University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

(USC Thesis Other)

Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 1
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER IDENTITY AND SEXUALITY
AND HOW THEY ARE REVEALED IN THEIR PEDAGOGICAL AND CURRICULAR
CHOICES: TWO CASE STUDIES
By
Susan Simpson
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
Defense Date September 4, 2020 Conferral Date December 2020
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 2

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the LGBTQ community. You deserve an education that
accurately and authentically portrays the stories of LGBTQ people, history, and culture and
supportive educators who are proud to share them with you.

“When I dare to be powerful, to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less
and less important whether I am afraid.”
~ Audre Lorde

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 3

Acknowledgments
This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of
the following people.
To Dr. Julie Slayton, my dissertation chair: Thank you. Your guidance and support in the
creation of this document is beyond what I expected. I am amazed by your talent as an educator
and the amount of time and energy that you devoted to my study and me. I will be forever
grateful for your patience, dedication, mentorship, and sense of humor. You challenged me to do
my best work and this dissertation is a product that I am wholly proud of.
To Dr. Artineh Samkian and Dr. John Pascarella, my dissertation committee: Thank you
for your feedback and support during my defense. Your incredible insights have helped me
through this process, and I am so thankful to have had you on my committee.
To Elsie Bohorquez, Jamie Ryan, and Mario Burrell, my fellow grade level teachers:
Thank you for all your support throughout my doctoral program at USC and my dissertation
process. I am forever grateful for your support as coworkers and friends.
To Sue Orlet, my dear aunt: Thank you. You have always given me your unconditional
support in everything I do. You supported my passion to earn a doctorate and spent hours on the
phone with me, listening to my struggles and my triumphs. We are here together. I love you.
To my incredible elementary teacher participants: Thank you for allowing me into your
classrooms and your lives. This study would not have been possible without you.
To my amazing wife, Jana: I could not have done this without your tireless support.
When I asked if you were ready for me to take this on, you did not hesitate except that you made
me promise to be patient with any technology issues that came up. How did I do? Thank you for
always listening to me and making me laugh. I am proud to call you my wife and my best friend.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 4

Abstract
Pedagogy and content that disrupt existing heteronormative structures and curriculum
with positive representations of LGBTQ people, history, and events are connected to more
welcoming school experiences for all students. To understand elementary teachers’ choices with
regards to content and pedagogy that disrupt gender and sexuality norms, this study addressed
the following research question: How are elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and
sexuality revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices? This multi-case study examined
the beliefs and perceptions of two elementary school teachers, one kindergarten and one fifth
grade teacher, and their interactions with their students. The teachers taught in public elementary
schools in a metropolitan city in Southern California and were known for attempting LGBTQ-
inclusive pedagogy and curriculum. The data for this qualitative study included teacher
interviews, observations, and reflective notes. The findings from this study revealed that
although both teachers expressed a desire to disrupt society’s hegemonic heteronormative
narrative, their inability to overtly disrupt traditional gender and sexuality norms with their
students resulted in the reinforcement and reproduction of heteronormativity. In order to foster
conditions where students are able to challenge heteronormative expectations, teachers must be
given the opportunity to critically reflect on heteronormativity, deepen existing skills and
knowledge associated with implementing curriculum, make pedagogical choices that achieve the
goal of disruption, and be allowed opportunities that go beyond recognizing the need for
disruptive pedagogy and curriculum to integrating anti-oppressive education in schools that
addresses the marginalization of the LGBTQ community and the privilege associated with
heteronormativity.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 5

Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 4
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 7
Background of the Problem 7
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Question 15
Importance of the Study 15
Organization of the Dissertation 16
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Queer Theory 19
Intersectionality of Sexual Identities 21
Interrupting Heteronormativity 23
Teacher Perceptions 29
Teacher Self-Efficacy 30
Prevailing Discourse 35
Implementation Challenges 45
Teacher Pedagogy 55
Conceptual Framework 84
Conclusion 93
Chapter Three: Methods 94
Research Design 94
Sample and Population 95
Site and Participant Selection 96
Data Collection and Instrumentation 98
Interviews 99
Observations 101
Data Analysis 103
Credibility and Trustworthiness 107
Ethics 111
Limitations and Delimitations 113
Conclusion 115
Chapter Four: Findings 116
Case Study #1: Mrs. Waters, Atlantic Charter Elementary School 117
Espoused and Unconscious Beliefs 119
Struggle to Identify Vocabulary 120
Novel language and situations 123
Unconscious Bias 127
Missed Opportunities to Disrupt 134
Attempting to Disrupt Heteronormative Examples 134
Ignoring or Silencing Conversations that Disrupt 141
Reproducing and Reinforcing Heteronormative 147
Case Study #2: Mrs. Fuerte, Rockwell Elementary School 154
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 6

Expressed Beliefs Revealed Fixed and Flexible Understandings 156
Gender and sexuality are discovered or known 157
Celebrating differences in gender and sexuality 160
Colors and clothes are for everyone 164
Belief in Self-Determination Guided Decisions 167
Choices 167
Not my job 170
Fear of creating conflict with parents 173
Avoided Opportunities to Overtly Disrupt 177
Disruption through spontaneous intervention 178
Disruption through exposure 183
Silent support/allyship 191
Cross Case Analysis 193
Different Ways of Understanding Fixed and Flexible 195
Missed/Avoided Opportunities to Overtly Disrupt Gender Identity 197
and Sexuality Norms
Disruption Through Exposure/Absorption 201
Reinforced and Reproduced Heteronormativity 205
Revised Conceptual Framework 209
Conclusion 215
Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations 216
Summary of Findings 216
Implications and Recommendations 219
Practice 219
Policy 223
Research 227
References 229
Appendices 235
Appendix A 235
Appendix B 243

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 7

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Given that the purpose of this study was to understand how elementary teachers’
perceptions of gender identity and sexuality were revealed in their pedagogical and curricular
choices, this chapter does the following things. I set the context of this study by presenting
background information on issues related to discrimination, the presence of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students, and LGBTQ-inclusive content and
pedagogy in schools.
1
I then present the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study,
research questions, and importance of the study.
Background of the Problem
Many forms of discrimination exist in the United States of America despite laws written
that prohibit them. Specifically, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IV states,
No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. (pp.
8-9)
Laws against discrimination based on gender and sex were added in 1972 with the Title IX
amendment (Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX) and in 1974 laws clarifying that equality
in schools based on race, color, sex, or national origin should be carried out at the state level
(Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974). Unfortunately, current federal civil rights laws do
not expressly protect students from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
and outside of education, the LGBTQ community faces discrimination in the United States in

1
I use LGBTQ as the order of the letters in the acronym because it is the order most commonly used in the
literature.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 8

many other areas including housing and public accommodations (Cramer et al., 2017; Human
Rights Campaign, n.d.). Recently on June 15, 2020, regarding employment, the Supreme Court
ruled that federal law protects LGBTQ workers from discrimination when they decided that Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act that bars discrimination based on sex extends to claims of gender
identity and sexual orientation (Bostock v. Clayton, 2018). The impact of the landmark Supreme
Court ruling quickly changed the legal landscape beyond the workplace to health care as on
August 17, 2020, federal judge, U.S. District Court Judge Frederic Block, impeded the Health
and Human Services provisions that would have removed nondiscrimination protections for
transgender people in health care. Yet, the health of sexual minorities is endangered by
discriminatory laws that pertain to sexual orientation with issues including depression, substance
abuse, HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), stress related to social stigma, and
barriers to healthcare services due to social stigma (Cramer et al., 2017). Discriminatory laws
illustrate society’s perpetuation of a heteronormative ideology that supports oppressive gender
and sexual ideologies and is associated with power and dominance. Disruptions to this
heteronormative structure cause fear and anxiety for those who adhere to those ideologies and
because actions to protect and represent the LGBTQ community challenge the heteronormative
structure, discrimination continues (Nylund, 2004; Slesaransky-Poe & Garcia, 2009).
One of the governmental instruments for the reproduction of discrimination is in the U.S.
school system where it can reveal itself in several areas including “discrimination in protection
from harmful interpersonal interactions, in social environments, curriculum and instructional
resources, pedagogy, and in pupil services, programs, and benefits” (Kumashiro, 2003, p. 9).
There are many motives for discrimination in schools. The study From Teasing to Torment:
School Climate Revisited, A Survey of US Secondary School Students and Teachers found that
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 9

slightly more than 50% of students reported they were harassed for their appearance or body
type, 30.3% for actual or perceived race/ethnicity, 21.9% for gender expression, 19.4% for actual
or perceived sexual orientation, 18.1% for gender, 18.0% for actual or perceived religion, and
12.7% for actual or perceived disability (Greytak et al., 2016). According to the 2017 National
School Climate Survey, white students were not as likely as all other racial/ethnic groups to
encounter harassment or feel as though they were in danger. African-American LGBTQ students
were more at risk of out-of-school suspension or expulsion than all other racial/ethnic groups
(Kosciw et al., 2018). While not ignoring this larger complexity of discrimination that includes
race, ethnicity, religion, disability, body type and other markers, I did not focus on the
intersectionality of these different areas in my study, but rather narrowed the focus to prevailing
heteronormative practices in classrooms and specifically focused on discrimination as it relates
to gender identity and sexuality.
When compared to non-LGBTQ students, LGBTQ students underwent more bias-based
bullying and harassment and were more likely to suffer sexual harassment and school discipline
in U.S. schools (Greytak et al., 2016). Kosciw et al. (2018) found that “59.5% of LGBTQ
students felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation, 44.6% because of their gender
expression, and 35.0% because of their gender” (p. 4). The negative school climate affects
student attendance, with 34.8% of LGBTQ students missing at least one entire day of school in
the month prior to taking the National School Climate Survey for reasons of unsafety (Kosciw et
al., 2018). Internalized heteronormative practices have been disrupted through the presence of
Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs, anti-bullying/harassment policies. Greytak et al. (2016)
found that both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ students in schools with GSAs or anti-
bullying/harassment policies that specifically detailed protections for sexual orientation and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 10

gender identity/expression heard fewer anti-LGBTQ comments, held more positive attitudes
towards LGBTQ people, and felt safer in their schools versus students in schools with generic
policies or no policy. Additionally, the same study produced data that showed students in schools
that had anti-bullying/harassment policies that detailed protections for sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression did not see bullying, name-calling, or harassment as an issue at their
school versus students in schools that had more generic policies or no policy at all (Greytak et
al., 2016).
The absence of GSAs and anti-bullying/harassment policies is one reason for negative
outcomes for LGBTQ students. Another reason is a failure to teach lessons that accurately and
positively portray LGBTQ culture or their contributions to society (Taylor et al., 2016). The
2017 National School Climate Survey stated that 19.8% of LGBTQ students reported having
been taught positive representations about LGBTQ people, history, or events in their schools
while 18.4% reported having been taught negative content about LGBTQ topics. When
compared to schools that do not have LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, LGBTQ students at schools
with inclusive curriculum were less likely to hear homophobic and transphobic remarks, less
likely to feel unsafe, less likely to be victimized for their sexual orientation and gender
expression, and less likely to miss school because they felt unsafe (Kosciw et al., 2018). In
schools with LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, LGBTQ students performed better academically,
were more likely to feel acceptance from their peers, and felt greater belonging to their school
community (Kosciw et al., 2018). Studies also showed that introducing non-LGBTQ students to
transgender and gender-nonconformity-inclusive curriculum helps them to see gender as fluid
rather than binary and helps them to have a more profound understanding of students’ identities
and experiences. (Meyer, et al., 2016; Ryan et al., 2013).
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 11

Along with curriculum, or what one teaches, discriminatory practices in teachers’
pedagogy, or how one teaches, are also of concern, most visibly through destructive language
and interactions with students (Kumashiro, 2003). LGBTQ students face homophobia and
heterosexism from educators, parents, the school district, and the state (Robinson, 2002). Studies
show that 71% of students reported hearing teachers and other school staff make negative
remarks related to students’ gender expression and 56.6% made homophobic remarks (Kosciw et
al., 2018). Negative remarks made about transgender students were reported by 12.6% of
students (Greytak et al., 2016).
Less discernably, teachers are failing to change pedagogies to address oppression,
continuing to marginalize certain groups, such as the LGBTQ community, while allowing
society’s heteronormative structure to remain privileged (Kumashiro, 2003). Pedagogies that
address oppression demand that teachers introduce students to “a critical awareness of oppressive
social structures and ideologies that constitute the status quo of schools and society” (Kumashiro,
2003, p. 22). Critical pedagogies require teachers to learn more about their students’ identities,
however studies show that 18.2% of students were prohibited from discussing or writing about
LGBTQ topics in school assignments and 22.6% of students were told they could not wear
clothes considered “inappropriate” based on their legal sex (Kosciw et al., 2018). Discriminatory
school practices and policies such as these discourage students from sharing their identities with
their teachers, which prevents critical discussions and practices from taking place in the
classroom and encourages the continuation of the status quo.
Teachers can have a significant effect on the quantity and quality of LGBTQ-inclusive
curriculum shared with students, however teacher beliefs about supporting all students do not
translate to practices that affirm LGBTQ students or promote a more positive school climate
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 12

(Bower & Klecka, 2009; Greytak et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2016). According to From Teasing to
Torment: School Climate Revisited. A Survey of US Secondary School Students and Teachers,
83.3% of teachers believed that educators had a responsibility to provide safe and supportive
learning environments for LGBTQ students, however only about half of the teachers reported
engaging in at least one LGBTQ-related practice (Greytak et al., 2016). According to the report,
62.9% of teachers felt more comfortable with indirect support such as responding to students’
questions about LGBTQ people, while only 33.1% felt comfortable with more direct forms of
support such as incorporating LGBTQ topics into their teaching or curriculum (Greytak et al.,
2016). Moreover, according to Greytak et al. (2016), most commonly, teachers’ internal beliefs
were to blame for the barriers that they faced with 51.7% of teachers stating that LGBTQ topics
were irrelevant or inappropriate for their school. Teachers’ core beliefs about gender and
sexuality, either essentialist or social constructivist, mediate their level of action or inaction to
such teacher/student engagement regarding LGBTQ practices (Martino & Cumming-Potvin,
2016; Payne & Smith 2014; Robinson, 2002; Taylor et al., 2016; Warin & Adriany, 2017).
Two other significant obstacles that teachers face in their attempt to engage in LGBTQ
practices are external pressures and logistical concerns. External pressures such as lack of
support from administrators or backlash from parents or community, 26.2% of teachers feel these
are barriers to their active involvement in LGBTQ-inclusive practices. Kosciw (2018) reported
that staff intervened more at schools with anti-bullying/harassment policies and that such policies
often provide support to educators in addressing harassment and biased comments from students.
However, studies showed that the policies need to be comprehensive, clearly stating that bullying
and harassment pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression will not be
tolerated. Studies found that 79.3% of students had policies, but only 12.6% reported that the
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 13

policy was comprehensive and only 10.6% reported that their school or district had official
policies or guidelines to support transgender or gender nonconforming students (Kosciw et al.
2018).
Greytak et al. (2016) found that 19% of teachers stated they face logistical concerns such
as a lack of time in their schedule or support from schools by way of professional development
and trainings aimed at preparing them to carry out pedagogy and content that is LGBTQ-
inclusive. Professional development has been shown to be valuable in increasing teachers’ ability
and comfort levels when implementing more curriculum that is inclusive of LGBTQ families
(Gay & Network, 2012). Despite such positive connections, only a third of teachers, at 37%,
have had professional development on gender issues while 23% reported having LGBTQ
parented families as a professional development topic (Gay & Network, 2012). Regarding
professional development that addresses homophobia, bullying, and harassment, 30% of teachers
stated they wanted more, while 29% indicated they needed more professional development
focused on working with LGBTQ families, and 23% stated they needed more help working with
gender non-binary students (Gay & Network, 2012).
Statement of the Problem
Teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality, which are affected by their
personal beliefs and identities alongside heteronormative social constructions, and fear of
retribution from parents, administration, and community influence their curricular and
pedagogical decisions in the classroom. For many LGBTQ students, schools are hostile
environments that can negatively affect academic performance and personal health (Gay &
Network, 2011). Despite evidence that pedagogy and content that disrupt existing
heteronormative structures and curriculum with positive representations of LGBTQ people,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 14

history, and events are connected to a more welcoming school experience for LGBTQ and non-
LGBTQ students, the majority of students are not experiencing positive LGBTQ-inclusive
content or pedagogy (Gay & Network, 2011, 2012; Greytak et al., 2016; Kosciw et al., 2018).
The wealth of data collected pertaining to the presence of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and
pedagogy and how teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality are revealed in the
classroom come from middle and high school levels. A lesser amount of research has been
conducted to understand teachers’ perceptions and practices in the elementary setting.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to discover how elementary teachers implemented
pedagogy and content that was LGBTQ-inclusive given their perceptions of gender identity and
sexuality. This study captured what content and pedagogy looked like implemented by two
elementary teachers who were known by administrators or other educators as teachers who
attempted LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and curriculum in their classrooms regularly in schools
that were neither actively pursuing an agenda to implement LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum nor
actively discouraging any LGBTQ-inclusive agendas or initiatives. Using a case study approach,
this study examined how elementary teachers’ perceptions were revealed in their pedagogy and
content. Interview data was collected from teachers to gain an understanding of the teachers’
beliefs and identities and their perceptions about gender identity and sexuality as well as their
pedagogical styles and curriculum inclusion as it related to LGBTQ-inclusive topics.
Observations captured how teachers’ beliefs and identities were reflected in the interactions they
had with their students in the classroom and how their beliefs and identities related to the choices
they made with regards to LGBTQ-inclusive content.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 15

