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015 • 401

Wright and Smith Table 7. Descriptive Data Related to Perceived Support 2007

2011

Civil rights protected by state law

251

49.0

219

29.7

Civil rights protected by union contract

251

28.3

219

24.2

Civil rights protected by local ordinance

251

39.4

219

11.0

Closeted as LGBT person

252

13.9

230

12.2

Lack of LGBT-inclusive curriculum

342

71.6

263

71.1

Item as reported by LGBT educators

No professional development about LGBT students

342

66.1

263

66.2

No professional development about LGBT professionals

382

85.3

254

85.8

Domestic partner benefits offered

342

31.0

268

31.0

Discomfort talking to supervisors re: LGBT issues

253

37.2

240

38.8

Felt comfortable demonstrating support in some way to LGBT students

252

87.0

252

67.9

From responses to open-ended questions, the researchers found that the greatest number of positive consequences related to how being out made it possible for the respondents to be supportive of LGBT students. The descriptions of the positive consequences included students having someone to turn to or a role model, and being a source of validation. Most of the remaining comments were about being a better educator, educating colleagues, and paving the way in the district. One respondent liked being known for his or her true self. The worst homophobic harassment ceased for one respondent after coming out, and another respondent felt safer after coming out. One wrote, “Most of the faculty attended my civil union ceremony.” Perhaps most revealing was the positive consequence that was mentioned most often: “gaining more self-respect.”

Discussion What kind of climate did LGBT educators perceive in the schools in which they worked? What kind of changes, if any, were there between 2007 and 2011? LGBT educators observed that homophobia was demonstrated by members of all segments of the school population and in communities surrounding schools. Nearly all LGBT educators heard demeaning language about their identities frequently, the highest percentage of which was used by students. Qualitative results also indicated that families perpetuated some of the homophobic behavior as well. Unfortunately, participants reported witnessing a lack of intervention in the face of homophobic language on the part of both teachers (approximately 20% of respondents) and administrators (approximately half of respondents; Table 5). Whether in or out of the closet, LGBT educators reported that school climate was usually a source of stress. In fact, many participants seemed to feel the stress more in 2011 than in 2007, as there was approximately a 20% decrease in the number of participants who reported feeling comfortable giving support to LGBT students. Nearly three quarters reported in 2011 having rumors spread about them at school (up from fewer than half reporting this 402 • The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015

A Safer Place? Climate for LGBT Educators in 2007). Many were still being harassed in 2011, and the majority of those who had been harassed had not reported it. In 2011, one third felt that their employment would be at risk if they came out to an administrator, and many experienced negative consequences such as a threat of job loss, pay discrimination, and reassignment by administrators. More perceived their jobs were at risk if they were out to students in 2011 than in 2007. In 2011, two thirds still had never received professional development related to LGBT students, and even more had never received it related to LGBT professionals. Few reported the inclusion of LGBT individuals in the curriculum, and legal protections and domestic partner benefits were scarce in both years. It seems that in 2011, fewer colleagues were perceived as using homophobic language than in 2007. More schools had policies related to the use of homophobic language in 2011 than in 2007, although policies seem to have had little effect on student use of homophobic language. This indicates a strength in policy making, but a lack of enforcement of the policy, which has clear implications for school leaders and the preparation of school leaders. In a country in which lesbians, gays, and bisexuals may serve their country openly in the military, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide, high-profile gay personalities succeed in major media roles, and the former Secretary of State and the current President of the United States have made it clear to the world that gay rights are human rights, the perceived school climate of LGBT educators is a travesty. Administrators can take specific steps immediately to improve the school climate for LGBT educators: • Consistently enforce policies related to the use of homophobic language • Provide professional development related to the learning needs of LGBT students and respect for all members of the school population • Work to increase teachers’ and administrators’ awareness of the need to intervene when LGBT people are spoken about or treated without respect Including LGBT people and issues in the curriculum, increasing legal protections, creating and implementing harassment policies, and adding domestic partner benefits are also needed steps, but they will require more time to plan and implement. Some administrators need to participate in professional development regarding LGBT educators to understand how to be respectful and supportive of LGBT staff members. This will also improve the retention of this specific population of teachers—retention being a particularly important factor in schools, where relationship building and student growth seem to be related. As reported in the presentations, articles, and a book chapter about the 2007 study (Smith et al., 2008; Wright, 2010; Wright & Smith, 2012, 2013), students benefit from these changes as much as LGBT educators. When the school climate allows students to feel safe within the school environment, they tend to achieve at a higher level (Kosciw et al., 2012). Research also has demonstrated a correlation between teacher efficacy and student achievement (Leithwood & McAdie, 2007). Many factors can contribute to this efficacy, including self-confidence, a feeling that decision making is shared, and relationships with colleagues and administrators. The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015 • 403

