|
Article Excerpt
The purpose of this research is to examine how lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) topics are treated in foundations of education textbooks. For some time, scholars have been warning that negative attitudes toward LGBT people are prevalent among preservice and licensed teachers and that teachers are unprepared to affirm and address the needs of LGBT students and families (Blackburn & Donelson, 2004; Casper & Schultz, 1999; Kozik-Rosabal & Macgillivray, 2000; Macgillivray, 2004; Maney & Cain, 1997; Petrovic, 1998; Robinson & Ferfolja, 2001; Roffman, 2000; Sears, 1992, 2005; Szalacha, 2004; Unks, 1993/1994). Moreover, attempts to remedy this situation are largely absent from many teacher preparation programs (Athanases & Larrabee, 2003; Jennings & Sherwin, 2007; Sherwin & Jennings, 2006). It seems reasonable to suggest that if schools are to be more affirming of sexual minority youth, so must teacher preparation programs. Teacher preparation programs' treatment of LGBT topics is informed by a variety of factors including national, state, and accreditation agency requirements and standards, as well as the expertise and values of education faculty. Also salient, however, are the representations of LGBT people and topics in the textbooks available to teacher educators. Sexual orientation topics may include such discussions as being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or straight, and examinations of heterosexual privilege and heterosexism. Gender identity topics may include discussions of how one identifies as male, female, or somewhere in between; transgenderism; and intersexuality (www.isna.org).
FRAMING THE ISSUE
Teacher preparation programs assume some responsibility in shaping preservice teachers' beliefs and classroom practices. Many teacher preparation programs, however, ignore LGBT issues (Jennings & Sherwin, 2007; Letts, 2002; Sherwin & Jennings, 2006). Teacher educators often exclude LGBT topics unintentionally because the issues are beyond their consciousness or intentionally because they are unsure of how to discuss them or whether they are permitted to discuss them (Athanases & Larrabee, 2003; Macgillivray, 2004) or because of their own antigay beliefs (Finnessy, 2007; Sears, 1992).
At the same time, the current political backlash from antigay activists, such as Christian fundamentalists' push for No Promo Homo laws (Macgillivray, in press-b; White, 2006), is creating a climate of fear and intimidation that prevents teachers from including or affirming LGBT youth and families in K-12 schools. Thus, educators' fear of the conservative right may silence discussion of LGBT issues in K-12 schools, and preservice teachers may enter their teacher preparation programs without having had the opportunity to discuss LGBT issues previously. College courses are, therefore, often the first exposure teacher education students have to factual information about sexual orientation and gender identity. Because foundations of education coursework routinely introduces other diversity topics (e.g., racial, ethnic, class, religious, and ability differences) in education, and is one of the first classes many preservice teachers are required to take, we hold that it is a good place to introduce LGBT topics as well.
Given that many instructors use the content and structure of their adopted textbooks to structure the content of their classes, the inclusion of LGBT topics in textbooks can help to facilitate their inclusion in foundations courses. Many foundations texts, however, exclude LGBT topics or address LGBT topics in ways that may reinforce negative or stereotypic representations of LGBT people. For instance, including LGBT content in the same section as depression, youth suicide, and HIV/AIDS has the effect of pathologizing LGBT identities (Rasmussen, 2005a, 2005b; Rofes, 2005a, 2005b; Talburt, 2005). To rely upon instructors' supplementation of textbooks is potentially flawed because it relies upon expertise and sensitivities that many instructors may not have without support from a text. The related research indicates that the way in which issues get presented to students connotes certain thought patterns and has a lasting impact, both consciously and subconsciously (Whatley, 1992; Young & Middleton, 2002). It is important, therefore, that textbook authors exercise sensitivity in their inclusion and treatment of LGBT topics. Thus, our main question is How are LGBT issues treated in foundations of education textbooks? Our study builds upon the methods and findings of previous studies, including content analyses of race and gender in psychology and education textbooks.
LGBT students are disproportionately susceptible to a variety of vulnerabilities that are linked to unaffirming school and social environments (Bart, 1998; Human Rights Watch, 2001; Kosciw & Diaz, 2006; Macgillivray, 2000; McCready, 2004; McFarland & Dupuis, 2001; Safren & Heimberg, 1998, 1999; Winters, Remafedi, & Chan, 1996). The systematic neglect of the needs of LGBT youth and families within teacher preparation coursework is rooted in heteronormative assumptions that present heterosexuality as the only legitimate sexual orientation.
