33. Gender and Education
Paper
Queer Professionality. Opportunities and Challenges of Teacher’s Interpretations of ‘the Many Ways of Living Gender and Sexual Diversity’
Helene Götschel1, Florian Cristóbal Klenk2
1FU Berlin, Germany; 2TU Darmstadt, Germany
Presenting Author: Götschel, Helene;
Klenk, Florian Cristóbal
The UNESCO (2021) stresses in its paper about the inclusion of LGBTI students on the vital role of teachers to create a safe atmosphere for all students, regardless of their gender identity, gender expression, variation of sex characteristics or sexual orientation. Although training programmes for teachers are essential to translate policies into reality, in many countries of the European Union pre- and in-service training with reference to this topic is still missing. Germany, for example, offers information, guidelines, support systems and inclusive national curricula; but there doesn’t exist any mandatory teacher training on LGBTQI awareness (IGLYO 2018). Therefore, many teachers lack knowledge regarding the current nature of (in)equalities of genders and sexualities. Moreover, they lack confidence to address questions of gender and sexual diversity in their classrooms. Educational research on LGBTIQ youth and teachers is increasing in Europe and Germany, but it is still in the beginning (Fahie2017; Siemoneit 2021). Studies so far stress on LGBTIQ youth in school, on heteronormativity in the classroom (Kleiner 2015; Kosciwet al. 2019; FRA 2020), the imbalance of ‘to want and to can do’ (Klocke et al. 2018) or it describes school as a place where nobody is responsible for LGBTIQ topics (Schmidt/Schondelmayer 2015).
In our educational research project on Queer Professionality we analyse the ‘want and can’ of teachers at German schools who stand in between progressive policies and conservative realities. We ask how teachers understand and address – what we would call – ‚the many ways of living gender and sexual diversity‘ (Hartmann 2002) in the classroom. With this term we emphasize that we try to ‘think diversity from a diverse perspective’ - instead of just adding LGBTIQ colours to an already existing binary picture. In recent years a huge change happened in the political and social discourse about gender (identity) and sexuality in Germany. Heteronormative power relations faltered and became more flexible, simultaneously initiating processes of pluralisation and normalisation of gender and sexual diversity. Teachers are part of these discursive negotiations: they are challenged and struggle with responsibility.
In our study we are interested in teacher’s interpretation patterns concerning gender and sexual diversity. To understand these interpretations pattern, we use a hybrid fusion of pedagogical theories connecting critical theory, deconstructivism and intersectionality, to evaluate the narratives teachers told us in an episodic discursive interview study (see below). The theoretical framework we refer to is threefold. Critical Pedagogy (Kritische Bildungstheorie, Heydorn 1972) stresses on the contradiction of education (Bildung, Hartmann 2013; Messerschmidt 2009) and power structures. Education is understood as a tool to adjust students to the power structures of society and at the same time to support students to develop a critical attitude against it. Queer Subject Theory (Discurs Theory, Foucault 1992; Butler 2009) deconstructs power relations and stresses on the paradoxes of submission, resistance and empowerment in the sexed and gendered subjectivation process. Intersectionality (Riegel 2016) considers the interconnectedness of concepts of sociocultural divide such as heteronormativity, classism, ableism and racism, affecting social individuals. These connected concepts unfold at school between structures and organisations, discourses and practices of subjectivation. In using this hybrid theoretical framework we can update the concept of maturity (“Mündigkeit”, Heydorn 1972) and develop and unfold the perspective of the many ways of living gender and sexual diversity. Within this framework we can study collective orientations and interpretation patterns of teachers dealing with and theming gender and sexual diversity in the classroom. We can answer the research question how these teachers negotiate and realize institutional responsibilities and pedagogical competences related to LGBTIQ topics.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur research design is a hybrid fusion of three methodological traditions. We take into account (a) the intersectional approach of difference in education (Walgenbach 2007), (b) the qualitative research style of the grounded theory methodology (Clarke 2012) and (c) an interpretation pattern analysis (Bögelein et al. 2019). Intersectionality is a concept that, on one side, considers the differences between individual identities such as gender, race, class and (dis)ability. On the other side, intersectionality takes into account power structures and social inequalities resulting from these differences. Grounded Theory Methodology is a general methodology for developing a theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analysed. In our case we created a theory of social interpretation patterns developed from teachers facing LGBTIQ topics at school out of empirical date. Social interpretation patterns can be understood as “over-individual schemes of sense” drawn from shared everyday knowledge. These interpretation patterns shape the perceptions and arguments of legitimation and are practiced in not-reflected performances in everyday life. These collectively shared structures of sense determine how subjects find solutions (keys) for reference problems (locks). We are interested to find out more about the solutions teachers find to bridge the gap between progressive policies of LGBTIQ and conservative realities in school.