Research Question
This study was guided by the following research question: How are elementary teachers’
perceptions of gender identity and sexuality revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices?
Importance of the Study
Educators often see elementary classroom settings as places that are devoid of sexuality,
perceiving the presence of LGBTQ-inclusive materials and pedagogy that interrupt
heteronormative thinking and promote social justice as irrelevant and inappropriate (Robinson,
2002; Stein & Plummer, 1994; Sumara & Davis, 1999). Such perspectives disregard the ways
that pedagogy and curriculum are already not merely sexualized, but heterosexualized and how
compulsory heterosexuality perpetuates the myth that the LGBTQ community are largely
invisible in the elementary setting (Robinson, 2002; Sumara & Davis, 1999). Avoidance of
LGBTQ topics reinforces the hegemonic heteronormative narrative, sending a message to all
students that the exclusion of LGBTQ representation is condoned, and stereotypes and
discrimination are excused, leaving students and families who are members of the LGBTQ
community to feel responsible for the marginalization they are experiencing (Robinson, 2002).
Kumashiro (2003) said, “Silence is instructive, and students are learning about differences
through inference, contrast with the norm, and stereotypes and myths that circulate
unchallenged” (p. 18). When only binary forms of gender and heterosexuality are privileged and
all other identities are marginalized, only those dominant ways of thinking and identifying are
perpetuated, only those identities and experiences are affirmed, and only those social issues and
problems are addressed (Kumashiro, 2003).
I chose to study this topic because I personally related to it. As an out lesbian and
elementary teacher who believed that all students should be reflected in the curriculum, it only
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 16

followed that I would disrupt heteronormativity regularly in my classroom. Although I attempted
to challenge the status quo, I did not regularly confront society’s prevailing heteronormativity
nor use a social justice stance. Colleagues, both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ, have shared their
concerns with me about addressing gender identity and sexuality in their classrooms, in
particular, their fears of retribution from parents, community, and administrators. Therefore, with
my own hesitations to disrupt heteronormative structures as well as the fears and anxieties of my
fellow teachers, I believed that this was a topic that needed to be explored in further detail
because, as the literature suggests, there are many teachers who are experiencing the same fears
and anxieties.
This study is significant as it contributes to our understanding of the discourses that
prevail in education regarding teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and
examined how LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and content either disrupted existing
heteronormative structures or upheld them. It is this understanding that I hope to use to lead in
my district by developing resources and conducting professional development to elementary
teachers that would provide those resources and support in order to empower teachers to disrupt
heteronormativity and represent the LGBTQ community in their content and pedagogical styles.
Pedagogy and content that respect and reflect all people, regardless of sexual orientation, gender
identity, or gender expression is crucial if schools are to create safer and more affirming
environments for all students.
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. The first chapter provided an
introduction and background of the problem. It presented the context for discrimination in the
United States education system for LGBTQ students, the current state of pedagogical and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 17

curricular choices that are lacking in LGBTQ-inclusive content, and barriers such as internal
beliefs, external pressures, and logistical concerns teachers face when attempting to engage in
LGBTQ-inclusive practices.
Chapter two reviews existing research and scholarly material pertaining to elementary
teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality as well as teachers’ pedagogical choices as
they pertain to gender identity and sexuality. This chapter also outlines the conceptual
framework of the study which guides my research.
Chapter three presents the methodological approach used for this study, including a
rationale for choosing a qualitative research design, the sample and population procedure, and a
description of the data collection, instrumentation, and data analysis methods. This chapter also
addresses the measures that were taken to test the credibility and trustworthiness of my study as
well as measures that were taken during data collection and analysis to ensure that my study was
conducted ethically.
Chapter four presents the findings for this study. Case studies examining two elementary
teachers at two different public elementary schools are included which detail the findings from
each of the studies and the accompanying themes which contain teacher interview and classroom
observation data. This chapter also contains my revised conceptual framework that emerged as a
result of what was learned after data was collected, analyzed and interpreted. Revisions were
made to address the changes from the ways in which I thought my teachers would be influenced
in their curricular and pedagogical choices to what I learned from my time collecting data in the
field.
Chapter five presents a summary of the findings for the study and discusses implications
and recommendations for practice and policy as well as areas for future research. Suggestions for
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 18

professional learning opportunities are included for teachers such as opportunities to critically
reflect on heteronormativity, deepen existing skills, make pedagogical choices that align with the
goal of disruption, and integrate anti-oppressive education in schools. Policies are suggested that
would empower teachers to confidently practice LGBTQ-inclusive education. Finally, future
research areas are given that address data not collected in this study that would be beneficial to
collect in order to get a more detailed understanding of the ways in which teacher beliefs and
perceptions are revealed in their curricular and pedagogical choices.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 19

Chapter Two: Literature Review
The research question for this study asked: How are elementary teachers’ perceptions of
gender identity and sexuality revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices? To answer
this question, I drew on three relevant bodies of literature: queer theory, teacher perceptions, and
teacher pedagogy. I contended that the ways in which teachers carried out their curricular and
pedagogical decisions were influenced by their personal beliefs, heteronormative social
constructions, and fear of retribution from parents, administration, and community. In this
chapter I first present literature on queer theory, paying particular attention to the
intersectionality of sexual identities, the idea that all social spaces are heterosexualized, and how
queer theory can inform curriculum theory to interrupt heteronormative thinking and promote
social justice (Stein & Plummer, 1994; Sumara & Davis, 1999). Next, I offer the literature on
teacher perceptions with a focus on self-efficacy, fears, challenges, and personal beliefs
surrounding LGBTQ topics and the deployment of curriculum. After that, I examine the
literature on teacher pedagogy, including gender flexible, student-centered, and transgender and
gender non-conforming practices and the challenges with homophobic surveillance that affect
teachers’ delivery. Finally, I conclude this review of the literature with the presentation of my
conceptual framework that served as the basis for my study’s methodology.
Queer Theory
In this section, I present literature bases that explain the role queer theory has in
elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality as well as in their pedagogical
and curricular choices. Queer theorists put sexual differences at the center of intellectual inquiry
in sociology and other fields (Stein & Plummer, 1994). Foucault (1977), a catalyst of queer
theory, asserts that sexuality is a socially constructed social relationship. The theory of social
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 20

constructionism analyzes the development of mutually constructed understandings of the world
that form the basis for shared assumptions about reality (Foucault, 1977; Weeks, 1986). Burr
(1995) offers that “Social constructionism cautions us to be ever suspicious of our assumptions
about how the world appears to be” (p. 3). The binary categorizations of male and female or the
notion that heterosexual is the norm or the stable sexuality in opposition to non-heterosexual are
examples of what Burr (1995) said “do not necessarily refer to real divisions” (p. 3). The goal of
queer theory is to problematize sexual categories, rejecting traditional gender binary categories,
challenging hetero as the norm, because queer theorists believed lesbian and gay studies were not
sufficiently inclusive, nor did they capture the struggles that the lesbian and gay communities
encountered when trying to fit into a “ethnicity model” (p. 181) much like African-American or
women’s studies (Stein & Plummer, 1994). Queer theory provides a lens for my research as it
allows us to understand the context around why teachers and other educators deliver or abstain
from delivering lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ) curriculum.
To explain how queer theory is connected to elementary teachers’ pedagogical and
curricular choices, I first focus on the intersectionality of sexual identities. An integral
component to queer theory is the challenging of binary categories and the questioning of sexual
identities that are marginalized or completely invisible in society (Stein & Plummer, 1994). In
questioning these categories, it is revealed that sexual identities are complex and exist alongside
other differentiating qualities that require deeper insight into the lives of queer individuals and
heterosexuals alike. I also focus on literature that explores interrupting heteronormativity in
already heterosexualized spaces such as classrooms in order to promote social justice and to
allow for different experiences to be represented. Sumara and Davis (1999) argue that curriculum
and pedagogy are precisely the places for such disruption to transpire.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 21

Intersectionality of Sexual Identities
According to Stein and Plummer (1994), there were four qualities inherent to queer
theory: (a) the idea that sexual power was represented in different levels of social life that were
broad and were “enforced through boundaries and binary divides,” (b) the challenging of sexual
and gender types and other identities, (c) the rejection of any civil rights strategies that led to
anti-assimilationism or the deconstruction or revision of history, (d) the alacrity to question areas
that were not usually seen as being in the category of sexuality and to queer presumably
heterosexual or nonsexualized texts (p. 182).
Stein and Plummer (1994) stated that queer theorists have helped society see the
importance of looking at literature to see how it has shaped sexuality, but the authors suggested
that the theory look beyond the texts to the identities of the people in the cultural practices of
ordinary life to examine the inequalities and struggles of queer cultures all over the world. Stein
and Plummer (1994) stressed the importance of the ways in which individuals actively use the
cultural constructions introduced through texts and discourses, how some are accepted while
others are rejected, and how this creative mediation between culture and text is key in
constructing individuals’ unique lives. The authors stated that a new model is needed “for
conceptualizing ‘identity-in-culture,’ developing an understanding of how sexuality, along with
gender, race, ethnicity, class, and generation, is articulated and experienced within a terrain of
social practices” (Stein & Plummer, 1994, p. 185). The authors argued that queer theory should
deepen its insight into the lives of those in the queer culture by recognizing that those who
identify as queer have additional identifiers such as race and class, among others (Stein &
Plummer, 1994). Intersectionality that involved differences in sexuality had to be considered so
as to avoid a narrow sociological view. Stein and Plummer (1994) suggested that sociology
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 22

further develop its insights by affording a more substantial and straightforward approach to queer
theory such as an understanding of the hierarchical ways in which different groups of people are
placed in society, while keeping in mind the social processes connected to sexuality. The authors
questioned how the intersectionality of sexual identities with other identities such as race, class,
age, and region for the queer culture affected entire “fields of inquiry,” such as education, when
those sexual differences are kept in mind (Stein & Plummer, 1994, p. 185).
They also argued that it was also important to study the norm and not simply the
deviations from it so that heterosexuality becomes the pronounced category to be examined.
Traditionally, homosexuality became the “marked category” while “heterosexuality recede[d]
into the background, normalized and naturalized” (Stein & Plummer, 1994, p. 185). The authors
suggested looking at queer theory’s universalization of queerness where both homosexuality and
heterosexuality were looked at as socially constructed as were all other categories of sexuality,
placing all equidistant from the center or norm.
In order to queer sociological theory, Stein and Plummer (1994) discussed the queering
of classic sociological literature. The authors suggested placing homosexuality and
heterosexuality issues in the forefront of literature’s frames of analyses in order to problematize
the heterosexual center. Sociological theories presupposed that sexuality was binary between
homosexuality and heterosexuality and Stein and Plummer (1994) maintained that this needed to
be challenged in order to leave theories about queers behind and work toward queering existing
theory.
Stein and Plummer (1994) also suggested reimagining pedagogy so that educators
consistently reflected on the idea that classrooms and all other social spaces were always
heterosexualized. According to Stein and Plummer (1994), to queer pedagogical practices of
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 23

teaching, educators had to move away from treating sexuality as irrelevant and, if treated
relevantly, avoid the awkward placement of non-heterosexual topics into a syllabus or research
design, marginally defining them. When pedagogical practices were not rethought with the idea
of pervasive heterosexualization, questions about the sexual differences and the ways in which
such matters modified theories were not considered, thus transformation was not occurring (Stein
& Plummer, 1994). To shift the paradigm and make progress toward deconstructing
heteronormativity, queer theory had to transform existing conceptual frameworks and those
frameworks had to be recognized by others in the field (Stein & Plummer, 1994). The authors
believed that initial progress had been made toward the analyzation of heteronormative
structures, the idea that all sexualities were socially constructed, and the expansion of queer
theory to include the concept of intersectionality, but rejection of those transformations by others
in the field had delayed crucial growth for the queer culture. Stein and Plummer (1994) believed
that these advanced ideas would more effectively represent marginalized, non-heterosexual
people and improve the field of sociology.
Interrupting Heteronormativity
Sumara and Davis (1999) acknowledged that curriculum was heterosexualized and used
two separate investigations involving teachers, parents, and students, to examine the ways in
which heteronormativity and other typical patterns of thinking could be interrupted in
educational settings to promote social justice and to allow for different experiences to be
represented that were being marginalized or left out of curriculum altogether. The authors
believed that queer theory should be used to inform curriculum theory and they argued that
curriculum had a responsibility to disrupt heteronormative thinking. Sumara and Davis (1999)
argued that queer theory did not sexualize pedagogy but instead brought to light the ways that
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 24

pedagogy was already heterosexualized. They stated that curriculum and pedagogy were
precisely the places to understand the specific differences among persons not just among
different groups of people. According to Sumara and Davis (1999), heterosexual identities were
also subject to social and cultural limits. The authors stated that the lived experiences of pleasure
and desire of heterosexuals were closeted much like homosexuals, making it important to create
opportunities to learn about the intersectionalities of all persons’ sexual identities.
In the first investigation, Sumara and Davis (1999) used shared readings of three literary
texts for critical inquiry that challenged and expanded memories and current lived experiences
for gay, lesbian, and transgendered teachers. These teachers were invited to react to literary texts
written mostly by queer authors that contained mostly queer characters. The prediction from the
teacher group was that their interpretations of each piece of literature would be similar because
they all identified as queer, however they were not. Responses to the literature varied based on
the gender, sexuality, ethnicity, what one found pleasurable or sexually arousing, among many
other lived experiences (Sumara & Davis, 1999). For example, there were differences in the
responses from gay male teachers and those of lesbian teachers when responding to the female
main character of one literary text. Some of the male teachers believed the female character’s
feelings of anger and frustration during the 1950s and 1960s when the novel was set were
unjustified as the gay male teachers believed things were “not as bad for women as is suggested”
(Sumara & Davis, 1999, p. 194.) A lesbian teacher stated that she was not surprised by the
comments from the gay men and said, “Gay men can be just as sexist as straight men” (p. 194).
Responses from gay male teachers about another text that depicted gay male experience showed
low levels of identification among the men. A gay male teacher stated, “I can’t identify with
what this charter finds sexually arousing, even though we both call ourselves gay” (p. 195).
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 25

Similarly, a lesbian teacher was surprised by her feelings of both arousal and repulsion regarding
a third text that explored queer erotica. She stated, “I didn’t think that I could become interested
in that kind of sex” (p. 195).
Sumara and Davis (1999) believed that the gay, lesbian, and transgendered teachers’
vastly different responses to the same pieces of literature “force open secrets about what
constitutes both identification and pleasure” (p. 195). It was not so much how a person acted or
how she/he/ze identified, but rather how a person became a particular identity. They suggested
that in order to come to more complex understandings about humans, “the cultural mythologies
around what constitutes the category of heterosexual must be called into question” as well as
gender (p. 195). Sumara and Davis (1999) problematized the understanding that sex and
sexuality were actions of one’s gender and intimated that they were “sets of social relations that
produce physical, emotional, and psychic pleasures” (p. 196). The authors asserted that one’s
identity, though not chosen, was complex and always changing with context over one’s lifetime.
That context included countless “experiences of gender, race, ethnicity, access to resources,
physical capacities and so on” and that these experiences were “informed by and inform one’s
perceptions, identification and representation practices, and interpretations” (p. 196). Rather than
finding similarities among the queer teachers, Sumara and Davis (1999) found that the
stereotypes and categorization of an archetypical queer identity were interrupted.
In the second investigation, Sumara and Davis (1999) took part in a 2-month project that
took place in a 5
th
/6
th
grade split class in a small, urban, inner-city school. The literary study was
developed around reading Lois Lowry’s science fiction book, The Giver. The book’s plot made
clear the relationship between identity and sexuality and how the main character, who was a
male, was forced to understand the intricate ways that desire, and knowledge were
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 26

interconnected with his own identity experiences. Sumara and Davis (1999) pointed out that this
reading presented a way to discuss the topic of “surveillance and regulation of knowledge and
sexuality” that existed in society (p. 198). In a discussion with the teachers prior to the reading of
the text, teachers said they were fearful that parents would not want the book used as part of the
elementary school curriculum. However, when parents were questioned, they stated that although
they were uncomfortable with their children challenging common beliefs about the relationship
between knowledge about sex and knowledge about other topics, they believed that the
experience was important for them to have (Sumara & Davis, 1999).
Sumara and Davis (1999) found that the students’ knowledge about sexuality was solely
negotiated by artifacts, such as books and videos, that were presented to them as factual
information, instead of as a starting point for critical inquiry about the topic. Most students
recounted the bestowment of such artifacts unaccompanied by discussion, but one student stated
that her family enjoyed having conversations about the books they read, including one about the
“stirrings” or forbidden sexual feelings the characters in The Giver experienced if they did not
take their daily doses of medication. That student exhibited an understanding of the complexities
that knowledge of her own sexuality alongside that of her parents was associated with knowledge
of other mattered. The students who did not discuss sex or sexuality with their parents indicated
an understanding of heterosexual partners and intercourse as the only sexual act that counted as
sex (Sumara & Davis, 1999).
The authors were highly interested in the fact that the students, despite their weak
education on sex and sexuality, showed that they had formed specific opinions about what a
sexual feeling was comprised of, when it would happen, which gender had the feeling first, and
how the feelings would display themselves (Sumara & Davis, 1999). When one male student
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 27

stated that he had not had sexual feelings yet, the female student who stated that she discussed
the topic with her family, reassured him that he would have them soon, that girls have them
before boys, and that most of the girls in their class had experienced them already. Sumara and
Davis (1999) called these assured remarks “cultural mythologies” (p. 200). Both the student and
parent participants associated sexual feelings with attraction to the opposite sex and intercourse.
One parent said that “there are those who do have sexual feelings for the same sex” placing
homosexuality in another, deviant context that was outside of the normal, stable heterosexual
context referred to in the investigation (p. 201).
During a discussion about Jonah, the main character, and the character known as The
Giver, and their abilities to experience things that other characters could not, such as feeling
sexually aroused, seeing colors, and retaining their memories, one student stated that sexual
feelings were relationships that depended on certain forms of knowledge and interpretation. She
believed that because people were different, they would experience sexual feelings differently.
Sumara and Davis (1999) postulated that sexual feelings were perhaps impossible without
memory, that memory could affect attraction, and that memory could change with prolonged
experience.
The authors presented that the complex identities and sexualities that demonstrated the
term queer did not encompass all people who identified as a category other than heterosexual.
The diverse interpretations of literature that were presented contributed to an understanding that
teacher perceptions, even those who shared membership in the category of queer, produced
diverse pedagogical and curricular choices. Moreover, Sumara and Davis (1999) avowed that the
opportunity to interrupt heteronormative thinking allowed for more stimulating forms of thought
and was not hindered by the deeply connected forms of expression that were fully explored when
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 28

the category of heterosexuality was destabilized and seen as something other than the norm.
Sumara and Davis said, “Interrupting heteronormativity […] becomes an important way to
broaden perception, complexify cognition, and to amplify the imagination of learners” (p. 202).
They wanted to expose all educators to the concept that queer curriculum theory was not a theory
about queers, but that teaching and thinking practices should constantly examine how knowledge
was constructed and look at the ways that sexualities were not only identified, but how they
formed and continually shifted.
The literature presented in this section explained the role of queer theory in elementary
teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and in their pedagogical and curricular
choices in the classroom. Sexuality and gender identity are socially constructed, arbitrarily
placed into categories that, unless challenged, force those who do not fit the categories to be
relegated to an oppositional category away from the norm. Queer theory problematizes sexual
categories, rejects conventional gender binary categories and argues that both heterosexual and
queer be placed equidistant from the norm. Looking at the pedagogical and curricular choices
elementary teachers make through the lens of queer theory allows us to better understand what
they include and what they omit and why.
Particular attention was paid to the intersectionality of sexual identities as identity is
more complex than society presents it to be. The literature discussed here suggested probing
deeper into the lives of queer individuals and heterosexuals alike in order to more accurately
examine the inequalities and adversities of queer cultures worldwide. In order to widen the
sociological view, the authors suggested queer theory transform into a new model of Identity-in-
culture that develops an understanding of how sexuality, alongside other culturally identifying
factors, is expressed within various societal domains and how individuals use the cultural
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 29

constructions in texts and discourses, accepting some and rejecting others, to construct their
identities (Stein & Plummer, 1994).
The literature presented on interrupting heteronormativity examined the ways in which
educators disrupt heteronormative thinking in pedagogy and curriculum in order to promote
social justice. Sumara and Davis (1999) investigated how queer theory informs curriculum
theory by understanding how differences among all persons, heterosexual and non-heterosexual,
not just among groups of people, inspire novel forms of thought, create awareness, proliferate
understanding, and intensify the creativity of learners. Teaching and thinking practices that
interrupt heteronormative conditions constantly examine how knowledge is constructed and look
for the ways that sexualities were formed and how they persistently change. What is not in the
literature presented regarding queer theory are data representing elementary teachers’ perceived
levels of self-efficacy in delivering curriculum that challenges heterosexuality and rejects
traditional gender binary categories, the difficulties teachers encounter when they do, including
fear of retribution, and teachers’ essential beliefs about gender identity and sexuality.
Teacher Perceptions
An essential component to understanding why elementary teachers make specific
pedagogical and curricular choices, rests in the collection of interview data that reflects their
individual perceptions. To answer my research question that asked how elementary teachers’
perceptions of gender identity and sexuality are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular
selections, I reviewed existing literature that shares these views. I discuss preservice teachers’
perceived levels of self-efficacy in LGBTQ-themed instruction and in working with LGBTQ
students and family, as well as teachers’ understandings of terms related to LGBTQ-inclusive
curriculum. Next, I present research that investigates the prevailing discourse among elementary
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 30

