Are Tomorrow's Teachers Ready to Deal with Diverse Students? Teacher Candidates' Attitudes toward Gay Men and Lesbians

Abstract

Introduction The purpose of pre-service teacher education programs is to provide future teachers with the necessary skills and tools to be effective educators. In addition to providing students with pedagogical methodologies, these programs should prepare students to work with various and diverse populations and give them the ability to acknowledge and address issues of social and educational inequities within their schools and classrooms (Clark & Digby, 1999). Many pre-service teacher preparation programs address some of these concerns, such as racial and ethnic issues (Wardle, 2000), linguistic diversity and economic status (Commins & Miramontes, 2006), but few have confronted issues dealing with sexual minorities (Mathison, 1998). The purpose of this study was to conduct an exploratory assessment of pre-service educators' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. As there are no studies examining teacher candidates' attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, this project fills a gap in the literature. By examining the attitudes of teacher candidates on sexuality issues, teacher preparation programs can better address such issues and thus positively influence future teacher-student interactions. Studies have shown that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth are more susceptible to certain health risks, such as victimization (Bontempo & D'Augelli, 2002; DuRant, Krowchuk, & Senal, 1998) and mental health problems (Hershberger & D'Augelli, 1995), and more likely to engage in health risk behaviors, such as substance abuse and sexual risk-taking (Bontempo & D'Augelli, 2002; DuRant, et al., 1998; Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRant, 1998; Hershberger & D'Augelli, 1995; Rosario, Hunter, & Gwadz, 1997; Rotherum-Borus, Rosario, Van Rossem, Reid, & Gillis, 1995). Regarding LGB youth, one of the most severe health concerns is the possibility of suicide attempts and suicide completions. Some studies and reviews of previous research have concluded that this population is at greater risk for suicide than their heterosexual peers (Halpert, 2002; Kulkin, Chauvin, & Percle, 2000; McDaniel, Purcell, & D'Augelli, 2001); however, the degree to which LGB youth are at risk or whether they are at a greater risk compared to others is currently being debated as other studies suggest that only a minority of LGB youth are at-risk for suicide (Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003). Whether LGB youth are at greater risk for suicide or not, understanding and decreasing health risks of youth is critical. For LGB youth, their sexual orientation itself does not put them at greater risk for these health-related concerns, but the environmental responses to their sexual orientation at home, at school, and in their neighborhoods are the factors that actually increase their risk (Bontempo, & D'Augelli, 2002; Garofalo, et al., 1998; Remafedi, French, Story, Resnick, & Blum, 1998; Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003). For example, LGB youth may experience discrimination and possibly violence from teachers, peers, and others in their communities based on perceptions of their sexual orientation or if they were to reveal their sexual orientation to others; less directly, they may hear disparaging and negative comments made about LGB individuals that could result in depression and negative risk-taking behaviors. While all environments have an impact, understanding the school environment where students spend eight or more hours a day and interact most frequently with their peers is critical. In their recent publication on school climate, the Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network (GLSEN) (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006) noted that 64% of sexual minority youth report feeling unsafe at their school. Likewise, sexual minority students were five times more likely to skip school in the last month because of safety concerns than the general student population. This lack of safety is related to direct experiences. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.