ED536041

Preservice Teachers’ Knowledge, Skills, and Dispositions of LGBTQ

Bullying Intervention

~ William Milburn & John Palladino

Abstract

Literature about the school experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) youth report unsafe and unaccepting school environments detrimental to their social, emotional, and academic success. LGBTQ bullying is recognized as a complex issue that teachers are expected to face in their schools. The present study examined the unique aspect of addressing LGBTQ bullying, an investigation of preservice teachers’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions relative to the issue. Preservice teachers responded to Likert scale questions designed from findings in the literature and provided insights about their understanding of and willingness and ability to address the issue. Initial findings from our research study found disparities between the responders’ willingness (dispositions) to confront the issue, and their lack of knowledge and skills to do so effectively. Understanding this insight can help teacher preparation programs respond with training and curriculum enhancements that best prepare teachers to address LGBTQ bullying in K-12 settings.

Key Words: bullying, victimization, sexuality, education.

Current School Climate

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning (LGBTQ) youth’s social and

academic needs are marginalized, ignored, and often go unnoticed in schools throughout the country. A lack of acknowledgement about students who either identify as LGBTQ youth, who are bullied for their perceived sexual orientation or gender role expression, alienates many students. Almeida, Johnson, Corliss, Molnar, Azrael (2009) summarized the literature’s portrayal of LGBTQ youth: “They often live in social environments in which they may be exposed to

negative experiences, including social rejection and isolation, diminished social support, discrimination and verbal and physical abuse” (p. 1002).

The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) 2009 School Climate

Survey combined discussion in the literature with statistics about the environmental experiences of students in schools:

Four out of ten students reported being physically harassed (e.g., pushed or shoved) at

school because of their sexual orientation, and nearly 1 in 5 students reported being

physically assaulted (e.g., punched, kicked, or injured with a weapon) at school in the

past year because of their sexual orientation. (p.25)

The survey reported that nine out of ten LGBTQ students hear the word “gay” used in a negative way, and three-fourths of students regularly hear homophobic remarks, such as “faggot” or “dyke” in school (GLSEN). LGBTQ bullying does not solely target students who identify as a sexual minority, but also provides a hostile and unsafe space for all students. Homophobia and transphobia can be used to stigmatize, silence, and, on occasion, target people who are perceived as LGBTQ, but who are not (GLSEN).

When schools have unsafe and negative climates that harbor bullying and harassment,

implications often manifest within victimized students that negatively impact their lives. The stigmatization associated with their identity, as well as the emotional distress they endure from bullying victimization and perceived discrimination can develop and be expressed as internal and external behaviors that include: (a) truancy, (b) lower academic performance, (c) anxiety, (d) depression, (e) substance abuse, (f) self-harm, and (g) suicidal ideation. For example, Bontempo and D’Augelli (2002) investigated the correlation between at-school victimization and higher levels of health risk behaviors, such as substance abuse, suicidality, and sexual risk behaviors, as

compared to their heterosexual peers. Bos, Standfort, Bruyn, and Hakvoort (2008) also compared LGBTQ youth to their heterosexual peers, and reported “higher levels of mental health concerns, such as, depression and lower self-esteem” (p.59). Wyss (2004) added acknowledgment of the reported lower academic performance, and higher levels of truancy among LGBTQ youth. These findings reflect the statistical information from GLSEN’s (2009) School Climate Survey, and expose the implications surrounding bullying victimization.

In addition to developing internalized and externalized behaviors, students who are

consistently victimized based on their perceived or actual sexual orientation also manifest negative academic implications. Attitudes toward school diminish and academic performance drops among students who do not recognize school as a safe and accepting environment for them. The literature acknowledges half a grade lower performance for bullying victims (Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; GLSEN, 2009). United States Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan (2010) addressed bullying in a letter to teachers: “Bullying fosters a climate of fear and disrespect that can seriously impair the physical and psychological health of its victims and create conditions that negatively affect learning, thereby undermining the ability of students to achieve their full potential” (p.1). Students may not achieve excellence when they are in consistent fear of verbal and physical abuse. This reality correlates with higher reported levels of truancy among victims, and the greater likeliness of students to skip classes or even full days of school to avoid harassment (Birkett, et al., 2009; Bontempo & D’Augelli 2002; GLSEN, 2009).