educators regarding the presence of LGBTQ students on their campuses and the appropriateness
of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum in the elementary setting. I present literature that examines the
educators’ perceptions of their school’s ability to support transgender children at their campus
and literature that explores the perceived relevance, invisibility, and omission of gays and
lesbians in early childhood school settings. Finally, I present literature that examines the
challenges elementary teachers encounter when they use specific pedagogical methods to
implement LGBTQ-themed texts in their classrooms.
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Brant (2017) explored preservice teachers’ understandings of terms related to sexual
orientation and gender identity as well as their level of self-efficacy in two areas: teaching
LGBTQ content in their classrooms and serving as an ally and/or an advocate for students and
parents from the LGBTQ community. Brant (2017) used the definition of self-efficacy from
Bandura (1997), one’s belief in her/his/zir own “capabilities to organize and execute the courses
of action required to produce given attainment (p. 3). This mixed method study used data
collected from both a survey that asked open-ended questions about how participants defined
certain terms and a survey that used Likert-style prompts to assess the self-efficacy of the
participants. The data was obtained from a larger study that explored the preservice teachers’
understanding of terms from different categories including multicultural education, sexuality,
gender identity, sexual identity, and self-efficacy in working with LGBTQ students.
The setting for the study was a large Midwestern university in the United States.
Participants were invited by program coordinators and faculty in the teacher education programs
at the university who were contacted by the researcher. The 69 participants, ages 21 to 50, were
from both undergraduate and graduate programs within the university (Brant, 2017). Thirty-one
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 31

participants came from the main urban campus from two different undergraduate teacher
preparation programs. Eighteen were studying in an Art Education program while 13 were in a
Physical Education program. The other 38 participants were graduate students from two different
cohorts at rural campuses of the same university in different regions. Both graduate cohorts were
Early Childhood and Middle Childhood preservice teacher students in an M.Ed. program.
Ninety-two percent of the participants were white, 62% were female, 89% were heterosexual,
and 89% stated they were brought up as Christians (Brant, 2017).
The open-ended survey instrument was given to participants as a hard copy during a
teacher education class period. Participants were given 30 minutes to write their answers to the
questions that asked how they understood certain sexual orientation and gender identity terms.
They were asked how they understood (a) sexual orientation, (b) queer, (c) transgender, (d)
gender expression, and (e) gender nonconformity. The data were analyzed and coded multiple
times. The open-ended responses from the surveys were then sorted into categories and analyzed
again to find substantial patterns. The researcher then looked across the questions for trends. The
Likert-scale data were numerically analyzed by each prompt then by the type of question. Brant
(2017) used a critical theory perspective, to examine the presence of power in institutions, to
frame, collect data, and analyze the data in this study. Teacher self-efficacy might play a
powerful role in the school setting as teachers’ beliefs in their capabilities could influence
whether they teach content that represents the consistently marginalized LGBTQ community
(Brant, 2017).
When asked to define sexual orientation, 46 out of the 69 preservice teachers answered
that it had to do with sexual attraction or preference. Of those 46, 26 gave responses that
indicated they understood sexual orientation as a choice, 12 said that sexual orientation was
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 32

“sexual preference or attraction based on gender,” and 11 responses could not be categorized
(Brant, 2017, p. 39). Within the subgroup of 12 participants who stated that it was based on
gender, six specifically defined sexual orientation as involving “sexual preference or attraction
based on sex” and two defined it as “sexual preference or attraction based on both sex and
gender” (pp. 39-40). The researcher found this distinction important as sex is a biological
construct, including the physical body and hormones, and gender is a social construct that can
change as society changes. From this data, the researcher asserted that the two participants who
specifically defined sexual orientation as sexual preference or attraction based on both sex and
gender were aware of such a distinction. Brant (2017) further broke down the responses of the 12
participants and found that five of the participants understood the term sexual orientation as
something for non-heterosexuals. One participant stated, “Your sexual preference—gay, lesbian,
bisexual, asexual, pansexual” (Brant, 2017, p. 40). No member checks could be done to clarify
the 11 responses that were uncategorizable due to the anonymous nature of the survey.
Brant (2017) found that when defining the term queer, most of the participants stated it
was a term for someone who identified as LGBT. The second largest category was participants
who understood the term as slang or negative in nature for members of the LGBTQ community.
The third largest category contained literal responses such as “weird, different, or out of the
norm” (Brant, 2017, p. 41). Seven responses were uncategorizable and three participants did not
respond. When defining the term transgender, Brant (2017) found that the largest number of
participants did not understand the difference between biological sex and the societal construct
of gender. The second largest category included those who defined transgender as changing
one’s body surgically. Nine participants understood transgender as being both male and female
while three responded that it meant being neither male nor female. The remaining responses
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 33

were broadly stating that transgender had to do with sexuality, uncategorizable, and no response
to the question. When defining gender expression, a large percentage of those surveyed defined
it as having to do with “how individuals conform to societal gender expectations and roles”
(Brant, 2017, p. 43). The remaining 13 responses varied; some stated they did not know, others
stated that gender expression involved gender identification, and other responses were
uncategorizable. Additionally, four participants did not answer the question.
Brant (2017) found the final term, gender nonconformity, to be the most inconsistent
regarding the participants’ understanding when compared with the other terms in the study. The
majority of the respondents said that they understood gender nonconformity as a “person who
does not fit society’s gender stereotypes” while the next largest number of participants defined it
as a “person who does not identify as either male or female” (Brant, 2017, p. 44). One participant
was openly resistant stating, “This term makes no sense and should not even be a term. Man and
woman are the only genders” (p. 44). Five participants’ responses were uncategorizable and 11
were either unanswered, stated they were unsure of the term’s meaning, or stated that they did
not know.
Brant (2017) followed the survey with the use of a 4-point Likert-scale instrument to rate
the preservice teachers’ self-efficacy in working with LGBTQ students and parents,
planning/developing instructional activities to reduce LGBTQ prejudice, and analyzing materials
and practices for Anti-LGBTQ bias. Brant (2017) found that a large number of preservice
teachers reported high self-efficacy in working with LGB students and parents, but a
significantly lower number of preservice teachers reported high levels of self-efficacy in working
with gender nonconforming, transgender, or queer students and their parents.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 34

When discussing the results of the preservice teachers’ self-efficacy regarding their
“ability to plan instructional activities that reduce prejudice and dispel myths about LGBTQ
students,” Brant (2017) found that more participants described their self-efficacy as moderate
than high (p. 45). When participants responded to “I can plan instructional activities that reduce
prejudice about LGB people,” 32 preservice teachers reported moderate self-efficacy (Brant,
2017, p. 46). Only one fewer participant reported moderate when asked the same question about
gender nonconforming, transgender, and queer students. When participants responded to “I can
develop instructional materials that dispel myths about LGB people,” 36 preservice teachers
reported moderate self-efficacy while 31 participants reported on the same task for gender
nonconforming, transgender, and queer people (Brant, 2017, p. 46). Through participant notes
written in the margins of the Likert-scale, the researcher found a conflict for the participants
between their wish to include LGBTQ-focused material in the curriculum and believing they
could realistically do so. One participant wrote that it would be difficult due to parent
perceptions, but the participant would still do it. Another respondent stated only lessons that the
school allowed the participant to teach would be possible as some schools did not have tolerance
for lessons that pertained to race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. Brant (2017) asserted
that these responses suggested a view that schools were the wrong places to address such issues,
in particular, gender nonconformity. When discussing the results of the preservice teachers’ self-
efficacy regarding their “ability to identify anti-LGBTQ bias in instructional materials and
school practices,” Brant (2017) found the majority of the responses fell into the moderate and
high categories. In comparison to the preservice teachers’ ability to work with LGBTQ students
and parents, the responses in the high category were lower, however the participants believed
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 35

that they were prepared in their program or elsewhere to recognize issues with teaching materials
that contained anti-LGBTQ bias.
Across the different categories, Brant (2017) found the participants’ self-efficacy to be
strong however the researcher stated that it was possible the preservice teacher participants said
what the researcher wanted to hear and that they did not want to admit a lower self-efficacy. The
researcher listed this as a limitation to the study. Brant (2017) also stated that 69 participants
from the same university represented a small sample size. Participants may also have benefitted
from closed-ended questions as many participants declined to answer the open-ended questions
or responded in ways that were uncategorizable. Furthermore, Brant (2017) believed that the data
could be revisited again through a different lens to categorize data that was previously deemed
uncategorizable.
Prevailing Discourse
Payne and Smith (2014) explored elementary educators’ perceptions of their school’s
success in supporting transgender children and how they make decisions about the education of
these students. The qualitative study used data collected from nine individual interviews and one
group interview. The settings for the study were five elementary schools in both urban and
suburban areas in a northeastern region of the United States. At two of the schools, the
participants were recommended by the school professional who requested the Reduction of
Stigma in Schools (RSIS) program to come to their schools. At the other two schools, attendees
of the RSIS training were asked to be interviewed. The fifth school was contacted to offer the
training and participated in the study because a transgender child attended the school and that
child’s family had worked with the RSIS program.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 36

The 12 participants were district-level administrators, school principals, student support
professionals, and classroom teachers who were involved in the support and education of a
transgender student. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews that were 45 minutes to
2 hours in length. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Carspecken’s (1996)
critical qualitative method guided an emergent coding process for initial data analysis. Peer
debriefing which required researchers to work together with colleagues who were impartial of
the study’s views, confirmed the collection of valid information. Payne and Smith (2014) used
Carpecken’s (1996) Horizon analysis when looking at all major emerging themes, which allowed
them to move from an inferential connection with the data to more precise statements in order to
more closely examine themes that have been seen throughout the data. Payne and Smith (2014)
found four prevailing fear messages in the data: Lack of preparation, Lack of policy and
procedure, Keeping this quiet, and Fear of community backlash.
The first theme—lack of preparation—described the fears educators had about an
absence of training that would have helped them work with transgender children, particularly
from university programs. The educators felt incompetent, which caused them stress. One fourth
grade teacher commented, “I feel like there is something that I should be able to do to help, but I
don’t know what it is” (Payne & Smith, 2014, p. 405). A social worker in the study also spoke of
the nonexistent exposure in her professional preparation program to LGBTQ topics such as
learning about their social, emotional health and what it means for LGBTQ students to be “found
out” (Payne & Smith, p. 406). The researchers found that, aside from a lack of education, a lack
of awareness of the existence and experience of transgender students affected the educators’
preparation. Payne and Smith (2014) found that educators’ personal history played a substantial
role in their comfort level and readiness when addressing the needs of transgender students. A
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 37

school counselor stated she had, “much greater exposure and sensitivity” because of her personal
history with the LGBTQ community outside of her school setting (Payne & Smith, 2014, p. 407).
The second theme—lack of policy and procedure—described the educators’ desire for a
protocol that would help educators at a school prepare for the enrollment of a transgender
student. Educators said there was no official stance on the presence of transgender students or
indication that they would be supported if anything went wrong at their school sites. Interview
data indicated a belief by educators that supporting a transgender child was “dangerous territory”
because sexuality and gender identity were often erroneously associated with sex, an
inappropriate topic for elementary school children (Payne & Smith, 2014, p. 408). One school
administrator from the study contacted her school psychologist who stated that the transition of
the student was “abnormal” and said so without having consulted her director or other district
psychologists. The administrator believed the situation could have been handled more
appropriately with a district protocol in place. Payne and Smith (2014) found that anxiety and
concern were common among their participants when it came to addressing the needs of their
transgender students. The educators at the five schools described the transgender children’s
presence at their schools as crises. They reacted with fear of an unfamiliar situation that they saw
as a threat to their schools’ safe and civil learning environments. One participant stated that the
school moved a transgender child to a different classroom to protect that student after
transitioning to a new gender from any disrespectful remarks and to avoid having to explain a
shift in pronouns with the other students.
The third theme—keeping this quiet—represented the educators’ fears about the
difficulties maintaining confidentiality for transgender students on their campuses. Payne and
Smith (2014) found that many of the educators worried about what other children would do or
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 38

say. If a transgendered student was not out, educators feared the possibility of other parent and
student questions about that child. Some educator participants were concerned that the
transgender body could be alarming to other students if those students were unaware of the
student’s transgender identity. The educators believed it was an issue of professional
responsibility and student safety particularly in situations outside of school, such as a sleepover.
Though the principal who brought up the sleepover scenario indicated that it was not the school’s
job to tell the other student or her family about the transgender child, Payne and Smith (2014)
believed that the principal believed there were limits to one’s right to privacy. The researchers
found that the educators in the study believed that “the right should end at the moment when
other students may be personally affected by a peer’s non-normative gender identity and
expression” and that “being too close to a transgender child could negatively affect—even
traumatize—other kids” (p. 411). If the student was out, teachers stated that they did not want to
deal with questions about the transgender child. One teacher decided to avoid swimming as an
activity for her students because her student who identified as a transgender male would have to
change in the girls’ locker room according to district policy that indicated that a student’s gender
on an identification card was the official gender. The teacher stated that it was a “delicate
situation” and did not want to challenge his gender identity or incite questions from students who
accepted him as a boy (Payne & Smith, 2014, p. 412).
The fourth theme—fear of community backlash—described the fear that external forces,
such as parents and community, would interpret educator support as “promoting a pro-LGBTQ
or pro-transgender political position” (Payne & Smith, 2014, p. 413). The educators feared that
accepting transgender students would garner resistance from parents. One educator from a
suburban school stated that the principal’s first response to a new transgender student was panic
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 39

and concern about containing the gossip and conversations with parents, not questions about
supporting the student. Payne and Smith (2014) found that educators believed that accepting the
child into the school environment was in “opposition to parents’ political commitments, religious
beliefs, [and may have] legal consequences” (p. 413). Educators in the study were opposed to
Payne and Smith’s (2014) recommendations to make matters of gender diversity and sexuality
more evident and instead preferred containment of transgendered students’ identities to avoid
retribution. One principal described his school’s strategies for supporting a transgender student
as a type of “monitoring system” where school staff would continuously communicate with each
other to share “what’s going on” in order to contain “the secret” and the transgender child (Payne
& Smith, (2014), pp. 414-415). The educators ultimately put the transgender child under
surveillance to accommodate the student rather than affirm their identities.
Robinson (2002) studied early childhood educators’ perceptions, attitudes, values, and
practices by examining the prevailing discourses that maintained the perceived irrelevance,
invisibility and omission of gays and lesbians in early childhood school settings. Regarding
perceived irrelevancy, Robinson (2002) referred to the view that children were too young to deal
with gay and lesbian discrimination and equity issues. The author asserted that the child
development and child-centered pedagogical theories of Piaget perpetuated the view that all
children advanced through “a biologically predetermined set of linear cognitive developments
that correlate with chronological age” therefore adults had socially constructed what was
appropriate and relevant for childhood (Robinson, 2002, p. 418). Robinson (2002) referred to
perceived invisibility as educators’ failure to accept the likelihood that gay and lesbian families
existed in in their childhood settings when they were not open to the educators about their
identities. Omission was referred to by Robinson (2002) as the exclusion of a person who was
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 40

non-heterosexual from policies, events, or activities in the early childhood setting due to the
prevailing discourses of homophobia and heterosexism in society that defined gay and lesbian as
deviant.
This mixed methods study obtained data from surveys of 49 early childhood educators
and interviews from 16 of the participants who volunteered to discuss survey topics in more
depth (Robinson, 2002). The author did not include how the participants were targeted for the
study. The survey contained both multiple-choice and open-ended questions. The educators were
from day care settings and pre-schools in the southwest and inner west regions of Sydney,
Australia. The regions consisted of educators from an extremely diverse range of sociocultural
backgrounds that contained populations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
(Robinson, 2002). Participants were childcare workers, teachers, directors, and ethnic support
workers. The study was also informed by the author’s knowledge gained from her work as a
sociologist, teacher, and from work in the area of cultural diversity with early childhood
education students at a university in Sydney, Australia (Robinson, 2002).
The study did not detail the methods of data analysis taken to organize the findings
however Robinson (2002) established six major themes from the data collected in the surveys
and interviews. The themes that emerged were: (a) dominant discourses of childhood and
sexuality, (b) homophobia and heterosexism in early childhood settings, (c) hierarchies of
differences and shifting subjects, (d) compulsory heterosexuality: the invisibility of sexual
“others,” (e) the inclusion of sexual others: the legitimization of difference within “the family,”
and (f) dealing with discrimination beyond the “Child’s World” (Robinson, 2002).
Robinson (2002) found that participants adhered to dominant discourses of childhood and
sexuality. Seventy-five percent of the teacher educators in the study believed that teaching young
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 41

students about gay and lesbian discrimination and equity issues was irrelevant because they
would not understand the concept. When asked about this issue, one participant stated, “I don’t
think they are aware of sexuality, but rather friendships, which can be with anyone” (Robinson,
2002, p. 418). Robinson (2002) asserted that the perception of the young child as asexual,
innocent, and too young to understand such topics was socially constructed by adults and
perpetuated by the child development theories of Piaget’s view in which “all children from birth
are perceived to proceed through a biologically predetermined set of linear cognitive
developments that correlate with chronological age” (p. 418). A director of a childhood center
spoke of this perceived childhood innocence:
Sexuality appears to be an issue that adults have difficulty talking about and very strong
religious attitudes about rightness/wrongness. There also appears to be a lack of
developmental knowledge in relation to children and therefore a questioning of the
appropriateness. There is a concept of keeping children innocent. (Robinson, 2002, p.
418)
Robinson (2002) pointed out the contradiction that was common among the participants’
responses with regards to the idea that children were too young to learn about sexuality issues.
The author found that the participants believed the presence of sexuality was acceptable as long
as it was heterosexual. One director stated, “[…] they do get into playing house, mothers and
fathers and getting married, that kind of thing, but that’s normal everyday play […] But beyond
that, I don’t think it’s appropriate and it’s not part of their experiences” (Robinson, 2002, p. 421).
Only 25% of the participants in the study challenged the dominant discourses of
heterosexism, but Robinson (2002) pointed out that those participants often refined their position
by saying that the children’s ability to understand was “based on the amount of information they
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 42