The dominance, or the coercive power, of the institution of heterosexuality ... coupled with the exclusion of other ways of being [e.g., LGBT] ... justifies the assumed superiority of the heterosexual social order, not only of schools, but of society by giving it a normative dignity while simultaneously hiding the mechanisms by which it asserts itself as the natural order. (Macgillivray, 2004, p. 113)
Thus, heterosexuals come to think of themselves as normal, and anyone who does not fit the norm (LGBT and other gender nonconformers) is seen as not normal, or other. Heteronormativity promotes homophobia, the irrational fear of and discomfort with homosexuality and homosexuals. Likewise, because gender conformity is so closely linked to heterosexual behavior, as expressed through traditional rigid gender roles, heterosexism fuels transphobia, the irrational fear of transgendered individuals (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Lombardi, Wilchins, Priesing, & Malouf, 2001), as well as heterosexist discrimination against LGBT people (Friend, 1993). The incidences of homophobia, heteronormativity, heterosexism, and transphobia within education extend beyond actual classrooms and schools. These same factors may, in part, explain the minimal treatment, maltreatment, or absence of LGBT topics within foundations of education textbooks for preservice teachers.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Most diversity-related content analyses to date have focused on race and gender bias and have included textbooks from the fields of education and psychology. This review begins with those analyses because their methods gave us ideas for our own and because they provide a basis for comparison with our analysis of LGBT topics in foundations textbooks. Also, because the inclusion of LGBT topics in textbooks has occurred relatively recently, whereas race and gender topics have been included in textbooks for a longer period of time, this review will provide the reader with a more historical understanding of the evolution of the treatment of diversity topics over the years.
Content Analyses of Race
One of the oldest content analyses of race that we uncovered was reported by Powell and Garcia (1985). The authors examined the illustrations in a series of 7 elementary science textbooks. They reported, "Adult minorities are usually shown in roles or activities dealing with parental or familial situations and in such occupational roles as teachers and mechanical workers. They appear less often in science-related career roles" (p. 527).
Gay (1988) analyzed photographs in 18 introductory psychology textbooks from the mid-1980s for the presence of people of color and compared those numbers to U.S. census data. Gay concluded the number of Whites in the photographs was disproportionately large in comparison to the number of people of color. Moreover, Brown, Goodwin, Hall, and Jackson-Lowman (1985), in a review of psychology of women textbooks, found that 18 of the 28 texts analyzed made only token mention of, or had no references to, African American women.
In a similar study, Hogben and Waterman (1997) reviewed text and photographs in 28 introductory psychology textbooks for coverage of diversity issues. Coders searched for key phrases in each text's index; counted the number of paragraphs devoted to each aspect of diversity; searched photographs and any accompanying text for clues as to individuals' race, ethnicity, and gender; and examined differences between texts written by male, as opposed to female or mixed, authors. They reported, "Most minority groups receive little if any attention ... [and] when textbook authors do mention minority issues, they focus primarily on Black people" (p. 99). They add, however, that "The constant parade of White male individuals in older textbook photographs has largely disappeared, and some racial/ethnic groups are represented in a proportion approximating their representation in the United States" (p. 99).
Content Analyses of Gender and Gender Bias
Multiple content analyses of the treatment of women in psychology and education textbooks, from the mid-1970s through the late 1990s, concluded that women and women's issues were often underrepresented and marginalized (Bertilson, Springer, & Fierke, 1982). Hogben and Waterman (1997) added, "if [photographs in] textbooks portrayed 5% fewer male and 5% more female individuals, the observed frequencies and expected frequencies would have been virtually identical" (p. 99).
Similarly, Titus's (1993) analysis of foundations textbook content concluded that although some texts may discuss sex or gender differences, they nonetheless mask "questions of inequality and power relations" (p. 41), leaving preservice teachers unable to interrogate the ways in which schools allocate privileges based upon sex and gender. More recently, Zittleman and Sadker (2002) analyzed 23 teacher education texts for gender issues in education. They analyzed the space allocated to gender topics, the accuracy and integration of gender coverage, the gender of authors and contributors, photographs and line drawings, and the use of nouns and pronouns. Comparing their findings to those of Sadker and Sadker (1980), they concluded the percentage of foundations of education textbooks devoted to gender issues had increased 6.3% in the intervening time. Their other findings included "content is often segregated into one section or chapter," "distinctions between White women and women of color are rare," "females dominate textbook photographs ... [but] the preponderance of females in photographs contrasts sharply to their very limited narrative coverage," and "foundations texts reveal a general improvement in the listings of women and gender topics ... [but] critical topics continue to be omitted" (Zittleman & Sadker, 2002, p. 170). Based upon these studies, we conclude that improvements have been made in the inclusion of people of color and women but that there is room for more improvement.
Content Analyses of Sexual Orientation
Five authors included sexual orientation in their content analyses of high school- and college-level textbooks. Although these five content analyses involved mostly non-teacher education textbooks, they nonetheless point out themes and patterns in the (very brief) historical treatment of LGBT topics, which alerted us to look for them in our own analysis, and so they are included here. Temple (2005) analyzed 20 high school textbooks, representing five subject areas (personal and social education, moral education, family economics, human biology, and Catholic moral and religious education) for content related to sexuality and relationships. She found that 95% of the 610 pages she coded "made no reference at all to same-sex sexuality" and that 133 pages "explicitly defined sexuality as heterosexuality, while only 33 pages (5.4 percent) mentioned same-sex sexuality in any way" (p. 280). Moreover, where same-sex sexuality was mentioned, it...
|