Students who are victimized at school tend to manifest concurrent at-risk health

behaviors, such as drug and alcohol abuse, unsafe sexual activities, and self-harm (Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Hamilton & Mahalik, 2009; Wyss, 2004). Even more alarming is the higher occurrence of their suicide attempts, especially among LGBTQ youth for whom the research

suggests is four times more likely than for their non-LGBTQ peers (Friedman, Koeske, Silvestre, Korr, & Sites 2006; McDermott, Roen, & Scourfield, 2008; Savin-Williams, 2006; Wyss 2004).

Such behaviors are often responses to and products of the diminished mental health of

LGBTQ students and the stigmatization of their identity coexisting with the lack of social and peer support. These youth often negatively view their own identity, and receive messages that further diminish their self-esteem and increase their self-loathing, thus resulting in anxiety and depression (Almeida, et al., 2009; Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Bos, et al., 2008; Grossman & D’Augelli, 2006; McDermott, et al., 2008; Savin-Williams, 2006; Wyss 2004).

A Complex Issue

LGBTQ bullying is most commonly understood as an issue related to sexual orientation.

However, this perception undermines and ignores a significant portion of the research that more accurately depicts bullying as a byproduct of something else. Bullying based on sexual orientation is present; however, the component of gender and gender role expression seems to also have a context within this issue (Kimmel, 2004). Feminine and masculine norms find their way into schools, and the messages surrounding gender can be difficult for students to process. Many students are victims of LGBTQ- type bullying simply based on their departure from traditional gender role expressions. The nonconformity to either being masculine of feminine, based on biological sex, can place students in position to be victims of bullying and harassment. An example of this outplay is demonstrated in the homophobic language heard in schools. Homophobic language is commonly used towards students who do not align with gender and biological sex (e.g. “Tomboys,” “Sissies”).

Terms such as “faggot” are commonly used to emasculate, and to display power and

control over an individual (Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). In such cases the catalyst of bullying is not

to discriminate against sexual orientation, but to position an individual to feel deviant and ostracized for departing from social norms of masculine or feminine behavior (Kimmel, 2004; Poteat, Espelage, & Green, 2007; Phoenix, Frosh, & Pattman, 2003; Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008). For many students, the societal messages of gender expectations coupled with being bullied for not being masculine or feminine enough can be difficult to process and navigate. Feelings of inadequacy often lead students to partake in health-risk behaviors (e.g. substance abuse, self-harm, unsafe sexual activities) to compensate for perceived deficiencies, often aligning themselves with hyper- masculine / hyper -feminine extremes portrayed in media (Hamilton & Mahalik, 2009).

Teacher and School Responses

Whether overtly or unintentionally, school personnel have perpetuated unsafe school

environments by not adequately addressing LGBTQ bullying (GLSEN, 2009). Teachers are specifically looked at as being potential allies and advocates by LGBTQ youth, but continue to fall short in being able to help students navigate the emotional distress they might face (Grossman & D’Augelli, 2006). When they do, their potential to be an ally for LGBTQ youth becomes, at best, questionable.

Students reported in the GLSEN (2009) School Climate Survey that teachers used anti-

LGBTQ language, did not frequently address the anti-LGBTQ language of their co-workers, and were perceived to perpetuate heteronormative beliefs and biases. The reason why teachers come up short in effectively addressing the bullying is also a multiple perspective one. There is more than one reason for why teachers reported their hesitations, and often multiple reasons played into their dispositions. For example, Hall (2006) explored the precursors that would cause a teacher to not address LGBTQ youth issues in schools. Hall’s research reported that teachers feel