were given, whether it was given in an age-appropriate manner, and if it was part of [their]
experiences” (p. 420). If the children were not already exposed to gay and lesbian issues or were
teased for having gay or lesbian parents, many who were willing to challenge the dominant
discourses believed that the children were too young.
With regards to homophobia and heterosexism in early childhood settings, the second
theme, Robinson (2002) found that approximately 25% of the participants indicated that their
own religious values and those of the parents of the students were factors in their aversion to
teaching gay and lesbian issues with children. Typical responses from teachers included, “It is
against my religious and moral values,” and “Due to the religious backgrounds of the majority of
families in my center, I do not believe families would feel it appropriate to teach children to
accept gay and lesbian lifestyles” (Robinson, 2002, p. 422). Many of the participants stated that
sexuality was a private matter that should be discussed at home. One childcare worker said,
“Their private issues are their private issues” (p. 422). Robinson (2002) pointed out that the
statements that supported gay and lesbian issues staying “private” added to the myth that
normalized heterosexuality and placed non-heterosexuality in the deviant category. Both had to
do with sexuality, but heterosexuality was privileged over homosexuality due to existing
homophobic and heterosexist discourses. Robinson (2002) found that some gay and lesbian early
childhood educators in this study had experienced homophobic harassment and violence by both
staff and from parents of children who attended the facilities in which they worked. One teacher
stated, “We have some gay staff and some positive images, but some heterosexual staff still have
a problem with it and there is some tension there” (Robinson, 2002, p. 422).
The third theme, hierarchies of differences and shifting subjects dealt with the different
levels of diversity and the degree of comfort or discomfort the participants felt when teaching
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 43

specific content. Robinson (2002) found that educators in the study put lesbian and gay issues at
the bottom most often. Participants put multicultural issues at the top, followed by special needs,
gender, and bilingual/bicultural issues in the order of perceived relevance and importance.
Robinson (2002) asserted that participants might have put multiculturalism at the top because it
was depoliticized in society unlike anti-racist and anti-homophobic discourse that upset
dominant power relationships. The author also suggested that lesbian and gay issues may have
been at the bottom due to participants’ personal identities, experiences or absence of experiences
with non-heterosexual issues, their confusion between gender and sexuality terms, formal
training in anti-homophobic education or gay and lesbian equity issues, religious and cultural
values or their own stance on sexist, heterosexist, and homophobic discourses (Robinson, 2002).
The fourth theme, compulsory heterosexuality’: the invisibility of sexual “others,” had to
do with early childhood educators’ avoidance of gay and lesbian topics in settings where they
assumed no gay or lesbian families existed. Robinson (2002) found that participants believed the
issues were irrelevant to their settings if all families were heterosexual. One teacher stated, “At
the moment I would only address these issues if I had children from homosexual families, if the
children were curious” while a childcare worker said, “We haven’t dealt with these issues
because we haven’t had gay and lesbian families in our setting. It isn’t really a concern to us “(p.
426). Robinson (2002) pointed out that the participants comments reflected the myth that
understanding homosexuality was only relevant to those who were non-heterosexual. Robinson
(2002) pointed out that because sexuality was socially constructed, having an understanding of
both heterosexual and homosexual issues were “fundamental to the development of social justice
for all adults and children” (p. 427). Robinson (2002) also noted that avoidance of such topics
sent a message to students that lesbian and gay issues should not be discussed openly. The
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 44

silencing of topics could have reinforced the taboo, condoned discrimination, and resulted in a
victim feeling responsible for the marginalization they were experiencing. Furthermore, the fact
that early childhood educators assumed that lesbians and gay families were not present in their
school settings perpetuated the very reason many families were not open about their family
structures (Robinson, 2002). Robinson (2002) asserted that, “The perceived invisibility should
not be mistaken as a sign of absence” (p. 427).
The fifth theme that Robinson (2002) presented, the inclusion of sexual “Others:” the
legitimation of difference within “the family,” dealt with the ways in which gay and lesbian
topics were more likely to be depoliticized, desexualized, and sanitized in order to make issues
less controversial for children. A participant told an account of a student who wanted to include
gay and lesbian parents in a book the student was making about family diversity. A compromise
had to be made to change gay and lesbian to “two mummies and two daddies” as the childhood
center expressed concern about the initial terms (p. 429). Robinson (2002) asserted that this
account represented an example of the normalization process in which “differences can be
eclipsed, albeit temporarily, by more familiar, acceptable and comfortable discourses of family
diversity and mothering and fathering” (p. 428).
The sixth theme, dealing with discrimination beyond the “child’s world,” dealt with the
development of children’s critical understanding of the social, political, and economic issues, or
the intersection of sexuality and gender and what was appropriate or inappropriate gender or
sexual behavior. Robinson (2002) found that the majority of the participants did not consider
these to be important areas to address with children, their families, or the staff at the educational
settings in this study. Robinson (2002) asserted that the views that these issues were irrelevant
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 45

and inappropriate to address came from the dominant discourse of childhood and the perceived
innocence of children.
Implementation Challenges
Martino and Cumming-Potvin (2016) examined specific pedagogical methods used to
implement LGBTQ-themed texts in the elementary classroom as well as the challenges teachers
encounter when deploying such texts, particularly when the teacher was queer-identifying. Data
for the study was collected through a series of case studies to gather rich detail from the teachers.
Three elementary school teachers in Western Australia and eight elementary school teachers in
Ontario, Canada were interviewed for up to 2 hours using a semi-structured interview process
(Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016). After the initial interview, participants were told that
follow-up interviews might occur. No students were interviewed for the study and the authors
acknowledged this as a limitation. The participants were contacted through individuals in the
education field known by the researchers which led to a snowballing effect. The eight elementary
teacher participants from Canada received two picture books, And Tango Makes Three and My
Princess Boy and were asked to reflect on how they had or would use the LGBTQ-themed texts
to “address same sex desire, gender variant expression, and transgender identities” and inspire
thought about non-normative sexuality and gender expression in their classrooms. The
participants could also use other LGBTQ-themed texts for the purposes of the study (Martino &
Cumming-Potvin, 2016).
One second grade teacher, Janice, was focused on for the portion of the study represented
in this article. Janice was 51 years old and had been teaching elementary school in the greater
Toronto area for about 11 years. During the study, she taught at a K-5 school with over 700
students that had a large South Asian student population. Martino and Cumming-Potvin (2016)
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 46

described Janice as someone who was dedicated to depathologizing sexual and gender
differences and to using queer and trans-infused critical literacy approach when implementing
LGBTQ-themed texts. This approach was meant to disrupt heteronormalization as a means to
work against oppression that accompanied the act of being labeled (Martino & Cumming-Potvin,
2016). Janice herself identified as a queer, lesbian teacher. Her identity provided specific insights
into the study as her pedagogical choices were also informed and governed by a need to protect
herself as an openly queer teacher. Additionally, Janice had short hair and wore clothes
purchased from the boys department. Both the embodiment and performativity of a non-
normative sexuality alongside her boyish attire provided insight for the authors of the body as a
performative pedagogical site for “further enacting her critical, interventionist program in
terms of both queering the curriculum and addressing questions of non-normative gender
expression” (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016, p. 813).
The data was analyzed by Martino and Cumming-Potvin (2016) in the following ways.
First, they gathered information during interviews with Janice that reflected her understandings
of her pedagogical interventions. The authors started by concentrating on the ways she stressed
the extensive reach that politics had with regards to parents’ religious beliefs and the conflict and
opposition presented when she implemented anti-homophobic education and depathologized
homosexuality. This initial reflection led to how she used strategic deployment of teachable
moments to introduce LGBTQ-themed picture books and lessons. Next, Martino and Cumming-
Potvin (2016) analyzed Janice’s reflections on her use of Canada’s Day of Pink, an initiative that
encourages speaking out against homophobic and transphobic bullying, to frame distinct queer
and trans-infused pedagogical interventions in her classroom. This part of the analysis revealed
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 47

that Janice was particularly committed to depathologizing sexual and gender differences in order
to attend to the politics of sexuality and gender expression.
Martino and Cumming-Potvin (2016) found, according to Janice, that parents at her
school requested to opt out of anti-homophobia education in the Toronto District School Board
(TDSB) even though students were not permitted to do so. The teacher participant’s school board
prohibited “students to be withdrawn or exempt from curriculum delivery dealing with LGBTQ
representations within a critical literacy framework that affirms, acknowledges and, indeed,
depathologizes same-sex desire, families, and relationships” (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016,
p. 814). However, in her interview, Janice recounted an “unwritten practice” that her school
board sanctioned in which children of Muslim and Christian parents were accommodated
because the school board “did not want to deal with a can of worms” (Martino & Cumming-
Potvin, 2016, p. 815). Janice stated that the unwritten policy was driven by Muslim and Christian
parent groups that placed religious freedom against the human rights of sexual minorities.
According to Janice, a “traditional family values letter” was sent out to the community by an
Imam from a regional Mosque that informed parents that homosexuality was being addressed in
schools. The letter suggested that parents speak with their principal regarding accommodations
(Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016).
Janice stated that it bothered her that heterosexism was given more power than ableism
and classism by her school board and this context compelled her to find a way to use LGBTQ-
themed texts with her students. She expressed that she was cautious in how she dealt with
deploying texts and said she used “teachable moments” to protect herself from being accused of
“pushing a gay agenda” (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016, p. 815). She also expressed that she
believed she needed to constantly be aware of the threat that because of her own sexuality and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 48

her anti-homophobic pedagogy, she would be seen as a sexual deviant. As a means of protection,
she stated that questions or comments made by her students gave her “license to talk about a
subject that might otherwise be considered taboo or unacceptable given someone’s religious
background” (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016, p. 815). This constituted a “teachable
moment” from which she introduced an LGBTQ-themed text and used the student-initiated
moment to avoid parental scrutiny.
Janice was concerned about being emotionally abused by irate parents and stated that she
feared a parent would demand that her/his/zir child be pulled from her classroom. One such
moment was shared when Janice said a boy in her class stated he could not discuss the epithet,
“You’re so gay” (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016, p. 815). She chose to read And Tango
Makes Three to start a conversation with her students about the definition of the word gay. The
authors asserted that this pedagogical approach appeared to be associated with her “heightened
sense of potential vulnerability, given her visibility as an open lesbian teacher in a potentially
charged anti-gay context fueled by a specific form of religiously motivated homophobia”
(Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016, p. 816). Though Janice had not received any complaints
from parents, she stated that she was constantly aware that her appearance made her “look queer”
(p. 816). She believed she had to navigate a pedagogically risky landscape; thus, she was not
explicit about her identity at school. To avoid being obvious, she used teachable moments with a
child-centered pedagogical approach.
She spoke of an incident in which one of her male students was bullied in the bathroom
by older students for wearing a pink shirt. This incident allowed her to bring up the gendering of
colors which was an easy segue to discuss gendering of other things like toys, hair styles, and
clothing. She shared that when she used her “boy hair” as a means to start a conversation about
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 49

the gendering of hair styles, she used her own queer body as a pedagogical impetus for
integrating LGBTQ-themed texts into the curriculum (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016, p.
816). The authors found this conscious attempt by Janice significant as she addressed the control
of gendered and sexual normativities that were at the core of bullying and she employed reading
practices as places for addressing those problems. Janice went on to confirm that she believed in
conveying to her students that being gay was acceptable and did so strategically by relating what
her students already knew about straight marriage to the recent progress in same-sex marriage.
She used these strategic discussions to connect students to the idea that there were non-normative
relationships and different types of families (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016).
Janice also spoke about how she strategically implemented LGBTQ-themed texts in the
weeks leading up to Canada’s initiative, Day of Pink. She recounted that initially, parents in her
area complained about the specific use of the day for anti-homophobic and anti-transphobic
bullying, instead wanting to depoliticize the event, focusing on bullying in general. Janice
managed a group of teacher activists who worked with the school board to confirm that the day
was to be used explicitly for anti-homophobic and anti-transphobic educational purposes
(Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016). According to Janice, this solidification further assisted her
in justifying her pedagogical deployment of LGBTQ-themed texts. Janice stated that though she
did not have any complaints from parents, disapproval was communicated indirectly through her
students’ comments about whether they could participate fully in her suggested activities. Her
students would tell her that they “were not allowed to learn this stuff anymore and [they
couldn’t] wear pink on the Day of Pink” (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016, p. 819). Janice
stated that she responded to her student that he did not have to wear pink, the focus was about
bullying, and pink was only a way to get the students to think about bullying. The authors
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 50

claimed this showed how Janice had to mediate her heteronormative context by using these
unambiguous frames (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016).
To disrupt normalized constructions of gendered practices, Janice stated she used
advertisements of toys and showed her students how the representations of the advertisements
differed based on gender (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016). Students then discussed the
gendered advertisements. She used this activity as a precursor to reading the book, It’s a George
Thing, about a male zebra who wanted to sing and dance when his other male animal friends
were interested in traditional male things like bodybuilding. Janice stated that the activity gave
the students the opportunity to talk about how gender was a socially arbitrated practice before
they read the book which helped to solidify their understanding of gender binary disruption and
to question their existing thinking on the topic (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016).
The authors asserted that these strategic pedagogical choices alongside her commitment to
activism that focused on human rights’ issues, show that Janice was committed to exposing her
students not only to the disruption of gender binaries, but also the “thinkability of trans-
embodied realities” thereby “queering and transing the elementary school curriculum through her
deployment of LGBTQ-themed literature” (pp. 820-821). Such strong commitment was needed
as Martino and Cumming-Potvin (2016) believed that her pedagogical choices were governed by
the need to protect herself as an openly queer teacher and to navigate a heteronormative context,
including direct attempts from conservative religious leaders in the community as well as
indirect attempts through parental comments about their children’s involvement in anti-
homophobic and anti-transphobic curriculum that were meant to stop her pedagogical practices.
Taylor et al. (2016) conducted a mixed methods study to examine the beliefs,
perspectives, and practices of educators who worked in public elementary, middle, and high
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 51

schools in Canada regarding LGBTQ-inclusive education. The authors explored the methods and
processes of teachers who implemented LGBTQ-inclusive education and were interested in what
they believed to be effective. Taylor et al. (2016) also investigated what inspired the teachers to
include the inclusive curriculum and what deterred others. The Every Teacher Project was a
large-scale research project that started with surveys and was followed by focus groups, and
interviews in order to gather more detail such as the reasons why some teachers did not feel
comfortable teaching LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. Taylor et al. (2016) only used the survey
data from the project to complete the analysis described here. The findings covered four main
themes: educators’ perceptions of safety in their schools, their perspectives on LGBTQ issues,
including human rights and approval of an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, their level of comfort
practicing an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, and where they would expect to find support when
addressing LGBTQ issues in their work (Taylor et al., 2016). I will not be discussing the findings
related to educators’ perceptions of safety in their schools as it is not directly tied to my research
question.
The study consisted of a comprehensive national survey of 3,400 Canadian educators.
Focus groups and interviews were also conducted to gather more detailed knowledge of
educators’ views regarding LGBTQ-inclusive education and their practice, however only the
data collected during the survey phase of the study is discussed here (Taylor et al., 2016).
Classroom teachers made up the majority of the selection at over 80% with guidance counselors,
social workers, and school psychologists making up almost 6%, and administrators, librarians,
and school district curriculum personnel making up about 8%. Most of the participants were
female at about 73%, 12.5% were members of the LGBTQ community, and almost 90% of the
participants were white. The average age of participants was about 41. Participants were sampled
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 52

through multiple teacher organizations throughout Canada with Manitoba Teachers’ Society
overrepresenting in the data. Each teacher organization sent emails or made contact with their
educators through websites or electronic newsletters with the link to the surveys attached.
Unique links were provided to each teacher organization to make subsequent contact easy, if
required (Taylor et al., 2016).
The national online surveys came in two lengths. The short version was 15-20 minutes
and the longer version was 30-45 minutes. The longer version was only completed if the
participant chose to do so after having completed the shorter version (Taylor et al., 2016). Both
versions collected quantitative and qualitative data on educator experiences and perceptions of
student safety, policy, curriculum, and gay, straight alliances. Questions were presented using a
5-point Likert scale instrument that ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The
shorter survey contained 20 demographic questions and 70 additional questions of which 10
were open-ended. The longer version had an additional 57 questions that went into more detail
and of which six were open-ended (Taylor et al., 2016). Data collection was conducted for 9
months in both English and French since the study took place in Canada.
Analysis was completed using SPSS and the “procedures were based on descriptive
univariate frequencies and bivariate cross-tabulations” (Taylor et al., 2016, p. 121). The effect of
gender and sexual identity and the presence of LGBTQ harassment policies on educators’
perceptions and perspectives were analyzed by comparing LGBTQ participants’ responses with
cisgender heterosexual participants, and by comparing the responses of participants who worked
in schools with active antihomophobic and antitransphobic policies to those whose schools did
not have such policies. Taylor et al. (2016) also compared responses of participants across grade
levels from kindergarten to 12
th
grade. The authors examined “statistically significant differences
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 53

within these cross-tabulations, inferential chi-square (χ²) estimations were conducted, and effect
sizes were calculated” (p. 121) to signify how these relationships compared in strength.
Regarding the educators’ perspectives on LGBTQ issues, Taylor et al. (2016) found that
96% of participants articulated strong agreement with the view that LGBTQ rights were human
rights, with 90.1% strongly agreeing. When asked if participants approved of LGBTQ-inclusive
education, 84.5% agreed, with 71.7% strongly agreeing. When the data was broken down by the
gender identity and sexuality of the participants, those who were part of the LGBTQ community
demonstrated higher percentages of agreement with the statements regarding their perspectives
on human rights and curriculum approval than their cisgender heterosexual colleagues (Taylor et
al., 2016). The authors were shocked to discover that 2.6% of the participants who agreed with
the statement that LGBTQ rights were human rights responded that they did not approve of
LGBTQ-inclusive education. Data also showed that more LGBTQ educators believed that
students should be free to express their gender than cisgender educators and that LGBTQ
participants were less likely to agree with teachers’ ability to opt out of LGBTQ-inclusive
education for religious purposes. Overall, among all participants, the view that LGBTQ rights
were human rights positively affected the endorsement of LGBTQ-inclusive education and the
disapproval of educators’ ability to opt out of teaching LGBTQ-inclusive education (Taylor et
al., 2016).
Regarding the practice of LGBTQ-inclusive education, Taylor et al. (2016) found that
only 72.6% of the 43.5% of educators who strongly agreed that there should be LGBTQ-
inclusive education believed they would be at ease communicating LGBTQ topics with students.
Most of the participants stated that they had challenged homophobia, using “inclusive language
and examples” (Taylor et al., 2016, p. 125). Only 18.3% responded that they had challenged
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 54

transphobia, with 16.3% “critiquing heterosexual privilege,” and 9.3% inviting guests to speak in
the classroom on the topic (p. 125). The authors also found that more LGBTQ educators, 77.2%,
than cisgender heterosexual educators, 46%, stated that they implemented LGBTQ-inclusive
education. Overall, among all educators, fewer indicated they would attempt LGBTQ-inclusive
education than approved of it (Taylor et al., 2016).
The last theme, regarding educators’ perception of the sources of support if they
implemented LGBTQ issues in their schools, showed that most teachers believed their teacher
organization would be supportive at 77.5% of the participants (Taylor et al., 2016). Colleagues
were believed to be supportive by 67.6%, school administration by 65.8%, while the lowest level
of support was indicated as the current legislation at 63.5%. More LGBTQ educators, at 77.6%,
perceived support from the current legislation than cisgender heterosexual educators at 60.8%.
Taylor et al. (2016) also found that more than 50% of the participants in the study believed there
was support among students, with LGBTQ educators at 74.5% and cisgender heterosexual
educators at 54.9% agreeing to this source (Taylor et al., 2016). The authors found it meaningful
that educators from schools with antihomophobia policies strongly agreed to a greater degree
that current legislation, their school’s administration, and their colleagues were sources of
support than educators from schools lacking in policy (Taylor et al., 2016). They did not,
however, find statistical significance between educators from schools with antihomophobia
policies and student support when compared with schools without such policies.
The most prominent finding was the difference between the responses of LGBTQ and
cisgender heterosexual educators with regards to their perspectives on LGBTQ issues, their level
of comfort in practicing LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, and the perceived sources of support if
implemented (Taylor et al., 2016). LGBTQ educators were more apt to approve of LGBTQ-
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 55