We carried out 15 episodic discursive interviews (Ullrich 1999) with cis, trans and divers as well as hetero, lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers in the years 2015 to 2020. These teachers serve in 10 different schools, covering a wide spectrum from comprehensive to grammar schools, from primary to vocational schools. Moreover, the schools are located in different areas such as big cities and small towns. The teachers themselves cover a variety of subjects such as language, social science, STEM fields, practical subjects and vocational training. Our research design gains insides and results while attentively avoiding essentialism.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsIn our empirical study we could identify the teacher’s problem as the ambivalence of professionality in a post-heteronormative setting. All teachers we interviewed were struggling with the task to act professional in relation to LGBTIQ topics. While they agreed on acting in a professional way, they developed different interpretation patterns to find solutions (keys) for the problem (lock). They differed in their assessment who is responsible for LGBTIQ questions in the institution and who carries a pedagogical responsibility. Teachers who are committed staff and take responsibility for inclusive learning environments struggle with the post-heteronormative double bind: to be responsible for all LGBTIQ topics, but at the same time not to peddle LGBTIQ topics.
We found three interpretation patterns to ‘solve’ the ambivalence of professionality in a post-heteronormative school setting.
- Dethematisation is a strategy to avoid talking about LGBTIQ topics. Teachers following this pattern argue that it is not necessary to talk about it because the (cis and hetero) students already know and are tolerant, because queer students are seen as or should be understood as ‘normal’, or because discursive violence is downplayed.
- Fragmentation is another strategy to cope the situation. The LGBTIQ topic is understood as a private problem, something critical only for youth in puberty, for students from immigrant families or people with working class background.
- Responsibilisation (feeling responsible) is the third interpretation pattern we could reconstruct. Here the topic is particularly or fully addressed. The teachers feel responsible for a safe atmosphere for all students. They position themselves, stand up for diversity in the classroom and teach gender and sexual diversity.
Finally, we outline what these findings mean for pre-service and in-service teacher training.
ReferencesBögelein, Nicole/Vetter, Nicole (Hrsg.) (2019): Der Deutungsmusteransatz. Einführung -Erkenntnisse -Perspektiven. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa.
Butler, Judith (2009): Die Macht der Geschlechternormen und die Grenzen des Menschlichen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Clarke, Adele E. (2012): Situationsanalyse. GroundedTheory nach dem Postmodern Turn. Interdisziplinäre Diskursforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Fahie, Declan (2017): Faith of our fathers–lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers’ attitudes towards the teaching of religion in Irish denominational primary schools. In: Irish Educational Studies 36, 1, 9–24.
Foucault, Michel (1992): Was ist Kritik? Berlin.
FRA Report (2020): A long way to go for LGBTI equality. Link: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/eu-lgbti-survey-results accessed 29th January 2022
Hartmann, Jutta (2002): Vielfältige Lebensweisen. Dynamisierungen in der Triade Geschlecht –Sexualität -Lebensform. Opladen: Leske u. Budrich.
Hartmann, Jutta (2013): Bildung als kritisch-dekonstruktives Projekt -pädagogische Ansprüche und queere Einsprüche. In: Hünersdorf, B. (Hrsg.): Was ist und wozu betreiben wir Kritik in der Sozialen Arbeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 253–278.
Heydorn, Heinz-Joachim (1972): Zu einer Neufassung des Bildungsbegriffs. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
IGLYO (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Intersex Youth and Student Organisation) (2018): LGBTQI Inclusive Education Report 2018. https://www.iglyo.com/resources/lgbtqi-inclusive-education-report-2018/ accessed 29th January 2022
Kleiner, Bettina (2015): Subjekt Bildung Heteronormativität. Rekonstruktion Schulischer Differenzerfahrungen Lesbischer, Schwuler, Bisexueller und Trans*Jugendlicher. Opladen, Berlin und Toronto: Barbara Budrich.
