Transgender and Gender-Creative Students in PK–12 Schools: What We Can Learn from Their Teachers

Abstract

Context A growing body of work refects the ways in which gender-creative and transgender students are ill-served by current social climates in the vast majority of public schools. Few studies have explored this topic from an educator's perspective. Purpose This study was designed to develop a conception of the barriers and supports that exist for educators working to create learning environments that affirm transgender and gender-creative students. Participants Twenty-six Canadian educators who all had direct experience working with gender-creative and transgender students in school settings with an average of 10 years’ experience in schools and mean age of 43. Research Design: This project is a Social Action Research (SAR) project designed to identify what are common challenges and why these challenges are present. Data Collection and Analysis Each educator was interviewed for 60–120 minutes using a flexible interview guide and audio recordings were transcribed for analysis. Data analysis was conducted via an ongoing and exploratory design. We also performed a cross-case analysis to compare experiences and perceptions across teachers in elementary and secondary schools as well as alternative and traditional schools. Findings We identified barriers and supports experienced by our participants. Barriers included: (1) the pervasiveness of transphobia; (2) high frequency of school transfers; (3) the propensity for gay and lesbian educators to take on an “expert” role; (4) ethnocentrism; (5) relying on a “pedagogy of exposure” and using certain students as “sacrificial lambs”; (6) the overlapping challenges of working with youth who also have behavioral and learning difficulties; and (7) the balancing act required to navigate complex issues with little training and support. Supports identified were: (1) alternative schools as sites of refuge and spaces where transgender and gender-creative students are reportedly thriving; (2) empowered transgender and gender-creative students; (3) vigilant and protective adults; and (4) best practices. Recommendations In order to address systemic barriers we advocate for an application of principles and best practices aligned with critical, queer, and anti-oppressive pedagogies. We recommend that schools: (1) develop a more student-centered, flexible curriculum; (2) promote interdisciplinary and project-based learning; (3) model and promote creativity; (4) establish restorative justice programs; (5) reduce or entirely remove sex-segregated activities and spaces; (6) integrate discussions of gender diversity as a social justice issue throughout the curriculum.

Improving School Outcomes for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youth: A Rapid Review

“…While the “student-in-charge” narrative—where the transgender and gender-diverse student is put at the center of decision making—is usually celebrated (Luecke, 2018; (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Airton, 2016), concerns were also raised (Frohard-Dourlent, 2018). Indeed, due to educators and students being embedded in a cisnormative context (Frohard-Dourlent, 2018), transgender and gender-diverse students may be seen as “sacrificial lambs” who sometimes are exposed or used as examples, and frequently are being required to take the spotlight and stand-up for themselves (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Lee, 2016).…”

“…While the “student-in-charge” narrative—where the transgender and gender-diverse student is put at the center of decision making—is usually celebrated (Luecke, 2018; (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Airton, 2016), concerns were also raised (Frohard-Dourlent, 2018). Indeed, due to educators and students being embedded in a cisnormative context (Frohard-Dourlent, 2018), transgender and gender-diverse students may be seen as “sacrificial lambs” who sometimes are exposed or used as examples, and frequently are being required to take the spotlight and stand-up for themselves (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Lee, 2016). There are also preoccupations with only having LGBT + teachers or LGBT + students leading all gender-related and peer support activities (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Airton, 2016; Nguyen, Brazelton, Renn, and Woodford, 2018) since these should be developed by all members of the school community and not serve as a “niche”.…”

“…Large-scale policies (Lewis & Eckes, 2020) include the prohibition of harassment, the creation of student-led clubs and “safe spaces” (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Airton, 2016; Luecke, 2018), and the development of social and psychological services/health services located in school grounds and focusing on LGBT + youth, but they are scarce (Day, Ioverno, & Russell, 2019). School districts could join forces in implementing large-scale programs and policies (Luecke, 2018), including in-service training, encouragement, and certification of professional school counselors, social workers, and teachers to serve as “safe adults” (Goodrich & Barnard, 2019).…”

“…Several implementation recommendations that resulted in positive action were highlighted, such as allowing students to change their gender on campus records without changing legal documents; offering private changing facilities and single-person showers in athletic/recreational facilities (Goldberg, Beemyn, & Smith, 2019); editing school district forms to reflect parent #1 and parent #2, rather than “mother” and “father”; adding gender identity to the district's nondiscrimination policy; adding books that are LGBT + inclusive to school libraries; providing training for principals and assistant principals regarding state and federal anti-discrimination laws and assisting them in understanding and addressing LGBT + family issues; assuring that students are not obliged to wear attire reflecting their gender assigned at birth (Goodrich & Barnard, 2019); and establishing restorative justice programs to deal with gender-related conflicts (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Airton, 2016).…”

“…Equity-wise, unequal experiences regarding school climate were reported when using an intersectional framework that considered gender, race, class, and disability as markers. For instance, there are limitations on the support offered to black and immigrant transgender and gender-diverse youth by white teachers (Meyer, Tilland-Stafford & Airton, 2016). Transgender people of color and transgender people with disabilities have higher suicidality rates related to gender discrimination than their white and non-disability counterparts (Seelman, 2016).…”