inclusive education and to practice it, and supported students’ ability to express their gender.
Additionally, the pattern emerged that educators in all categories indicated that they approved of
LGBTQ-inclusive education but were less likely to practice it and that educators at schools with
antihomophobia and antitransphobia policies in place were more convinced that support existed
from different sources for the implementation of LGBTQ-inclusive education (Taylor et al.,
2016). Findings indicated “gaps and conflicts between belief systems, and between beliefs,
perceptions and classroom practices” (p. 128).
The literature reviewed in this section, provided a focus of teachers’ perceptions of
gender identity and sexuality, including their knowledge of key terms, and how these perceptions
affect the levels of confidence in their abilities to teach LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. Literature
describing the prevailing discourse among educators was presented to highlight the importance
of school preparedness, including training, policies, procedures, and protocols used to
communicate between teachers and parents to combat the fear that educators experience when
they support LGBTQ students and implement LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. Literature
reviewing teachers’ perceptions of curricular relevance, invisibility of LGBTQ students, families
and teachers, and the omission of gays and lesbians in early childhood school settings further
illustrated the current backdrop of elementary education. Finally, literature was presented that
portrayed the difficulties elementary teachers experienced after utilizing specific pedagogical
methods to implement LGBTQ-themed texts in their classrooms.
Teacher Pedagogy
In this section I explore what pedagogy looks like when teachers challenge gender norms
within their own beliefs and practices and as they consider gender flexible practices. I also
examine the pedagogy of teachers who are committed to social justice and critical literacy and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 56

the heteronormative conditions and moral and homophobic surveillance with which they must
contend. I then detail the extent to which teachers address diverse gender and sexual identities in
their classroom after being given programmatic curriculum that prioritizes inclusivity. Next, I
examine the benefits of a student-centered, flexible curriculum that works to establish positive
learning environments for transgender and gender creative students. I then look at the ways in
which elementary students responded to transgender and gender-nonconformity-inclusive
curriculum and how that curriculum looked in practice. Finally, I look at the ways that teachers
view the behavior of boys and how destructive gendered boy archetypes and the pedagogical
choices teachers make are related to boys’ levels of engagement and achievement in elementary
schools in direct contrast to the view of girls’ behavior at the same age.
Warin and Adriany (2017) answered the following question: How far do early childhood
educators (ECE) from Indonesia and Sweden go in challenging traditional gender norms within
their own pedagogic beliefs and practices? Warin and Adriany (2017) examined the degree to
which early childhood educators from Indonesia and Sweden believed they challenged
traditional gender norms inside of their own pedagogic beliefs and practices and their
perspectives on the prospect for gender flexible practices in their pedagogy. They applied the
analytic lens of gender flexible pedagogy to both studies. The authors defined gender flexible
pedagogy as coming from a poststructuralist idea of identity in which gender is fluid and not
fixed, is uncoupled from sexuality, is practiced by teachers who have an awareness of the elusive
heteronormative conditions that are persistent within a school’s power system and utilize gender
conscious pedagogy to disrupt traditional gender discourse among their students. Sweden had
gender awareness and gender sensitive social policy for a long time but in Indonesia, no
curriculum requirements existed to address gender except for a new law regarding gender
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 57

mainstreaming in education (Warin & Adriany, 2017). Because of this dichotomy, Indonesia and
Sweden were part of a discussion forum funded by the Swedish Research Council that compared
research on gender and teaching across international ECE sites. The forum led to an emphasis on
the possibilities for a gender flexible pedagogy, a focus both studies used in this article had in
common.
To answer this question, Warin and Adriany (2017) compared data from two different
interview-based studies: one in an Indonesian kindergarten and the other in Swedish preschools.
Adriany, the researcher in the Indonesian study, also gathered field notes from participant
observation in the classrooms. The setting of the first study was Kopo kindergarten in the city of
Bandung, Indonesia. The participants were four female teachers who had preschool classrooms
of 28 children, ages 2-6 years that were divided into three different groups based on the students’
ages (Warin & Adriany, 2017). Adriany conducted an ethnography of Kopo kindergarten to
understand the daily behaviors and practices linked to gender and assumed a participant observer
stance in the field. As a participant observer, she had informal conversations with teachers about
specific incidences, allowing her to act as a “critical friend.” Adriany also conducted individual,
formal interviews with the teachers. To create her set of data for analysis, she used transcriptions
of audio recorded interviews and field notes from her observations. Adriany used Charmaz’s
(2006) constructivist grounded theory approach and an “open coding process,” followed by
“focused coding” that linked the data through constant comparison. This produced a
distinguished set of conceptual groups that included the key concept of gender flexible teaching
(Warin & Adriany, 2017).
The findings from the Indonesian kindergarten were presented in individual accounts
from both Adriany’s participant observations and from her interviews with the teachers. Except
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 58

for one teacher, the accounts were highly gendered, and a clear distinction was made between
boys and girls in the classrooms (Warin & Adriany, 2017). They had different expectations about
their students’ interests and needs, used gendered colors such as pink and blue, and subscribed to
implicit ideas about biological essentialism that were strongly associated with religious
discourse. For example, Adriany observed that flower pictures indicated which lockers were for
the girls while bugs indicated which lockers were for the boys. Another account showed that
when celebrating a Chinese cultural event, boys were given triangle-shaped hats while girls were
given hats that looked like tiaras, crowns traditionally worn by women. With regards to gendered
colors, during “free choice” time, the teachers handed out pink tickets to the girls and blue to the
boys. Interviews revealed how teacher’s gendered practices were guided by their implicit ideas
about biological essentialism. Part of their Islamic belief system was that a person embodied
natural and fixed characteristics with particular emphasis put on the role of the woman as wife
and mother. Their beliefs also emphasized that a “child’s essential character should not be
disturbed or forced” (Warin & Adriany, 2017, p. 380). Teachers thought that challenging or
disrupting gender practices interfered with their belief that they should not use their professional
power to question the gender customs of children.
In contrast to the other Indonesian teachers, the youngest teacher at the school believed
that children should be given the opportunity to explore at a young age and saw gender as a
“free-floating artifice,” either flexible or rigid, depending on what options were available to an
individual (Butler, 1990, p. 6). This teacher responded more positively, was more willing than
the other teachers to engage in gender challenging approaches and learn from Adriany’s critical
friendship (Warin & Adriany, 2017). She stated that boys could like pink, wear girls’ clothing,
and play with Barbie and thought that differentiating children’s choices based on gender
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 59

interfered with the positive effects of exploration for children in their early years. This teacher
was so inspired that she chose to write her undergraduate dissertation on gender sensitive
teaching after the study had completed. She had transformed from gender blindness to gender
consciousness, challenging the traditional gender stereotypes around her, despite the powerful
influence of a culture that upheld an essentialist binary construction of gender. This teacher
represented an anomaly in the Indonesian study, with the outcome for the remaining teachers
showing that gender flexible teaching was not the norm in this kindergarten (Warin & Adriany,
2017).
The settings for the second study were preschools in Gothenburg, Sweden. The
participants in the Swedish study were five male Swedish preschool teachers: four of whom were
still preschool teachers at the time of the study, and one who taught preschool for 10 years and
then became a lecturer in teacher education. Warin followed a phenomenological research
tradition to get the men’s experiences and perceptions about their professional lives. Interviews
were dialogic and reciprocal with the researcher’s intent to gather information about the
teachers’ gender awareness or blindness and their concerns about the topic of gender in
preschool. Questions were asked of the teachers such as, “How far [are] they trying to model
gender flexibility?” (Warin & Adriany, 2017, p. 381). After the interviews were transcribed, the
five stages of data analysis were carried out as part of Smith, Flowers, and Larkin’s (2009)
procedure known as interpretative phenomenological analysis where the objective was to study
how a small sample of participants made sense of their experiences, giving a fair description of
each account. From this analysis, nine crossed-themed connections emerged. Those connections
were entry into career, adult gender roles, beliefs about children and childhood including an
emphasis on freedom and choice, playfulness and play, vocational motivation, gender knowledge
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 60

and sensitivity, sources of encouragement, the preschool as a mini society, and strategies for
workforce change (Warin & Adriany, 2017). The data used in this article was primarily
concentrated on “gender knowledge and sensitivity” (p. 381).
Findings revealed that through their statements, all five participants demonstrated
awareness of the explicit gender goal expressed in the Swedish curriculum that teachers should
offset traditional gender patterns and gender roles (Warin & Adriany, 2017). Warin believed that
the teachers’ knowledge of the gender goal and their willingness to share their knowledge of the
gender principles in the curriculum displayed a gender consciousness and sensitivity. Two of the
teachers were involved in the academic study of gender and teaching and showed that they were
highly gender conscious. One was aware of the need to sensitize both male and female novice
teachers to gender issues and stated that he used very specific strategies to realize this goal
though the strategies were not mentioned in this article. The other teacher discussed theories of
gender he was learning in his current studies, connecting them to a continuum of masculinity
where he placed more masculine hobbies such as kick-boxing on one end and more feminine
aspects like his career as a kindergarten teacher at the other end. All of the men showed their
awareness by discussing the importance of modeling non-traditional, gender flexible practices
like changing diapers in front of their students and setting the table for lunch. These examples
showed that the teachers purposefully modeled behavior that was traditionally done by women to
illustrate gender as socially constructed and socially performed and not fixed (Warin & Adriany,
2017). The men exhibited a consciousness in how they were expressing gendered behaviors in
the preschool classroom.
Together the studies exemplified some situations where teachers were sensitive to gender
topics and believed that it was within their responsibilities as preschool and kindergarten
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 61

teachers to challenge traditional gender stereotypes and help children develop less rigid forms of
gender. Warin and Adriany (2017) found that there was a strong influence on the gendered
practices of teachers that were impacted by their core beliefs that they had about gender. In this
study, most of the teachers in the Indonesian school held the gender essentialist views while the
teachers in the Swedish study held social constructivist views. The differences in the two studies
showed how implicit postulations about gender were revealed in the behaviors and practices of a
classroom.
Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014) studied the reflections of three elementary school
teachers to learn how they would deal with teaching the topic of same-sex families and
relationships and to uncover the heteronormative conditions that existed for the teachers as they
made their pedagogical choices. Data was collected through a qualitative case-study approach in
which three elementary teachers participated in semi-structured interviews after having looked at
a selection of literature portraying same-sex parenting and relationships. The three female
participants were selected informally through a snowballing technique that started with one
interested respondent who suggested other possible candidates for the study. All three teachers
claimed to be committed to social justice and critical literacy and taught in different public
schools in urban Western Australia (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014). The three participants’
first language was English, and their ages ranged from mid-40s to mid-50s. The teachers were
given four pieces of literature that portrayed same-sex parenting and relationships. The texts
were Sticks and Stones (Johnson, 2001), Mini Mia and Her Darling Uncle (Lindenbaum, 2007),
Asha’s Mums (Elwin & Paulse, 1990), And Tango Makes Three (Richardson & Parnell, 2005).
They chose one or two of the texts to conduct an initial reflection during a 2-week period after
having received the texts. A 1 to 1.5-hour semi-structured interview using open-ended questions
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 62

was conducted with each teacher. The interviews were structured under two categories:
participants’ teaching backgrounds and pedagogical approaches in relation to literacy and social
justice and a second category in response to the given texts and how they would or would not
have used them in their teaching practice.
To understand the heteronormative conditions that made addressing homosexuality and
same-sex parenting and relationships in the primary classroom unthinkable, the researchers
analyzed the data using queer theory and Foucauldian approaches. Using queer theory allowed
them to examine the social construction of categorizing sexual behavior and identities as normal
or deviant. By also applying the Foucauldian approach, they were able to point out that panoptic
power could influence how teachers edited their pedagogical practices, in this case through
parental surveillance (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014). Content analysis or systematically
coding and identifying themes or patterns was done first to decrease the amount of qualitative
data and look for themes and patterns. As data analysis continued, the researchers sought a
balance between induction and deduction so that they continued to be receptive to the data while
acknowledging new themes that fit into the theoretical framework of the study.
The first teacher participant (T1) was a white woman in her 40s who had taught for 15
years. The researchers did not include the specific primary grade level that any of the teachers in
the study taught. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014) found that T1 indicated that her
pedagogical choices, including discussions pertaining to same-sex families and relationships and
text selections were impacted by parents’ moral surveillance in the school community. When
speaking of Sticks and Stones, a documentary about children from same-sex families being
teased, T1 stated that to avoid upsetting any parents, she would start with a focus on the diversity
that existed within families. She indicated that this diversity focus would be about some families
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 63

having both a mom and dad and others having a mom or dad. The researchers also found that the
level of knowledge teachers had about homosexuality impacted their pedagogical choices and
text selections. Regarding the same documentary, T1 stated that after focusing on diversity in
families, she would focus on the sections that dealt with children being teased for acting like the
opposite gender. She would do this before addressing the “gay part” of the documentary because
“some families […] don’t see gay relationships are normal or natural, and so it’s against their
religion, so they would have a real issue” (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014, p. 315). T1
suggested that that parts of the documentary that showed same-sex families imposed pedagogical
demands that were not associated with her own attitudes and beliefs about homosexuality but “to
a question of moral and homophobic surveillance of parents” (Cumming-Potvin & Martino,
2014, p. 315). T1 suggested that even though the entire parent community at her school did not
feel that way, the parents who she believed would take issue exerted enough influence to
provoke a degree of criticism, anxiety, and fear for primary school teachers that helped to
maintain the silence of same-sex family texts and discussions thereby maintaining the
heteronormative condition. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014) found that T1 believed she
would be challenging family values and beliefs if she presented homosexuality as normal. She
stated in her interview that she considered sending a note home for permission to talk about same
sex families but was concerned that the parents would take issue and opt out because she said,
“it’s a very tricky subject…I think it’s all around the issue of sex” (Cumming-Potvin & Martino,
2014, p. 316). When she spoke of gaining permission, Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014)
posited that T1 was speaking less to conservative religious views at that point and more to the
equating of sexual identities with sexual acts.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 64

When T1 referred to the text, Mini Mia, she believed the text was subtler than Sticks and
Stones with how it presented same-sex relationships. Although the main character was
stereotypically effeminate, his same-sex relationship was inferred and not visible or explicitly
shown in the book. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014) found that T1 was more comfortable
with this text as she believed it would be less likely to provoke parental surveillance. However,
she stated that she would use the text to address “the stereotypes of what girls should and
shouldn’t do” when they must deal with a family member bringing a same-sex partner into their
lives (p. 318). The researchers stated that this pedagogic strategy silenced homosexuality and
might have been influenced by parental surveillance. T1 stated that she would teach these two
texts, but she would be worried and that support from the administration alongside guidance
would be necessary. She also mentioned that she thought Mini Mia would belong in the school
library because of its subtleness though she questioned how many parents would have an issue
with it. The comment reinforced the fear she had of parental surveillance, moral regulation, how
parents governed the legitimacy and viability of texts for children to read and how the school
libraries were a place where a system of heteronormativity was enforced (Cumming-Potvin &
Martino, 2014).
The second teacher participant (T2) was a white woman in her 40s and had also been
teaching for 15 years. At her school site, 25% of the student population was from non-English
speaking families. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014) found that T2 was very aware of the
moral surveillance of the parent community. In her interview, she resorted to official policy as a
way of deciding her pedagogy and deliverance of the same-sex texts offered to her in the study.
She believed equity policies that dealt with sexual orientation and same-sex families were
necessary to teach curriculum content that was related to addressing the topic of same-sex
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 65

families. T2 believed that the topic of same-sex families was uncomfortable for teachers at her
school because such families were not common, and teachers would be exposing students to
“that sort of information” (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014, p. 321). T2 avoided using the
terms homosexuality and same-sex families throughout her interview, which the researchers
asserted drew attention to the silence in the curriculum. T2 evidenced repudiation of the topic
when she stated that although she would use the Sticks and Stones documentary, she would use it
to talk about how being treated differently in general was difficult and, when speaking of the
children from same-sex families in the film, questioned when it was appropriate to “have that
sort of information given to children” (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014, p. 321). T2 also stated
that she was personally uncomfortable with the topic of same-sex families, believing that
homosexuality is a choice and homosexuals should not have children. She further stated that she
would not teach any specific information about being gay until upper primary levels. The
researchers believed that silence of such information categorized homosexuality as risky or
dangerous knowledge for primary-aged children. T2’s uncomfortableness with the topic of gay
couples and gay families resulted in her reluctance to acknowledge the families.
Similar to T1, T2 believed that parental permission for introducing texts like Sticks and
Stones and And Tango Makes Three was a viable concern. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014)
found that T2 was fixated on having parents see her as a neutral image and did not want them to
see her as taking the side of promoting homosexuality. She suggested that one way to avoid
scrutiny, parent notification, and to validate her pedagogical choices would be to draw from
official curricula that included diversity in families. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014)
believed this further demonstrated the degree she believed parents’ moral surveillance should
justify her pedagogical choices and underscored the discipling effects of this sort of surveillance.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 66

T2 stated that education was risky and dangerous and that to avoid accusations, teachers often
invited a colleague to sit in on parent meetings that were controversial. She stated that teaching
with same-sex family texts could result in students bringing up inappropriate matters during
classroom discussions. To prepare themselves for a potentially vulnerable situation, T2
suggested that teachers could script their responses to hypothetical questions from students. In
reference to the 25% minority community at her school consisting of Asian, African, and Indian
students and families, she expressed that Anglo-Australians were “much further down the path as
far as accepting that sort of relationship as what other cultures are” and that some parents might
want their child to be withdrawn from the lesson although she had no concrete evidence for this
assumption (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014, p. 325).
The third teacher participant (T3) was a white woman in her mid-50s who had a
background in drama and music and over 30 years’ experience. Much like T2, T3 avoided using
specific language to describe homosexuality and same-sex families, thereby drawing attention to
the silence and the regulation of access to certain knowledge to protect children. T3 differed in
that she believed responding to student-initiated conversations about the topic of same-sex
families was acceptable. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014) asserted that her
acknowledgement without using specific language appeared to be ruled by a discourse of
tolerance rather than acceptance. She stated that she would use Mini Mia, but she would focus on
a character analysis of Mini Mia’s behaviors because the character’s reaction to the same-sex
relationship in the book was not related to questions of non-normative sexuality, but rather to
someone new in the family. T3 felt that the uncle’s partner in the story was representative of a
stepfather and so T3 would discuss single parent families using the text.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 67