Wright and Smith LGBT educators have struggled throughout the years to feel comfortable in their workplace environments. According to Jackson (2007), principals’ attitudes about many school climate issues, including homosexuality, were a major influence on the comfort level for LGBT educators. If school leaders are dedicated to the success of all students, they need to support LGBT educators to the same extent that they support heterosexual educators. Strong role models in the form of LGBT educators may help LGBT students to be more resilient to the homophobia that exists in schools and society. The level of support perceived by LGBT educators from their administrators is perhaps one of the most important implications of this study, because those educators who experience safety or support will in turn feel free to demonstrate that same level of support to their LGBT students—a population in dire need of support within schools.

Limitations Four factors limit the generalizability of these studies and the comparison of the data between the studies. First of all, the design of the instrument, which led to missing data, limits the validity of the results. The original 2007 survey instrument was lengthy (171 questions) and contained the demographic information at the end. Gay and Airasian (2003) stated that shorter surveys often yield more complete data. The survey was reduced to 90 questions for 2011, and the demographic questions were moved to the beginning of the instrument in response to the great amount of missing data from 2007. However, missing data were still recorded in the national study during 2011. The second limitation of the studies is the method of distribution and response by participants. The survey was distributed via the Internet, which was the only method of response. Because the link to the survey was broadly disseminated through a variety of channels, the research team was unable to identify the percentage of responses usually reported within a research report. SurveyMonkey recorded the origin of the responses; however, as noted in Gay and Airasian (2003), there is the concern with e-mail and Internet responses that individuals could respond more than once to the survey, thus skewing the results. The third limitation of the studies relates to comparing the data. Although using the purposive snowball sampling method assisted the researchers in reaching the target population (LGBT educators), there is no guarantee that the same individuals were reached in 2007 and 2011 because of the anonymous nature of the surveys. In fact, fewer participants responded to the 2011 survey. Finally, survey research contains an inherent limitation. When participants self-select for inclusion in a study, this limits the generalizability to the group of people who choose to participate in the study. These people may have certain characteristics that differ from those of the LGBT population who chose not to respond to a survey. In addition, self-reporting limits the generalizability of the results.

Conclusions and Future Research Many indications from the comparison between the 2007 and 2011 survey demonstrated that although there were a few improvements in the workplace climate for LGBT educators, many important factors related to supporting LGBT staff and students were reported as 404 • The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015

A Safer Place? Climate for LGBT Educators having stayed the same or worsened in 2011. Through this research, the following information relevant to LGBT educators is clear. First, homophobic comments were still heard in schools frequently, indicating that homophobia—hurtful to everyone in the setting where it exists—is a continuing and serious concern. This understanding was corroborated in the GLSEN national climate survey of students (Kosciw et al., 2012) conducted closest to the time of the 2011 survey. Second, this research confirms prior research (Jackson, 2007) that school leaders directly or indirectly have an important impact on the climate for LGBT educators. They influence and enforce policy, and they can create professional development opportunities that could include training on diversity issues relating to LGBT individuals in the school setting and on the unique challenges these individuals face. Administrators could also demonstrate support for gay–straight alliances and for policies on bullying that include homophobic language. These policies would include discipline and education for those students who bully according to LGBT (or perceived LGBT) identities. In addition, administrators could work toward improving general school climate and safety for all by enforcing the policies that are already in place to protect LGBT staff and students. Future research could address these issues in numerous ways. Principals could be surveyed along with their teachers at individual schools and districts to see whether how they perceive themselves as supporting LGBT educators and interrupting homophobia in general matches how they are perceived. In light of the fact that supporting LGBT students seems to be one of the most worrisome tasks of LGBT educators, additional research may help to understand the type of support these educators require to be comfortable serving as role models for this population of students who are so at risk. Given the variety of challenges facing educators today, it is vital that school leaders support each teacher in his or her development. Making each teacher feel comfortable in the school is an invaluable—albeit difficult to measure—precursor to helping teachers feel safe in providing the very best instruction and support to each student.

