Education is arguably one of the most influential periods in an individual’s life, as essentially a microcosm of society, teachers have the opportunity to alter the way in which an individual views the world. Whilst the prevalence of racism and sexism within Education systems in the UK has decreased drastically over the past 10 years, the battle against homophobia, biphobia and transphobia is far from over with 55% of LGBT+ students in the UK falling victim to homophobic bullying. Freedom of sexuality is protected by government legislation in the same way as race, gender and disability yet the rates of discrimination are significantly higher. If homophobia is a culturally learned prejudice then it is the role of social institutions, such as schools, to challenge heteronormativity and the social norms and processes within which homophobia operates, tackling the matter from top down.
Tackling homophobia requires a change in long standing prejudices which have previously been supported by the introduction of policies such as Section 28. Schools are institutions with the capability of transforming deep seated prejudices however the culture of ambivalence towards sexuality and LGBT+ issues permit the discriminatory culture present today. A demonstration of such ambivalence can be seen when looking at the increased use of homophobic language within schools and popular media. The 2012 Stonewall report claimed that 99% of LGBT+ school pupils hear remarks such as, ‘that’s so gay’ where only 10% of teachers intervene. Despite attempts to justify its development the use of the word ‘gay’ relies on a ‘deep seated cultural understanding’ that is not easily dismissed (Stonewall report, 2012). As a result of its cultural dissociation, LGBT+ students claim to have heard it been used by teachers themselves revealing the lack of sensitivity regarding LGBT+ issues in schools. The National Union of Teachers have reported that children as young as three can be heard using homophobic language (Legg, 2006). Whilst homophobic language may not be used with intent it is over simplistic for schools to assume the terms are completely dissociated from the sexual connotations they ‘used to’ carry as they can make students feel isolated bringing into question not only their sexuality but also their femininity/masculinity.
Section 28 stated that ‘local authorities’ should not ‘promote homosexuality’ which led to an atmosphere of uncertainty and confusion. A study carried out with secondary school teachers in England and Wales found that 44% of teachers struggled to meet the needs of LGBT+ students because they held misconceptions about the law (Warwick, Aggleton and Douglas, 2008). The fine line between discussing and ‘promoting’ homosexuality resulted in most teachers avoiding the subject entirely. Biddulph (2008) claimed there are three discourses that generate silence around homosexuality; discourses of childhood innocence, discourses around protecting children from sexual knowledge and homosexuality as a pathology. The section was repealed in 2003 but its affect has remained imprinted on educational systems as it was symbolic in resonating with existing uncertainties around LGBT+ issues in schools. As a result, schools have developed a culture of shifting responsibility, where many teachers exhibit a reluctance to get involved in preventing homophobic bullying. 3/5 LGBT+ pupils say that teachers who witness homophobic bullying never intervene even though research shows that in schools where teachers respond quickly to homophobic bullying and seek to eliminate the use of homophobic language pupils are much less likely to be bullied.
The notion that discussing LGBT+ related issues promotes homosexuality appears to deny that they already exist (DePalma & Atkinson, 2006: Moran, 2001). Furthermore, the invisibility of LGBT+ related topics in the national curriculum further insinuates this notion that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of. The reluctance to identify LGBT+ issues may stem from the view of a school child as ‘innocent, non-sexual and oblivious’, where our wish to protect students from sexualized content, by blocking inappropriate websites for example, often has detrimental effects on social stereotypes. The notion that discussing sexuality without it relating explicitly to sexual relations is a concept that has not yet materialized in schools, especially in light of the hypersexualization of gay and lesbian sexualities. By introducing sexuality as a concept across the curriculum, in the form of varied relations and gender as non-hegemonic, the naive notion of the asexual child can be dismissed and sexuality normalized. It is generally assumed that homophobia doesn’t exist in primary schools because they are not yet aware of sexuality however considering research on the use homophobic language in primary schools it is an assumption that needs to be retracted.