Klocke, U., Salden, S. & Watzlawik, M. (2018): Vielfalt in der Schule fördern: Wie Lehrkräfte dazu bewegt werden können, sexuelle und geschlechtliche Vielfalt sichtbar zu machen und konsequent gegen Diskriminierung einzuschreiten. DJI impulse, (2), 26-29.
Kosciw, Joseph G./Clark, Caitlin M./Truong, NhanL./Zongrone, Adrian D. (2019): The 2019 National School Climate Survey. The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation's Schools. New York.
Messerschmidt, Astrid (2009): Weltbilder und Selbstbilder. Bildungsprozesse im Umgang mit Globalisierung, Migration und Zeitgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Brandes Apsel Verlag.
Riegel, Christine (2016): Bildung -Intersektionalität -Othering. Pädagogisches Handeln in widersprüchlichen Verhältnissen. Pädagogik. Bielefeld: transcriptVerlag.
Schmidt, Friederike/Schondelmayer, Anne-Christin/Schröder, U. B. (Hrsg.) (2015): Selbstbestimmung und Anerkennung sexueller und geschlechtlicher Vielfalt. Lebenswirklichkeiten, Forschungsergebnisse und Bildungsbausteine. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Siemoneit, Julia (2021): Schule und Sexualität. Pädagogische Beziehung, Schulalltag und sexualerzieherische Potenziale. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag.
Ullrich, Carsten G. (1999): Deutungsmusteranalyse und diskursives Interview. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 28, 6, 429–447.
UNESCO (2021): Don’t Look Away. No Place for Exclusion of LGBTI Students. https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/LGBTIdontlookaway accessed 29th January 2022.
Walgenbach, Katharina (2007): Gender als interdependente Kategorie. Neue Perspektiven auf Intersektionalität, Diversität und Heterogenität. Opladen, Berlin und Toronto: Barbara Budrich.
33. Gender and Education
Paper
Gendering School Space in the Experiences of Mothers of Transgender Children in Different Educational Systems in Israel.
Einat Gilboa-Oppenheim, Amalia Ziv, Galia Plotkin Amrami
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
Presenting Author: Ziv, Amalia
In recent years, transgender children and adolescents have gained increased visibility in Israeli culture, and the education system faces the need of coping with students’ gender transition in the school arena. The parents, and especially the mothers of these children, function as key figures who navigate their children’s transition and mediate between them and the school. The proposed paper is based on a study that explores parents' practices and experiences in the encounter between the school and family environments. Our research explores the experiences of contemporary Israeli mothers of transgender and gender-variant children focusing on their roles as actors who negotiate their children's preferences and performances and mediate these to others in the family and school settings. The family and school are the most important institutions of gender socialization (Thorne, 1993). Yet, very few studies have investigated parent-school relations in the context of transgender and gender-variant children. Our aim is to investigate how parents of transgender and gender-variant children interact with various actors in their children's schools in the process of mediating their children's gender performance or navigating their transition.
Currently, no formal policy exists concerning gender-variant students in Israel, despite the trans community’s efforts to work with the Ministry of Education to formulate guidelines for schools concerning the treatment of transgender students. Our research sets out from the premise that parents of transgender and gender-variant children play an important role in navigating (i.e., interpreting, mediating, and advocating) their children's gender variance/transition in the encounter with educational institutions. Therefore, they may promote educational personnel's awareness of gender variance, impacting educational policy. This approach to educational policy resonates with what Levinson et al. (2009) define as the "sociocultural approach." Unlike traditional policy research, which attempted to understand how and why a given policy succeeded or failed, the sociocultural approach analyzes how a policy defines reality, orders behavior, and allocates resources (Levinson et al., 2009). Within this framework, formal policymakers, and other social actors, such as parents and civil society bodies working with the educational system, can participate in policymaking around transgender children or atypical gender expression.
Following Rahilly (2015; 2018) who examined parents’ negotiations with the gender binary and its regulatory effects during everyday discursive interactions, we focus on parent-school relationships as an increasingly important and under-investigated arena of "doing (trans) gender" politics in contemporary Israel.