Similar to both T1 and T2, T3 indicated that she would use the text to discuss topics other
than same-sex families. She would avoid the social justice issue of homosexuality and same-sex
families to focus on character analysis. She believed a script would be helpful to prepare teachers
to answer questions from students who put things together regardless of the implicit mentioning
of the topic of same-sex families. In contrast to T1 and T2, T3 weighted her pedagogical
decisions heavily on the support of her school community (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014).
T3 asserted, “If the school community were fairly rigid there’s no way I would introduce a story
that would cause children to ask questions” (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014, p. 328).
All three teachers were anxious about the moral and homophobic surveillance of the
parents and the school community. Cumming-Potvin and Martino (2014) asserted that both self
and community censorship were linked with power and discipline giving the dominant,
heteronormative culture the ability to incite fear and anxiety in teachers being asked to address
the topic of same-sex families and relationships in their primary classrooms.
Malins (2016) conducted an exploratory study to discover the extent to which five
elementary educators in Ontario, Canada addressed diverse gender and sexual identities in their
classrooms given the programmatic curriculum in Ontario that prioritized inclusivity. The
researcher explored the data through the lens of queer theory, which problematized binary
categories of male and female and challenged heterosexuality as the norm. The researcher also
used social constructionism to think critically about the data and challenge conventional
knowledge about discussions of gender and sexual identities. To collect the data for this study,
Malins (2016) purposefully selected five elementary school teachers using maximal variation
sampling, in which individuals with differing perspectives on the same phenomenon were
chosen. Three teachers said they attended to sexual and gender identities in the classroom in
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 68

some way and two teachers said they did not. The original sample size was increased from four
to five when Malins (2016) found the fifth teacher who was a member of a team that recently
created a resource for the school board addressing sexual orientation and gender in the
elementary classroom, thus providing experience in addressing queer identities for this study.
She was added because she provided what Patton (2002) referred to as an “information-rich
case” (p. 230). The researcher did not state how the participants were identified and contacted.
All of the teachers identified as Caucasian and this lack of ethnic diversity in the sampling was
seen as a limitation.
Two 30-minute, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each teacher using an
interview guide. Interview topics were arranged fitting the type of information obtained. The
topics were teachers’ background, values, opinions, experience/behavior, and feelings. Malins
(2016) used the first interview to create a bond with the teachers, gaining background
information and teachers’ mindsets about teaching critical literacy. The second interview asked
more complex questions about the experiences and opinions of the teachers with regard to
addressing sexual orientation and gender in their classrooms. The second interview was also used
to discuss the teachers’ thoughts about a curricular unit Malins designed that supported the
revisions in Ontario’s curriculum for grades one through eight that addressed gender and sexual
minorities. Malins (2016) personally transcribed all interview data and a member check was
conducted where participants were able to review transcripts and make changes to increase
accuracy. One-week partial participant observations were conducted during literacy instruction
where the researcher was a spectator in the room, without any participant contribution. The
researcher did not inform participants that critical literacy was her specific area of focus. Malins
(2016) indicated to the teachers that she was observing to learn more about their literacy program
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 69

and their connection with their students. When doing this, the researcher enacted Patton’s (2002)
“selective disclosing” (p. 277) so that teachers’ pedagogy would not be affected.
Malins (2016) analyzed the interview responses and observations of all five teachers and
presented findings under three themes: the politics behind pedagogy, what is appropriate to
discuss in school, and professional development as a way to start the conversation. These three
central themes developed from a color-coding system in which each new idea obtained from
transcripts of the participants alongside a log of ideas kept by the researcher were monitored for
prevailing concepts. The data was categorized under headings that went along with themes that
came out of the literature review: heteronormativity, curriculum, and pedagogy as well as other
ideas that were common in the data: diversity, leadership, and age appropriateness. These
concepts were fused to form the three main themes.
The first theme—the politics behind pedagogy—highlighted the important influence that
the relationship between home and school had on what was taught in their classrooms (Malins,
2016). The parents in the participants’ school communities were highly involved with the school,
were middle to upper class, and well educated. Teachers believed these factors affected their
need to please the parents. One female kindergarten teacher thought that it was extremely
important to let parents know about books that might be considered controversial ahead of time,
giving them an opportunity to come in and speak with her about the content. Though she did not
address gender identities in her classroom at the time of the study, she planned to in the future,
but thought conducting a survey that allowed parents to weigh in on their level of comfort would
be the right way to gain trust with them. She stated that if they did not feel comfortable, it would
be acceptable to give their children an alternate activity on the day of that lesson (Malins, 2016).
A male sixth grade teacher, who stated that he did not address gender and sexual identities in the
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 70

classroom, expressed that he feared false allegations if he said something having to do with
sexuality. He, along with another female teacher who said she did address gender and sexual
identities in the classroom, were concerned about offending students and parents with religious
backgrounds. Another teacher who proclaimed she addressed gender and sexual identities in her
classroom, expressed how important it was to form respect and trust with parents and that
caution must be exercised with the community.
The second theme—what is appropriate to discuss in school—dealt with the concept of
age with regards to discussions of gender identity and sexuality in the classroom. Four out of the
five teachers thought that starting these discussions at the primary level was beneficial to the
students and to society. When asked if it was appropriate to teach young students, one female
teacher agreed that we should and stated that, “They are the realities of their lives; they’re the
realities of the world” (Malins, 2016, p. 134). Another female teacher stated that we need to set
out norms, “You are who you are, and if that’s how you’re comfortable, then that’s okay. I think
the earlier we start, the better off” (Malins, 2016, p. 134). The male teacher who did not agree
declared that, “We’re robbing kids of just being kids, and having like innocence and stuff like
that…way too early” (Malins, 2016, p. 135). Regardless of their opinions about the
appropriateness of the material for the age of the students, the researcher found that the teachers
believed disrupting heteronormativity and presenting alternative discourses was risky because of
the religious and cultural backgrounds of the families.
The third theme—professional development as a way to start the conversation—
underscored which elements the teachers thought would be important in a professional
development. Some of the teachers indicated in their interviews that the study provided
opportunities for them to think about the issues of gender identity and sexuality for the first time
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 71

(Malins, 2016). The researcher posited that reflecting on topics of gender and sexuality further in
professional development would allow the teachers an opportunity to apply their new awareness
to knowledge about gender play and heteronormativity. One female teacher who stated that she
addressed gender identity and sexuality in the classroom was steadfast in her plea for
professional development on the topic and said, “100%. Absolutely, without a doubt, because
some people just don’t know where to start. And maybe don’t know what’s appropriate to talk
about” (Malins, 2016, p. 135). That same teacher mentioned that she had been asking for such
training for 4 years from her district and her requests were turned down. As she continued to
reflect, she stated that the biggest issue was parental reaction and that the most important vision
of professional development should be helping teachers work with parents to keep the families
happy rather than educating teachers on gender and sexuality.
Malins (2016) found that teachers’ priority was to satisfy parents when considering
whether to address gender and sexual identities in their classrooms. All teachers expressed fear
of resistance and retaliation by parents and identified barriers that prevented them from feeling
completely prepared to discuss gender and sexual identities in elementary settings. Although four
of the five teachers believed that having conversations with young children about gender and
sexual identities was appropriate, all five teachers indicated that caution must be applied in order
to avoid unwanted negative attention from parents in their affluent community (Malins, 2106).
Meyer et al. (2016) examined the educational environments for preschool through high
school students who identified as transgender and gender-creative. The study explored seven
barriers and four supports that educators encountered when working to construct affirming
learning environments for transgender and gender creative students. For the purpose of my study,
I will discuss two barriers and one support from this study that are most closely aligned with my
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 72

research question, which asks how elementary teacher perceptions of gender identity and
sexuality are revealed in elementary teachers’ curricular choices.
Data for this study was collected using the individual interviews of 26 educators: seven
male, 15 female, one participant who identified as genderqueer, and three who chose not to state
their gender. The researchers sampled the participants by reaching out to community
organizations, educator networks, email lists of professionals who worked together on
transgender and LGB issues, and the researchers’ personal and professional networks in the
provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia, Canada (Meyer et al., 2016). The
participants had approximately 10 years’ experience working in schools that ranged from
preschool to grade 12. The schools included in the study were classified as public, private, and
alternative schools in both urban and rural areas. Educator roles included current and former
classroom teachers, administrators, early childhood educators, and school board staff who were
an average age of 43. Each of the participants completed a form that collected information on
participants’ demographics such as their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity,
age, citizenship, and classroom teaching experience (Meyer et al., 2016). A flexible interview
guide was used to conduct interviews of 60-120 minutes in length in person or via Skype (Meyer
et al., 2016).
Member checks were conducted when the transcripts were sent to the participants for
authentication and were then coded for emergent themes with qualitative research software. Also
included in the data analysis were audio reflections recorded after each interview by each of the
research assistants. The researchers analyzed the data using an ongoing and exploratory design to
reveal common themes among the experiences of the teachers. After coding the interviews, the
researchers reviewed the codes, emergent themes, and research memos and created a codebook.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 73

A subsequent review of important statements was conducted to determine if any key themes
were missing or insufficiently described in the codebook. Meyer et al. (2016) performed a cross-
case analysis that compared the experiences and perceptions of elementary teachers with those of
secondary teachers as well as a comparison between traditional and alternative schools. Lastly,
an initial copy of the study was sent to participants for feedback on the analysis and findings.
The researchers welcomed criticisms of their analysis, but participants responded solely with
positive statements that authenticated the findings of the study.
The first barrier I discuss is that Meyer et al. (2016) found that traditional schools showed
a reliance on a pedagogy that exposed transgender or gender-creative students in order to
motivate educators at the school site to become more interested in the topic of gender non-
conformity, thereby risking students’ right to privacy. The concept of students as “sacrificial
lambs” is salient as it points out the concern educators have with subjecting a transgender or
gender-creative student to be in a vulnerable position in order to bring attention to negative
issues surrounding gender inclusion at a school site (Meyer et al., 2016, p. 9). The authors found
that participants believed it was important to expose fellow educators to gender diversity issues
to increase compassion and inspire inclusive teaching practices. Participants stated that when no
transgender or gender-creative students were present at their school, school staff did not want to
learn more about the topic (Meyer et al., 2016). The researchers asserted that transgender or
gender-creative students risked being turned into “sacrificial lambs,” exposing their identities
and sacrificing their right to privacy in order to bring awareness to the need for gender diversity
topics in school communities (pp. 17-18).
The second is a barrier Meyer et al. (2016) referred to as “a balancing act” in which
educators described the difficulties balancing their own identities as out gay and lesbian teachers
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 74

when deciding what lessons on gender and sexuality should contain (p. 19). When one teacher
spoke about supporting her students and parent backlash, she stated,
It’s scary. […] no matter how good your intentions are, no matter how much effort
you’ve made, […] as soon as you do something they don’t like, all of that doesn’t matter.
[…] And, in terms of administrative support, it’s just not there. (Meyer et al., 2016, p.
19)
Another teacher stated, “I always felt challenged because I am the gay teacher in the school. I
always worried that parents would think that I was doing it because of that” (p. 19). That teacher
added that she incorporated discussions of any kind of equity with her students because it was
part of her identity but emphasized her ultimate goal was to deliver content that the students
needed. Meyer el at. (2016) claimed that gender and sexuality norms in educational institutions
affected both educators and students. The researchers noted that many of the barriers obtained
from educator interviews came from the those working in traditional schools, while many of the
supports came from teachers working in alternative schools.
The finding recognized as a support that was relevant to my study was that “flexible and
student-centered curriculum” available in alternative schools created more hospitable school
climates for transgender and gender-creative students (Meyer et al., 2016, p. 23). One teacher,
who connected his school’s differentiation to their high number of same-sex parented families
discussed the importance of student involvement in the pedagogical decisions. That teacher said,
“So, our school is one where the kids are involved in all decision-making processes, […] with
pedagogy and stuff, we bring them in” (Meyer et al., 2016, p. 23). The teacher also stated that
having five queer families out of 70 helped bring visibility to the school and said, “Maybe it’s
becoming just part of the school culture too that we can be accepting of this, the kids are
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 75

different” (p. 23). Another teacher referred to the child-centered curriculum and said, “I can
never plan what my day is going to look like ‘cause the kids plan what the day is going to look
like. […] I love it” (p. 23). A teacher participant at a Montessori early childhood school
reiterated the flexible, child-centered benefits of the alternative schools when he stated, “I’m not
actually following a curriculum, the academic curriculum. I’m more following the child” (Meyer
et al., 2016, p. 24). The researchers asserted that more student-centered, flexible curriculum gave
students the ability to voice their interests and was better equipped to fit the interests and needs
of diverse students. Participants in the study reported a connection between building on student
interests and their school having a more profound understanding of students’ identities and
experiences.
Ryan et al. (2013) qualitatively studied the ways in which elementary students responded
to transgender and gender-nonconformity-inclusive curriculum and how that curriculum looked
in practice. Data were obtained during the first year of a larger study in which the authors
documented the ways that elementary school teachers addressed LGBTQ topics with their
students through children’s literature. The setting, Apple Grove K-8 school, was in a large,
urban, Midwestern district in the United States. The school had many LGBT-headed families but
struggled with incidences of teasing on the playground for students who opposed gender norms
(Ryan et al., 2013). A theoretically-based purposeful sampling procedure was used to find all
participants for this study, starting with teachers who had reached out to Ryan, the first author, to
participate in related projects.
The participants were students from a 3
rd
/4
th
grade class and their teacher, Ms. Bednar,
the third author to the study. Ms. Bednar had taught for 21 years, was an out lesbian and mother,
and her children also attended the school. She was well-respected by her students’ parents and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 76

her colleagues, had a passion for social justice, and was committed to teaching lessons that
included nonnormative genders and sexualities. Ryan visited the classroom every other month
for a few days at a time as a participant observer, tutoring and co-teaching while present. She
used the field notes she created during her 13 days of observation, written communication to and
from Ms. Bednar, and student writing from seven assignments along with 29 audio recordings of
instruction and informal interviews with the teacher to create a full set of data for analysis.
Between visits, data such as student work samples, audio recordings of read-alouds, and
reflective emails from the teacher about significant events were collected. A grounded approach
was used for data analysis in which the data were looked at carefully on a regular and continuous
basis with thematic analysis to identify trends and patterns. The analysis was triangulated
between Ryan and Patraw (second author) using brief narratives that served as analytic memos,
charts, and other visual representations. Additionally, transcribed data, coded data, initial
findings, and manuscript drafts were shared with Ms. Bednar and the students in the study in
order to address validity and ethical portrayals (Ryan et al., 2013).
The findings were presented as four “instructional episodes” or “thematically connected
lessons around a text or group of texts where gender diversity was a central component” (Ryan et
al., 2013, p. 90). The episodes took place over one school year with some singular and some
multi-day lessons. The episodes were entitled: Beginning Discussions of “Unwritten Gender
Rules,” Developing Students’ Critical Lens Around Injustices, Discussing Gender
Nonconformity in Relation to Gay Characters, and Comparing/Contrasting Being Transgender
with Gender Nonconformity.
In the first episode, Beginning Discussions of “Unwritten Gender Rules,” students read a
book that was about racial divisiveness. This was used by Bednar to enter into discussions about
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 77

unwritten rules in society and how they shape our behavior. She asked students how they knew
something was a rule even if no one ever told them it was. The students answered that practices
were repeated until they became set rules over time. Ms. Bednar then asked them to discuss in
groups those things that they did every day that they did not explicitly think about. She supported
the students continually by reminding them of the purpose to listen to and share with each other
and that there were no right answers (Ryan et al., 2013). The discussion was expanded by the
students to include unwritten rules about gender that included the types of colors and books each
gender should like, whether girls should like video games, or boys should like skirts or makeup.
Ms. Bednar facilitated a space for the students to challenge gender norms with female students
stating their fondness for video games, how some girls rarely wore skirts, and a male student
who stated how some men wore make-up, jewelry, and got plastic surgery. Ryan et al. (2013)
found that the discussions provided a space for students to voice what they knew about gender
rules from their own experiences, evidenced through the students’ sharing of gender
nonconforming students at their school, and what confused them, such as the student who
thought that the man who wore make-up and got plastic surgery was decidedly gay.
During the second episode, Developing Students’ Critical Lens Around Injustices, Ms.
Bednar wanted to focus on issues of students being bullied for issues of gender nonconformity.
She had her students watch a short film about a girl who was harassed by her classmates for
doing things that were considered boyish. She led the students in planning for a discussion about
the topic of being bullied for being different with the second-grade students after they had an
opportunity to watch the film. She reminded the students of the term, “ally” with students as
someone who gave support to someone who was different by speaking up for them. The students
worked in buddy pairs and created a book that contained responses to bullying. Ms. Bednar
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 78

scaffolded the way the students talked with the second graders when she used sentence stems
like, “When people say [some kind of bullying language], I can [some kind of response]” (Ryan
et al., 2013, p. 93). She encouraged students to be specific and to use words and behaviors that
bullies actually exhibited. Ryan et al. (2013) found that the students made connections to other
lessons about different kinds of oppression and marginalization. This was evidenced by the
students’ ability to improve their definitions of key terms like racism and homophobia and notice
other areas where they could be allies in later lessons.
In the third episode, Discussing Gender Nonconformity in Relation to Gay Characters,
the teacher read-aloud a book with an overtly feminine gay male protagonist. The teacher asked
students questions about the character in the story with regards to his gender and sexuality and
their beliefs about whether the protagonist’s choices were right or wrong. She extracted language
the students had learned in previous texts to show how one of the protagonist’s friends was an
ally and one was a bully. She asked them if they had heard abusive terms like the ones in the
book in their own lives. She shared new terms with students when she connected the character
possibly being disowned by his parents for being gay by sharing personal stories about
transgender people she knew who were disowned by their families. Ms. Bednar started a
conversation about the reasons transgender people could feel they were in the wrong bodies.
Students were given the opportunity to explore the topic in a brave space where their teacher
modeled a respectful tone, which led to students sharing their connections to and experiences
with transgender people. Throughout the discussion, she clarified terms, validated students’
stories, and made connections between new information and what they had already learned. She
also supported transgender people’s affirmed gender and noted the bravery needed to be
transgender and outlined the students’ interaction with the material positively. Ryan et al. (2013)
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 79

found that students had grown in their connection to the ideas of community and diversity. This
was evidenced by their respectful and dignified comments about the transgender community
during the discussion.
In the fourth episode, Comparing/Contrasting Being Transgender with Gender
Nonconformity, Ms. Bednar first showed her students part of a video in which a child who was
gender nonconforming was being interviewed on a morning news show (Ryan et al., 2013). The
child’s family referred to their son as a “princess boy” because he found happiness wearing pink
dresses. Ms. Bednar then read her students the book that the child’s mother wrote celebrating her
son’s life and followed by leading the students in a discussion about “compassion.” She also
asked them to reflect on what the main message of My Princess Boy was, and she connected the
experiences of the book’s protagonist with the comments of the main character from the story
she read her students in the third episode, asking the them to reflect individually on the
connections in writing. After a few days, Ms. Bednar read her students 10,000 Dresses, a book
about a transgender child who identified as female. She asked students to observe the illustration
on the front cover and discuss what gender they thought the child was. Then she engaged her
students in a discussion of the word “androgynous.” She defined the term as “people who have a
gender, but don’t dress and present themselves so you can tell” (Ryan et al., 2013, p. 99).
Throughout the reading, Ms. Bednar indicated the different pronouns used to describe the main
character and led the students in a discussion about the controversy regarding the use of different
pronouns to describe someone who was transgender. Ms. Bednar reminded the students of the
definition of the word “transgender.” She asked the students to compare and contrast the
experiences of the three texts about transgender and gender-nonconforming protagonists, Totally
Joe, My Princess Boy, and 10,000 Dresses, reminding them that these books reflected people in
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 80

our society (Ryan et al., 2013). Students struggled with distinctions such as using “he” to
describe the character in 10,000 Dresses who identified as a girl, but ultimately, they appreciated
the association between gender and sexuality and gender identity and gender expression.
Ryan et al. (2013) found that the students began to see gender as fluid rather than binary.
This was evidenced by their written reflections when they compared these two texts and the text
that was used during the third episode thus synthesizing the learning they developed over the
four lessons. Students’ awareness of these connections between gender expression and gender
identity intensified with the lessons over time, as they were able to apply concepts they had
difficulty with at the beginning of the school year to distinct circumstances by spring even when
not suggested by their teacher.
Kindlon and Thompson (2002) reflected on the behavior of boys and how it relates to
their engagement and achievement in elementary schools and put this in direct contrast to the
what the school experience is like for girls of the same age. They focused on the issue of fairness
in schools and how recent dialogue has focused mainly on the idea that girls have been “short-
changed in a system that favors boys” (p. 155). The authors are bothered by the binary view that
because girls are suffering, boys are not. They provided research, statistics, and their own
experience in the field as school psychologists to exemplify that this is a contradiction. The
average boy is developmentally disadvantaged in early elementary school as the environment is
largely feminine. Elementary school is predominantly run by women teachers and administrators
and demand a level of impulse control and lower activity level that are difficult for boys to
succeed in. Kindlon and Thompson (2002) refer to a boy’s experience in the elementary
environment as “a thorn among roses; he is a different, lesser, and sometimes frowned-upon
presence, and he knows it” (p. 155).
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 81