It must be acknowledged that Hunt’s statement places the individual at the center of both the problem and the solution, the problem sitting with the individual being bullied and the solution being the teacher. It is imperative that all individual’s feel it’s their responsibility to tackle homophobia. Concerns regarding the level of support and the openness of discussion surrounding sexuality and gender must be brought into question when considering the subjective nature of these topics as it is unfeasible to hold the expectation that teachers will remain subjective. Additionally, the concept of ‘stigma by association’ may also prevent teachers from becoming too involved in LGBT+ issues in concern that they might be thought to be LGBT+. This becomes particularly concerning in faith schools, where fundamentalist religious groups are strong inhibiting factors for children to ‘come out’ (DePalma and Atkinson, 2009). The Government and the schools they control need to be careful not to dismiss religious concerns but negotiate the boundaries where respecting one groups concerns may mean limiting the freedoms of another. (Okin et al, 1999). In this sense, change needs to begin at the top with clear policy changes from the government which are then reflected in schools put in place by those who run them.
Many schools prefer if teachers aren’t open about their sexuality as it crosses the line of what is seen to be traditionally professional. However, in the battle against homophobia the government have been supporting recent moves to increase the number of gay role models in schools (Muir, 2011). Whilst this provides young LGBT+ students with a role model and increases LGBT+ presence it may provide other teaching staff with a gateway through which to shift responsibility as they ‘feel that they no longer have a part to play as drawing on personal experience is much more powerful’(Formby, E. (2013). Research shows that out of 20 self-defining LGBT+ teachers only one was openly gay as the rest fear reprisals from parents. Additionally, there are often reports of openly LGBT+ teachers being subjected to ‘malicious allegations’ from students and parents which is notably fueled by media coverage, for example the association of gay men to pedophilia (Redman, 2000; Willis, 2009). It is the responsibility of the school to provide a safe environment for both students and teachers to ‘come out’.
The Stonewall Report and OFSTED have both suggested several methods through which schools can help tackle homophobia, the main medium through which being teachers. The ‘no outsiders’ collaborative research project enabled teachers to implement and evaluate strategies to address sexualities equalities in their schools and provides a good example from which to work on. The project involved 15 teachers throughout the UK each carrying out different project at their own school. Schools varied in their ethnic and cultural makeup which allowed teachers to assess and account for the intersectionality of homophobia. The aim of the project was to inform policy and broader practice through an interrogation of the heteronormativity present in their own practice. Judy, a year 1 teacher, used LGBT+ inclusive stories to contribute to a shift in school ethos. After witnessing an incident of homophobic bullying teachers are able to make connections to literature read in class to exemplify the implications of the comment as opposed to chastising them. Other methods include providing internal support groups, including LGBT+ issues within the curriculum facilitating open discussions around sexuality. The majority of LGBT+ students believe that open discussion will reduce levels of discrimination. There is a positive correlation between level of education with acceptance of those who are LGBT+, in the fight against homophobia knowledge is power, and it is the responsibility of the dispenser to provide support. By educating teachers on the long term implications associated with homophobic bullying such as increased dropout rates and self-harm there is likely to be a greater appreciation regarding the severity of the issue and the urgency at which it must be addressed. Formal training must also aid teachers in striking the balance between providing LGBT+ students with support without implying their need for it, as this in itself can be isolating.
Whilst teachers play a pivotal role in reconstructing our notions of gender and sexuality in an ‘aim’ to normalize deviations from hegemonic masculinity/femininity we must not reduce the problem to the level of the ‘individual’. Although teachers must remain objective, internal conflict with their personal beliefs may interfere when tackling LGBT+ issues in the classroom. Additionally, the pressure of responsibility, and from disapproving families makes their dedication easily swayed. Through a process of inclusion, in both curriculum and discussion, we can create a cultural shift which will translate into the next generate and reflect onto wider society preventing homophobic bullying before it can begin. This requires the support of the government, in the form of clear policy changes, the media and other institutions. Teachers cannot evoke change in isolation but have the power to initiate change in cultural discourses within a support system.