Assuming that parents' interactions with educational institutions are shaped by local social (religious, communal) constraints and values, we wanted to find out whether and in what ways parents’ participation in shaping policy around transgender children differs between different educational contexts. For this purpose, we distinguished between 3 types of schools in the Jewish sector: state schools, state-religious schools, and independent schools. The three types of schools differ in several respects. For the purpose of this study, a highly pertinent characteristic of Jewish state-religious schools is that most are gender segregated, beginning in 4th grade and sometimes earlier (Finkelstein, 2021). Independent schools (i.e., democratic, arts, experimental, private, and Steiner approach schools) are often characterized by progressive agendas, as well as a higher degree of parental involvement in school governance than the other state schools (Nir & Bogler, 2012).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe research is a qualitative study based on 30 semi-structured in-depth interviews with mothers of transgender and gender variant children aged 6-20. The participants were recruited through social media, based on snowball sampling. As Haim Noy (2008) argues, this method is essentially social, as it uses and activates existing social networks. In this case, snowball sampling enabled us to leverage the relevant social networks and allowed access to mothers of gender variant and transgender children. The interviewed mothers were from different generations, different geographical areas (central cities and peripheral towns in Israel), and from different socio-economic status. We note that it was extremely difficult to find religious mothers who were willing to participate in the study.
The interviews lasted approximately one hour face-to face or via Zoom software. They began with broader questions about mothering a transgender or gender-variant child, and moved on to more specific questions about the parents-school relation in the process of mediating their child's gender performance or navigating their transition, such as: What was your expectation from the school? When you chose a school for your child, to what extend have you considered the gender issue? Did you feel any need to be involved in shaping school attitude regarding your child's gender? Mothers were invited to talk about their experiences with school staff, including the challenges they had to face and decisions they have made.
Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and were coded using the atlas.ti program. To analyze the interviews, we have used Grounded Theory. Grounded Theory’s emphasis on meaning without assuming the existence of a unidimensional external reality (Charmaz, 2014) is particularly suited to this project, as it aims to grasp the meaning-making processes. Open coding of the transcribed protocols of the interviews was done to identify and define the key categories emerging from the data.
The paper presents preliminary results.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsOur findings indicate that in state schools and independent schools the differences in mothers’ experiences are largely unrelated to the characteristics of the educational stream. The exception are religious schools, where gender transition within the bounds of the school is impossible and students who come out as trans inevitably leave this educational stream. We propose that the degree to which the educational space is gendered is a more adequate lens for analyzing educational policy regarding transgender and gender variant children. The notion of “gendered educational space” refers to the ways in which ideas concerning gender inform and organize both institutionalized and spontaneous educational practices, pedagogical responses and every-day interactions in various school arenas (Francis, & Monakali, 2021). In the absence of formal institutional policies concerning gender transition, schools – or rather individual educators – enact what Stephen Ball’s terms “policy as discourse”. Although we have found differences between public and alternative schools in the degree of gender rigidity and in their handling of the temporality of gender transition (ranging from immediate acceptance and cooperation to delay and inaction), the more prominent finding is that such differences largely result from practices by different actors in the field – educators and parents alike. The interpretations and interventions of these actors, who hold differing premises regarding the roles of teachers, parents, and students, as well as concerning the meaning of gender, exemplify how educational policy is shaped also from the bottom up.
ReferencesBall, S. J. (2015). What is policy? 21 years later: Reflections on the possibilities of policy research. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 36(3), 306-313.
Charmaz, K. 2014. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.
Finkelstein, A., (2021). The National-Religious Society in Data. Ne’emanei Torah Va’Avodah [Hebrew].
Francis, D., & Monakali, E. (2021). ‘Lose the Act’: pedagogical implications drawn from transgender and non-binary learners’ experiences of schooling. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 29(5), 715-731.
Levinson, B. A., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(6), 767-795.
Nir, A. E., & Bogler, R. (2012). Parental involvement in school governance and decision making in Israel. Journal of School Public Relations, 33(3), 216-236.
Noy, Haim. 2008. “Sampling Knowledge: The Hermeneutics of Snowball Sampling in Qualitative Research.” Social Research Methodology 11 (4): 327–44.
Rahilly, E. P. (2015). The gender binary meets the gender-variant child: Parents’ negotiations with childhood gender variance. Gender & Society, 29(3), 338-361.
Rahilly, E. P. (2018). Re-interpreting gender and sexuality: Parents of gender-nonconforming children. Sexuality & Culture, 22(4), 1391-1411.
Thorne, B., (1993). Gender Play: Girls and Boys in School. Rutgers University Press.
|