Kindlon and Thomson (2002) stated that the elementary environment is civilized and one
that is simply easier for girls to adapt to as boys’ relative immaturity alongside a series of
relationships with teachers who do not fit with the behavior of a boy put them at a disadvantage
in elementary school and set them up to have emotional scars that carry into their adult lives. The
authors shared a story of a man in his adulthood who did not have a good association with his
sons’ elementary school functions because of the negative experiences he had himself in
elementary school. By third grade, boys are at risk of disengaging from learning and carry the
shame and anxiety with them into adulthood (Kindlon &Thompson, 2002). In many cases, the
authors stated that there is an assumption that yelling at boys helps and that boys do not suffer
from yelling as much as girls. However, the authors stated that in reality, boys are suffering, but
do not show their suffering as being a boy in our society requires them to hide that they are hurt.
Kindlon and Thompson (2002) stressed that this societal norm is not limited by socioeconomic
status and for boys from poorer areas as well as those from affluent neighborhoods, the same
principle applies. A negatively charged environment affects a boy’s ability to believe he can
obtain personal achievement.
Kindlon and Thompson (2002) discussed the different working styles of girls and boys
and how boys present a challenge to teachers, the culture of the school, as well as other boys
because their risk taking and impulsiveness lead them to act first before thinking through the
consequences which is often in direct contrast to the ways that girls work. With regards to the
similarities boys and girls bring, Kindlon and Thompson (2002) emphasized that, “Boys and
girls alike bring energy, curiosity, and a desire for competence to their lives at school, but those
gifts come wrapped in gender patterns that are recognizably different, as teachers and parents so
frequently tell us” (p. 161). What works well for boys on the playground for boys including,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 82

activity, impulsivity, and physicality, is difficult to harness when compared with the organized
and cooperative qualities that often serve girls, making boys a liability rather than an asset in the
classroom environment.
Kindlon and Thompson (2002) underscore the developmental distinctions that define
boys as their slower maturation than girls and their lagging development in impulse control from
that of girls their age. The authors stated that the biological influence that defines a child’s
developmental progress is not either nature or nurture, but both intertwined. Since girls are able
to achieve cognitive milestones at younger ages than boys, they are more ready in first grade
while boys start out behind and are often miscategorized as learning disabled (Kindlon &
Thompson, 2002). Regarding social interaction, boys are more active than about three-fourths of
girls, with the most active children in a classroom being boys. Boys are therefore two to four
times as likely to be diagnosed with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) than girls
and a boy is four times more likely to be referred to a school psychologist than a girl.
Kindlon and Thompson (2002) described the unconscious images of boys that come from
assumptions made by teachers and parents regarding the behavior of boys archetypes and
differentiate them from the conscious stereotypes often seen in our society. The archetype of a
boy limit the understanding of boys and instead cast boys as wild animals or entitled princes. The
wild animal archetype is one in which the boy’s irresponsible behavior is excused because his
gender is not capable of gaining control. The wild behavior entreats teachers to feel justified in
acting harshly, yelling at the boy to get him in control (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002). Typically,
boys respond to such harsh behavior by acting defiant. The entitled prince is not held
accountable to the same moral standards as girls as his future includes success and power and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 83

thus, he is protected from the consequences of bad behavior and can be held to a lesser standard.
Here, the boy misses out on lessons of empathy and accountability that he so greatly needs.
Kindlon and Thompson (2002) reflected on their experience as school psychologists and
described how the behavior of boys is often misunderstood. Traditionally odd or bad behaviors
revealed coping mechanisms that boys used to avoid others seeing them cry as crying is not a
socially acceptable act for a boy. The authors’ described accounts from men that included stories
from their elementary school days in which they were reprimanded or considered odd such as the
story of a boy climbing the fence of the playground after a kickball game ended to avoid letting
his friends see him cry. Another man described his obsession with counting letters of words and
sorting them in order to keep him from crying in front of others (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002).
The authors suggested teachers find ways to build the confidence of boys who struggled
academically by praising them excessively for their achievements. Kindlon and Thompson
(2002) described instances where this tactic reduced negative behavior and improved academic
performance. They also suggested teachers help externalize the negativity by making a bad mood
in a boy an enemy that the boy must fight and conquer with the teacher as an ally in the fight.
The teacher then avoids becoming an enemy against the wild animal or an enabler to the entitled
prince archetype. Finally, the authors emphasized the need for praise and the transformative
effect of hugs and high fives in helping boys know they are loved and respected in the
elementary school environment and feel a greater sense of belonging rather than a sense of
differentness (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002).
It is clear from the literature on teacher pedagogy that for teachers to challenge gender
stereotypes, they must examine their own core beliefs and practices despite powerful cultural
influences in order to transform their pedagogical practices from gender blindness to gender
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 84

consciousness. All teachers, even those committed to social justice and critical literacy, are
subject to moral and homophobic surveillance from students’ parents and the community. Even
with teachers receiving support in the form of programmatic curriculum from the government
that prioritized inclusivity, teachers still feared resistance and retaliation from parents which they
believed inhibited their ability to discuss gender and sexual identities in the elementary setting.
The literature also revealed that flexible, student-centered curriculum created more hospitable
school climates for transgender and gender-creative students, however the need to expose fellow
educators to gender diversity issues to encourage empathy and inspire inclusive teaching
practices put the privacy of students from these groups at risk and created a balancing act for out
LGBTQ teachers who received unjustified criticism from parents and no support from
administration. Finally, the literature explored the positive results of a pedagogical style that
introduced elementary students to transgender and gender-nonconformity-inclusive curriculum
over time through thematically connected lessons that started broadly with society’s unwritten
rules and took students through the lessons until they began to see gender as fluid rather than
binary.
This concludes my review of the literature regarding queer theory, teacher perceptions,
and teacher pedagogy. Now I turn my attention to my conceptual framework.
Conceptual Framework
In the following section, I present my conceptual framework as an overall focus for this
study that informed how I collected, analyzed, and interpreted data. The conceptual framework
serves as “a conception or model of what is out there that you plan to study […] a tentative
theory of the phenomena that you are investigating […] to inform the rest of your design”
(Maxwell, 2013, p. 39). In order to understand elementary teachers perceptions of gender
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 85

identity and sexuality as they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices, I drew on
queer theory and existing research, insights gained from my own experiential knowledge as a
teacher, my pilot study to understand the concepts and theories held by teachers, and thought
experiments (Maxwell, 2013). As Maxwell (2013) suggests, I approached my study heuristically,
spontaneously adapting to each stage, like a bricoleur who uses the materials that become
available in order to stay flexible so that I did not overly narrow my focus and instead solved
problems as they arose.
I argue that teachers’ beliefs and identities in conjunction with the way they made sense
of and navigate the messages they received from multiple, external sources (i.e., school, district,
state, and society), consciously or unconsciously influenced their choices to include LGBTQ-
inclusive content and pedagogy and whether they chose to overtly confront heteronormative
conditions in the classroom. More specifically, I maintained that teachers’ beliefs and identities
were reflected in the interaction they had with their students in the classroom as they related to
the choices they made with respect to LGBTQ-inclusive content.
I argued that teachers’ beliefs, whether they were essentialist (fixed) or social
constructivist (flexible), were constantly influenced by society’s internalized hegemonic
heteronormative belief system and was a product of larger social discourses about gender
identity, sexuality, and equity (Warin & Adriany, 2017). The heteronormative belief system
privileged essentialism, the belief that things had a fixed set of characteristics that made them
what they were, over social constructivism, a flexible approach that examined the development
of socially situated perceptions of the world, formed through daily interactions with people and
created the basis for shared assumptions about reality (Burr, 1995). Thus, teachers who carried a
heteronormative belief system were likely to present narrow interpretations of gender roles and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 86

sexuality and would be unlikely to engage their students in LGBTQ-inclusive content and
pedagogy that contradicted that narrative. On the other hand, drawing on Queer theory, I
expected that teachers who carried a more complex interpretation of gender and sexuality would
see it as non-binary and fluid. They would both actively enact pedagogy and use LGBTQ-
inclusive content that challenged the dominant interpretation of gender and sexuality in their
classrooms.
I further asserted that the intersectionality of teachers’ identities (i.e., race, class,
generation, culture, and their own biological sex, gender identity, and sexuality) also mediated
their choices to include LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy, particularly given the
hierarchical contexts in which they resided (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016; Meyer et al.,
2016; Stein & Plummer, 1994; Sumara & Davis, 1999; Warin & Adriany, 2017). I suggested that
identities were fabricated through the inter-woven threads of cultural discourse that existed in an
individual’s life (Burr, 1995). According to Burr (1995):
Identity […] originates not from inside the person, but from the social realm, a realm
where people swim in a sea of language and other signs, a sea that is invisible to us
because it is the very medium of our existence as social beings. (pp. 108-109)
I argued that within the social realm, the different parts of our identity had repercussions for each
other. Socially constructed parts like masculine/feminine, sane/insane, black/white,
working/middle class, hetero/homosexual when combined in different ways created a variety of
discourses that were constantly at work constructing and producing our intersectionalized
identities (Burr, 1995). Thus, the decisions a teacher made about whether to teach LGBTQ-
inclusive content and use pedagogy that recognized gender and sexuality as not fixed would be
connected to the way that teacher constructed her/his/zir identit(ies).
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 87

Consistent with Burr (1995), I asserted that those in society who stood most to benefit
from the status quo, who adhered to the values of the dominant identity groups, would find
diversity and change that was counter to the status quo threatening. The dominant, hegemonic
narrative marginalized identities that questioned the existing social arrangements and practices of
society. Identities were then tools of social order and control and were subject to external
influences (Foucault, 1977). In the school setting, webs of power and social discourse attempted
to uphold these societal practices that supported the identity of the status quo as the norm and
affected the interaction between teachers and students and their choices to include LGBTQ-
inclusive content and pedagogy in their classroom. If teachers challenged dominant discourses
they were “resisting the positions they offer [and] are also implicitly challenging their associated
social practices, structures and power relations” (Burr, 1995, p. 134). Therefore, the choices a
teacher made about whether to teach LGBTQ-inclusive content and use pedagogy that
challenged the status quo would be constantly navigating through a world where the hegemonic
narrative overtly disapproved of such transformation, seeing any social justice stance as a
revolutionary act that needed to be monitored and relegated.
More specifically, the contexts of the school, district, and state, acted as the external
forces that influenced the ways that teachers revealed LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and
pedagogy (Brant, 2017; Burr, 1995; Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014; Meyer et al., 2016;
Payne & Smith, 2014; Taylor et al.2016). The support or lack of support from parents,
community, administrators, fellow teachers, and other staff such as librarians as well as the
availability and accessibility of LGBTQ-themed texts, lesson ideas, existing policies and
procedures, professional development opportunities, opportunities to learn LGBTQ terminology,
state laws, and state-adopted standards were all contextual forces that would influence teachers
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 88

choices and were contained in the outer rings (Brant, 2017; Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014;
Malins, 2016; Meyer, et al., 2016; Payne & Smith, 2014; Robinson, 2002; Ryan et al., 2013;
Taylor et al., 2016; Warin & Adriany, 2017). These elements could either help to support
teachers in their efforts to use LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy or they could support
existing heteronormative conditions (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016). If the contextual
elements were supportive of LGBTQ-inclusive content, depending on their beliefs and identities,
teachers might have taken a stance that was in line with essentialist beliefs, rejecting LGBTQ-
affirming elements that were offered from these contexts but if teachers aligned with social
constructionist beliefs, they might have utilized the support. If the contextual elements supported
existing heteronormative conditions, those with essentialist beliefs were more likely to adhere to
such larger sociopolitical discourses, however teachers who aligned with social constructivist
beliefs and took a social justice stance might have been inspired to challenge and disrupt those
heteronormative structures (Warin & Adriany, 2017).
As demonstrated in Figure 1, I present the conceptual framework model that informed my
study as a series of concentric circles, with the five levels categorized from the most intimate
level in the center to the broadest on the outside. I will discuss each of the components in the
model in more detail.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 89

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework
As shown in Figure 2, located in the common center of the concentric model, are the
most intimate levels: the teacher, the students’ experiences, and the continuum representing the
degree to which LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy would be present. A bidirectional
arrow connects the teacher and the students’ experiences since teachers’ choices with curriculum

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 90

Figure 2
Inner Circle

and pedagogy were influenced by teachers’ beliefs, identity, and actions that they might have
taken in response to student experiences (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014; Martino &
Cumming-Potvin, 2016; Payne & Smith, 2014; Robinson, 2002; Taylor et al., 2016; Warin &
Adriany, 2017). Teachers’ actions might have either come from a fixed, essentialist belief
system, where they would have enabled problematic behavior, such as teasing and bullying that
occurred among students regarding gender and sexuality or from a flexible, socially constructed
belief system, where they responded to and tried to prevent such behavior (Martino & Cumming-
Potvin, 2016; Payne & Smith 2014; Robinson, 2002; Taylor et al., 2016). Teachers’ actions also
might include opportunities to support or discourage the behavior of students whose actual or
perceived gender and sexuality fell outside the heteronormative realm, such as a child who
identified as a boy wearing a dress (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014; Martino & Cumming-
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 91

Potvin, 2016; Robinson, 2002; Warin & Adriany, 2017). Additionally, students’ questions, such
as those about gendered colors, toys, and activities and those about family structure and sexuality
could also have been the catalysts for student-inspired, teachable moments from which LGBTQ-
inclusive curriculum and pedagogy could have been implemented (Martino & Cumming-Potvin,
2016). In all cases, teachers’ beliefs and identities mediated their level of action or inaction to
such teacher/student interactions and would fall somewhere on the continuum when choosing
how to respond and were therefore located inside the inner circle.
As is shown in Figure 3, the three black arrows pointing toward the inner circle represent
the contextual elements of school, district, and state and the direct influence they might have had
on teachers’ pedagogical and curricular choices (Brant, 2017; Burr, 1995; Cumming-Potvin &
Martino, 2014; Meyer et al., 2016; Payne & Smith, 2014; Taylor et al.2016). Within each of the
Figure 3
Arrows from Contexts

context rings were the individual elements that influenced teachers. The support or lack of
support from parents, community, administrators, fellow teachers, and other staff such as
librarians as well as the availability and accessibility of LGBTQ-themed texts, lesson ideas, and
existing policies and procedures were all contained within the school context. The district
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 92

context also contained elements such as parents, community, administrative staff, and teachers at
other school sites as well as professional development opportunities, opportunities to learn
LGBTQ terminology, and existing policies and procedures that could either help or hinder the
teachers’ use of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and pedagogy (Brant, 2017; Cumming-Potvin &
Martino, 2014; Malins, 2016; Robinson, 2002; Ryan et al., 2013; Taylor et al.2016). The state
context contained policies and procedures as well as state laws that could address homophobia
and discrimination for the LGBTQ-community as well as the adopted standards that could reflect
inclusivity (Warin & Adriany, 2017). The level of support or neglect depended on the existence
of these elements in the state context.
As shown in Figure 4, located in the outer-most ring, was society’s prevailing
heteronormativity, the most expansive system, which filtered into all the educational contexts
Figure 4
Arrows from Heteronormativity

surrounding the teacher in the classroom. This flood of influence from the heteronormative
structure was represented by the purple arrows pointing from the outer-most ring to the center.
Since I argued that all social spaces were heterosexualized, the ways in which teachers carried
out their curricular and pedagogical decisions would be heavily influenced by an existing
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 93

heterosexualized curriculum among many other heterosexualized messages (Stein & Plummer,
1994; Sumara & Davis, 1999). This concept map illustrates how I believed the teacher, located in
the center, was key to interrupting heterosexualized educational settings in order to promote
social justice and represent marginalized groups of people (Sumara & Davis, 1999).
Conclusion
This chapter provided a theory of the phenomena that I researched which informed the
remainder of my study. I argued that teachers’ beliefs and identities together with the manner in
which they distinguished the messages they received from a variety of external sources (i.e.,
school, district, state, and society), influenced their choices to include LGBTQ-inclusive content
and pedagogy and their decision to overtly confront heteronormative conditions in the classroom
or yield to society’s prevailing heteronormativity.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 94