References Blount, J. M. (1996). Manly men and womanly women: Deviance, gender role polarization, and the shift in women’s school employment, 1900–1976. Harvard Educational Review, 66(2), 318–339. Blount, J. M. (2000). Spinsters, bachelors, and other gender transgressors in school employment, 1850–1990. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 83–101. doi:10.3102/00346543070001083 Bucher, K. T., & Manning, M. L. (2005). Creating safe schools. The Clearing House, 79(1), 55–60. doi:10.3200/TCHS.79.1.55-60 Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dixon, B. R., Bouma, G. D., & Atkinson, G. B. J. (1987). A handbook of social science research: A comprehensive and practical guide for students. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Eckes, S. E., & McCarthy, M. M. (2008). GLBT teachers: The evolving legal protections. American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 530–554. Evans, K. (2002). Negotiating the self: Identity, sexuality, and emotion in learning to teach. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015 • 405

Wright and Smith Ferfolja, T. (1998). Australian lesbian teachers: A reflection of homophobic harassment of high school teachers in New South Wales government schools. Gender and Education, 10(4), 401–415. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. In K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula (pp. 167–196). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Griffin, P., & Ouellett, M. (2003). From silence to safety and beyond: Historical trends in addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues in K–12 schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(2), 106–114. doi:10.1080/10665680303508 Harbeck, K. M. (1997). Gay and lesbian educators: Personal freedoms, public constraints. Malden, MA: Amethyst Press & Productions. Jackson, J. (2007). Unmasking identities: An exploration of the lives of gay and lesbian teachers. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Jennings, K. (Ed.). (1994). One teacher in 10: Gay and lesbian educators tell their stories. Los Angeles, CA: Alyson. Juul, T. P., & Repa, T. (1993, April). A survey to examine the relationship of the openness of selfidentified lesbian, gay male, and bisexual public school teachers to job stress and job satisfaction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research. New York, NY: CBS Publishing Japan. Khayatt, M. D. (1992). Lesbian teachers: An invisible presence. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Kissen, R. M. (1996). The last closet: The real lives of lesbian and gay teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kosciw, J. G., & 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, NY: Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. Leithwood, K., & McAdie, P. (2007). Teacher working conditions that matter. Education Canada, 47(2), 42–45. Lezotte, L. (1997). Learning for all. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products. Litton, E. F. (1999, April). Stories of courage and hope: Gay and lesbian Catholic elementary school teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Lugg, C. A. (2006). Thinking about sodomy: Public schools, legal panopticons, and queers. Educational Policy, 20(1), 35–58. doi:10.1177/0895904805285374 Lugg, C. A., & Tooms, A. K. (2010). A shadow of ourselves: Identity erasure and the politics of queer leadership. School Leadership and Management, 30(1), 77–91. doi:10.1080/13632430903509790 Marshall, C. (2004). Social justice challenges to educational administration: Introduction to a special issue. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 3–13. doi:10.1177/0013161X03258139

406 • The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015

A Safer Place? Climate for LGBT Educators Marshall, J. M., & Hernandez, F. (2013). “I would not consider myself a homophobe”: Learning and teaching about sexual orientation in a principal preparation program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(3), 451–488. doi:10.1177/0013161X12463231 Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McCarthy, L. (2003). Wearing my identity: A transgender teacher in the classroom. Equity & Excellence in Education, 36(2), 170–183. doi:10.1080/10665680303510 Melillo, S. M. (2003, April). Heteronormativity and teaching: A phenomenological study of lesbian teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Morse, J. M. (1991). Strategies for sampling. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 127–145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rensenbrink, C. W. (1996). What difference does it make? The story of a lesbian teacher. Harvard Educational Review, 66(2), 257–271. Rottmann, C. (2006). Queering educational leadership from the inside out. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(1), 1–20. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2009). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Smith, N. J., Wright, T., Reilly, C., & Esposito, J. (2008, March). A national study of LGBT educators’ perceptions of their workplace climate. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY. (ERIC ED 501252) Woods, S. E., & Harbeck, K. M. (1992). Living in two worlds: The identity management strategies used by lesbian physical educators. In K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula (pp. 141–166). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press. Woog, D. (1995). In or out: Two teachers’ decisions. In D. Woog (Ed.), School’s out: The impact of gay and lesbian issues on America’s schools (pp. 109–115). Boston, MA: Alyson. Wright, T. (2010). LGBT educators’ perceptions of school climate. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 49–53. Wright, T., & Smith, N. (2012). Creating safe LGBT school environments for students and staff. In C. Gerstl-Pepin & J. A. Aiken (Eds.), Social justice leadership for a global world (pp. 23–38). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Wright, T., & Smith, N. (2013). Bullying of LGBT youth and school climate for LGBT educators. Gender, Education, Music, and Society, 6(1), 16–27. Yared, C. (1997). Where are the civil rights for gay and lesbian teachers? Human Rights, 24(3), 22–24.

The Educational Forum • Volume 79 • 2015 • 407