Chapter Three: Methods
This chapter describes the qualitative approach, instrumentation, and data collection
methods I used to conduct this study. The purpose of this study was to examine how elementary
teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality were revealed in their pedagogical and
content choices in the classroom. I argued that the extent to which elementary teachers integrated
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ)-inclusive content was influenced by
their essential beliefs, identities, as well as fear, anxiety, and stress from parents, community,
administrators and society’s prevailing heteronormativity.
In the first section of this chapter, I discuss my rationale for selecting a qualitative
research design. Then, I describe my sampling procedures and population undertaken for the two
case studies, including the reasons for selecting the research location. Next, I describe the data
collection procedures I used in my study. Finally, I detail the data analysis procedures I used.
Research Design
This study called for a qualitative research design as I was interested in finding out how
teachers perceived gender identity and sexuality and how their perceptions were revealed in their
pedagogical and curricular choices in the classroom. Qualitative research is about understanding
how people decipher the events in their lives with the data collected and analyzed in the form of
words and pictures rather than numbers and statistics, which are collected for quantitative data
(Braun & Clark, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Regarding the collection of qualitative data,
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) say, “Rather than determining cause and effect, predicting, or
describing the distribution of some attribute among a population, we might be interested in
uncovering the meaning of a phenomenon for those involved” (pp. 5-6). I discovered the
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 95

significance of the phenomena surrounding teachers’ beliefs and identities and how they
influenced their choices to include LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy in their classroom.
For this research design, a qualitative case study approach with the researcher as the
primary instrument was used to provide rich, descriptive data for analysis (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The units of analysis for this study were two teachers from two different elementary
schools who were bounded systems as I studied each teacher as an individual inside each of her
particular classroom. They were delimited case examples of the phenomenon I studied. Anything
outside of that bounded context was left out of the study (Creswell, 2013; Miles et al., 2014;
Smith, 1978). Using a qualitative case study approach allowed me to collect data from my
subjects of interest partly through direct observations and partly through a semi-structured
interview process. These case studies attempted to capture what pedagogy and curriculum looked
like in the classrooms of two teachers who were known by other educators for teaching LGBTQ-
inclusive curriculum.
Sample and Population
The focus of my study was to acquire an understanding of what teachers’ perceptions of
gender identity and sexuality looked like in their pedagogy and curriculum in their classroom.
For the purposes of this study, nonprobabilistic, purposeful sampling was used to identify
respondents. Purposeful sampling is used when the researcher chooses a sample in which the
most can be learned from respondents because they have the specific experience that is key to the
purpose of the inquiry (Chein, 1981, Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Patton, 2015). Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) suggest deciding on a set of criteria that are fundamental in choosing the
respondents and the sites to be studied in order to obtain thorough information that directly
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 96

reflects the purpose of the study. Next, I discuss the process I undertook to select my school sites
and participants.
Site and Participant Selection
I sent emails to five districts in the Southern California region within 20 miles of where I
lived who had within them schools that met the criteria I had established for the study and asked
them for permission to contact the schools to obtain nominations of teachers who may fit the
criteria of my study. I relied on the nominators of the participants to verify the participant criteria
were accurate. One district responded, stating they did not have any elementary teachers who
taught LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum but suggested I widen my search to middle and high
schools as they believed teachers at that level were using LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. This was
not an option as I was specifically seeking teachers at the elementary level who were known for
their use of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and pedagogy. Two other districts responded, asking
me to complete an application to conduct research in order to have fully evaluated my request. I
was approved by one of the districts and did not hear back from the other.
Simultaneously, I reached out to educators at the elementary and university level asking
for nominations of elementary teachers who fit the criteria of my study. One of the educators, a
retired elementary teacher, nominated five teachers from three different local schools who met
the participant criteria. I researched each of the schools first to verify that they met my site
criteria before reaching out to the teachers. I then sent a written request to all five teachers via
email. Two teachers, a kindergarten teacher and a fifth grade teacher at two different schools,
responded and became my units of analysis. These two teachers were teaching in the district in
which I was approved. I selected respondents who were unique through a nomination sampling
procedure (Foster, 1993). I did this by relying on principals and other educators to nominate
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 97

elementary teachers known for their use of LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and curriculum in their
classroom. It was important to start at the teacher level and work my way backward to the school
level as the school site did not need to be of any particular demographic while the criterion
regarding the teacher’s reputation for using LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and curriculum in their
classroom was a unique factor. This atypical participant sample allowed me to gather data about
the specific phenomenon I was researching.
Both participants were employed as elementary school teachers in general education
classrooms at public schools in a large metropolitan area in Southern California. Both were
permanent teachers, having completed the probationary period at the beginning of their careers.
Both teachers were known by administrators or other educators for attempting LGBTQ-inclusive
pedagogy and curriculum in their classrooms. Neither teacher was a member of the LGBTQ
community.
Both school sites selected for my study were public, K-5 elementary schools located in a
large metropolitan area in Southern California. I wanted to understand the ways that elementary
teachers’ perceptions were revealed in the pedagogical and curricular choices of teachers who
were already disrupting heteronormativity in their classrooms and there was a greater likelihood
that I would find teacher participants who fit that criterion in a large metropolitan area school.
Both school sites selected for my study were neither actively pursuing an agenda to implement
LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, nor had they been affected by an initiative that was underway at
the district level, nor were they schools that were actively discouraging any LGBTQ-inclusive
agendas or initiatives. I selected these criteria in order to examine teachers that disrupted
heteronormativity independent of their schools’ agendas or initiatives and to make the data
useful to as many elementary schools as possible. To obtain information that indicated the above
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 98

criteria, I researched each of the schools’ websites and I asked the retired teacher who nominated
both teachers in my study as well as the teacher participants of this study during our first
meeting. This school represented a typical or modal sample and consistent with Merriam and
Tisdell (2016), it is typical as it is “compared with others in the same class, so that users can
make comparisons with their own situations” (pp. 257-258). I used the word “typical” here to
describe the school’s environment with respect to any active agendas or district initiatives to
implement or dissuade LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum, not to describe ethnic, racial, or SES
demographics as there is no “typical” school in that respect. Schools selected for my study were
of any demographic with regards to race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status (SES). One school
with a particular demographic is not more likely than another to include students or families
from the LGBTQ community (Newport, 2018) and all students, regardless of their race,
ethnicity, or SES live in a diverse world in which members of the LGBTQ community live.
Thus, there is a need for exposure to LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy in order to push
back against heteronormative expectations in society (Meyer et al., 2016; Robinson, 2002; Ryan
et al., 2013). Therefore, I did not consider these demographic factors nor did I notice or attend to
them in the process of my site selection.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
The purpose of this case study was to gain insight into how elementary teachers’
perceptions of gender identity and sexuality were revealed in their pedagogical and curricular
choices. Multiple instruments were used to collect data that informed my analysis of how
teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality affected the choices they made in their
classrooms. I conducted two case studies in which data was collected through interviews with the
two elementary teachers and direct observations of their practice regarding their choice to teach
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 99

LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum in their elementary classrooms. Individual case studies allow
researchers to question a phenomenon in order to understand it deeply and provide a basis for
further research on the topic (Patton, 2015). According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), these
types of data collection “can help you uncover meaning, develop understanding, and discover
insights relevant to the research problem” (p. 106). I drew on the literature of Warin and Adriany
(2017) to inform my data collection process as I looked for data that provided information about
each teacher’s belief system, either essentialist or social constructivist. I drew on Burr (1995) to
guide me in collecting data that helped describe each teacher’s identities and intersectionality of
identities and how each teacher negotiated decisions based on these intersecting identities when
they interacted with students and made decisions about pedagogy and curriculum in the
classroom.
Interviews
I conducted two formal interviews with each of the two teachers, with additional informal
or anchor interviews throughout the course of data collection. The format of the formal
interviews was semi-structured, using open-ended questions in order to ensure flexibility and to
be able to “respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to
new ideas on the topic” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 111). I used an interview guide approach as
it “keeps the interaction focused and provides a framework within which the interviewer […]
develop[s] questions, sequence[s] those questions, and make[s] decisions about which
information to pursue in greater depth” (Patton, 2002, p. 344). The semi-structured format
provided the guidance I needed to learn more about the phenomenon without getting lost in the
information which could have been the case if the questions were completely unstructured. I
conducted two 1 hour formal interviews with each teacher at their convenience, after school, in
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 100

each of their classrooms, and one 2 hour formal interview with each teacher, in the evening, at
each of their homes after classroom observations were over. Interview protocol (Appendix A)
guided the questions I asked during the interviews. I then conducted three anchor interviews that
were between 15 and 20 minutes with each teacher and asked questions in reference to behaviors
I saw while observing the two participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Interviews were conducted using an interview protocol that consisted of questions that
sought information about the teachers’ beliefs and identities and their perceptions about gender
identity and sexuality. Here, I used what Patton (2015) calls opinion and values questions to gain
insight into what the teachers thought about addressing gender identity and sexuality with their
students in the classroom. For example, I asked this question about gender identity, “What would
you think if a boy came to school wearing a dress or have you ever had that experience?” I also
asked this devil’s advocate question about sexuality, “Some people would say reading stories
that contain to mommies or two daddies to kindergartners is teaching students to be gay. What
would you say to them?”
The protocol contained questions that sought responses about the teachers’ pedagogical
styles and curriculum inclusion as they were related to LGBTQ-inclusive topics. I used what
Patton (2015) calls an experience and behavior question to better understand the teachers’
behaviors, actions, and activities surrounding gender identity and sexuality. I asked this question
about gender identity, “If there has been a time when you have raised the topic of gender identity
in response to something happening (not planned) in your classroom, tell me about that.” I asked
this question about sexuality, “How important do you think it is to learn about historical figures’
complete identities including sexuality?” The interview protocol also contains questions that
pursue information about whether teachers chose to overtly confront heteronormative conditions
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 101

in the classroom. I asked this question about gender identity, “How do you create a safe, gender-
expansive space in your classroom that affirms all children?” I also asked this question about
sexuality, “Tell me about a recent lesson plan you have used that addressed sexuality.”
My informal or anchor interview questions were either generated during an observation
or after an observation occurred, while I was typing up the transcripts later in the day. If I had
questions about what I observed or wanted to know what the teachers were thinking when a
particular action occurred, I constructed a question that enabled my participant to tell me more. If
I constructed the question during the observation, I asked my teacher participants at the end of
my observation that day, which usually ended on a recess or lunch break, so that the action
would be fresh in their minds. If I constructed the question later, while typing the transcripts, I
would ask my participant at my next observation.
Observations
I observed the two teachers four times, for 2 hours each session during their instructional
time. Observations were conducted in each of the classrooms until new information became rare.
Had I been able to observe longer, I may have reached saturation of my data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Although I could not observe more, as my job prohibited me from taking additional time
off, I was observing the same things repeatedly. Observations allowed me to gather firsthand
data that represented the phenomenon I was researching, how teachers’ beliefs and identities are
reflected in the interactions they have with their students in the classroom and how they relate to
the choices they make with respect to LGBTQ-inclusive content. As an observer in the teachers’
classrooms, I noticed things that became habitual for them in their pedagogy, so I used the data
that was gathered from interviews to better understand what to look for, especially when looking
at these habitual behaviors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, I used interview data from
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 102

my fifth grade teacher when she discussed how terminology related to gender identity was
“novel” to her and how she described gender transformation using the words “crisis” and
“awakening” to help me understand an interaction that occurred in her classroom where students
were teasing a boy by calling him by a name that is traditionally used for girls. Knowing her
comfort level regarding gender identity and transformation helped me understand why she asked
the boy if he liked being called by this name, rather than intervening to pursue the genesis of the
joke with all involved. Observations also provided reference points for additional interviews. My
observation protocol (Appendix B) provided the structure I needed to collect data during the
observations. The observations took place in several instructional locations at each teacher’s
school site including the classroom, outdoor space just outside the classroom, the playground, the
dance room, and the auditorium and were not conducted during recess or lunch breaks. I decided
to observe primarily during English language arts and social studies as I believed that these
subjects would provide the greatest opportunity for interactions that showed the choices the
teachers made with regards to content and pedagogy that disrupted traditional gender and
sexuality norms.
Evidence of the physical setting, teachers and students, activities, interactions,
conversations, subtle factors, and my own behavior were all elements that I noted during my
observations (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). When looking at the physical setting, I looked
specifically for evidence of a safe, gender expansive setting that was affirming of all students’
interests. This was evidenced by posters, displayed norms, or LGBTQ-themed books in the
classroom library. When observing the teacher participants, I looked specifically for
characteristics relevant to my research question such as their beliefs or possible overt social
justice stance. This was evidenced by their dialogue with students in the classroom, as well as
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 103

mannerisms, and patterns and frequency of interactions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). When
looking at activities and interactions, I noted how students interacted with each other and the
teacher and how educators interacted. I observed how norms were used in interactions. When
observing conversations, I listened to the content, noting anything meaningful to how gender
identity and sexuality were constructed in the room. I looked for subtle factors such as unplanned
activities, symbolic and nonverbal communication such as attire, and what things did not happen
that I expected to happen. Finally, I took note of my own behavior and how I affected the
classroom I was observing. I noted my own thoughts about what was going on in my observer
comments. I used an observer as participant stance in order to be close enough to the teacher and
students without involving myself in the essential teaching and learning that was going on in the
classroom (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Data Analysis
Data from this qualitative study included transcripts from interviews conducted with both
teachers in the study, field notes and maps from observations in each of the teachers’ classrooms,
and reflective notes. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) recommend starting data analysis early, while
data collection is happening, making it an active, contemporaneous process that continually
builds upon itself. I consistently took reflective notes about what I was learning as I conducted
the study, which allowed for temporary, rudimentary analyses throughout. Reflective notes
helped me process and make sense of what I was seeing in each teacher’s case. The notes also
gave me opportunities to question what I was seeing, which helped me understand what I needed
to continue to investigate in the future. For example, I took reflective notes in the fifth grade
classroom when the interaction occurred with the boy being called by a traditionally feminine
name. I reflected on the interaction, using interview data about her perceptions of gender
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 104

identity, and how the teacher may have been uncomfortable with the subject matter, thereby
avoiding a meaningful discussion with the boy being teased and the students teasing him. I
realized that I needed to generate some anchor interview questions to find out more about what
the teacher was thinking regarding that specific incident and I also realized that I needed to look
for other moments that may be similar to this one in order to see a pattern in my teacher’s
behavior. Later, after I left the field, I looked back at my reflective notes to help me make sense
of my observational data from each of the classrooms and thus they became part of my analytic
process as data. Then, I wrote analytic memos in order to weave together the information from
my observation with what I made sense of in analysis. Miles et al. (2014) suggest the researcher
begin writing memos as the first field data start to come in and continue until the end of data
collection.
I conducted analysis on only one case study at a time, starting with the fifth grade teacher
and then the kindergarten teacher, in order to wholly focus on the data from each teacher
independent of the other. After I transcribed my interview data, I thoroughly read my transcripts,
underlining key phrases and making notes and initial codes in the margins. Some of my initial
codes were, “projecting femininity,” “female norms,” “male norms,” “novel to me,” “gender
roles,” “seeing binary,” “role as a mother,” “seeing as other,” and “no assumptions.” Harding
(2013) suggests engaging in every line of the transcript to help the researcher to think
comprehensively about the data. I then conducted open coding, where I looked for empirical and
a priori codes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I looked for words and phrases that came out of my
data for empirical codes. For example, I found that my fifth grade teacher often referred to
LGBTQ terms and concepts as being novel to her. When I organized my codebook for typicality,
I realized she made 15 references to novel terminology, which indicated a commonality within
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 105

my dataset. A priori codes came from words and phrases in the data that were from my
conceptual framework. For example, I used “Identity–Relationship to Sexuality,” and “Identity–
Relationship to Gender Identity” as in my conceptual framework, I argued that teachers’ choices
with curriculum and pedagogy were influenced by their beliefs, identity, and actions they took in
response to student experiences. I also created the a priori codes, “Invisible Heteronormative
Sphere” and “Relationship to Disruptive Content” as they were also phrases taken from my
conceptual framework. I was guided by the suggestions of Miles et al. (2014) whose tactics for
drawing meaning from data include noting patterns and themes, seeing plausibility, and
clustering. I used my code book to note patterns and themes in order to pull together many
separate pieces of data. For example, a pattern that emerged from my fifth grade teacher was the
way that she consciously reflected on topics related to gender identity and sexuality but struggled
to find progressive vocabulary that helped her articulate her beliefs. I also noticed that she named
many of her unconscious biases, often stating them in the negative as she said, “I wouldn’t say
I’m ______, but…” or “I don’t mean it like ______, but…” I saw plausibility in the data and
drew procedural conclusions, using counting and comparing/contrasting such as the typicality I
found with the empirical code about novel vocabulary mentioned above. Similarly, I found 32
pieces of data that fit the pattern of Unconscious Bias/Naming It/Recognition of It,” which
helped me to see that this conclusion was reasonable and sensible and helped confirm that I was
not jumping to conclusions. I then clustered my data and created umbrella codes to represent all
the similar data. During this process, I spent time thinking through the relationships among my
data, aggregating and comparing, to understand the phenomenon better. I created a glossary of
terms for my codebook to explain the set of ideas for each of the 48 umbrella codes generated.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 106

During the open coding process, I also used analytic tools from Corbin and Strauss
(2008) to help me interrogate my data. They say, “Once one starts asking questions about data,
more questions come to mind, enabling the analyst to probe deeper into the data […] asking a
variety of questions enables analysts to develop categories in terms of all their ramifications” (p.
85). Corbin and Strauss (2008) suggest asking about the “assumptions, cultural beliefs, and
knowledge levels of [my] participants” (p. 85). Since I was trying to understand how my
participants perceptions, including their beliefs and identities, were revealed in their pedagogy
and content, these types of questions were critical to ask. Regarding the kindergarten teacher, I
asked questions about her word choice when referring to the LGBTQ community. She often
avoided using the terms, “gay” or “lesbian,” saying instead that someone was “coming out” and
used “the change” to describe someone who was transgender. I wondered if her word choice had
to do with her generation or culture or perhaps her belief that she should not impose her ideals or
perceptions on others and therefore may not feel comfortable labeling. I also “[drew] upon life
experiences” (p. 80) of mine that were similar to those of my participants, another tool suggested
by Corbin and Strauss (2008) that helped me gain insight into what my participants were
describing. Since I was an elementary teacher, I asked myself questions about how I may have
been comparing their practice to mine and to my experiences in order to not try to make the data
say something that it was not saying. I also drew upon my intersectionalized identity as a teacher
and a member of the LGBTQ community who was proactively trying to represent the LGBTQ
community more in the curriculum and pedagogy in the elementary grades. I had to ask myself if
I was projecting my beliefs onto the teachers to keep pulling myself back from injecting my
thoughts into the data.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 107

After conducting open coding, I conducted axial or analytic coding to combine my open
codes that were similar. I then kept these similar categories in mind when looking over the other
interview transcripts, observation field notes, and reflective notes, constantly comparing the data,
making a second list of categories when there were not similarities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Finally, I merged all lists into one master list that allowed me to see patterns in my study. I wrote
analytic memos during this process to see how I was making sense of the data I was coding.
Miles et al. (2014) suggest jotting down marginal notes to strengthen coding as it points to
“deeper or underlying issues that deserve analytic attention” (p. 94). This allowed me to consider
the biases I might have been projecting onto my data including my gender identity, sexuality,
position as a teacher, and social constructivist worldview so that I could guard against these
biases and see the data more clearly. As Miles and Huberman (1994) say, “Memos can be a tool
for stepping back from the data and moving beyond codes to try to think more reflectively and
conceptually” (as cited in Harding, 2013, p. 110). From my master list of patterns, I aggregated
up, grouping them, to develop my findings and themes. As I began writing my analysis, I
returned to the data to ensure my findings were consistent with the data. My findings and themes
evolved through this process one last time.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To test the credibility of my conclusions, I drew on Maxwell’s (2013) checklist that
included strategies for dealing with validity threats. Additionally, I wrote analytic memos to
synthesize my reflections of analysis into higher level analytic meaning (Miles et al., 2014).
Bogdan and Biklen (2007) suggest the researcher write a one- or two-page summary of what
she/he/ze thinks is emerging as “memos provide a time to reflect on issues raised in the setting
and how they relate to larger theoretical, methodological, and substantive issues” (p. 164) and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 108

“contain material on fieldwork technique and research strategies” (p. 165). In one memo, I
synthesized my reflections of analysis regarding the kindergarten teacher’s rejection of
traditional cultural Latin norms, her acceptance of Buddhism and the idea that her particular
temple was accepting of the LGBTQ community, alongside her experience with an Iranian-
American boss who projected his cultural norms onto her, having her serve tea at her job because
she was a woman, and how she was not offended by this act. I reflected on the larger idea that
she had a strong sense of who she was, believing above all in self-determination, which seemed
to allow her to tolerate traditions that fell outside of her own belief system while at the same
time, she did not believe it was right to project her own opinions onto others.
To help with the confirmability of my study’s findings and to minimize signs of
researcher bias, I used open-ended questions that encouraged thorough, unanticipated answers
from my respondents during the interviews. I also recorded my interviews, typed up verbatim
transcripts, and took precise descriptive notes during my observations, including label-rich maps
of the rooms, which all provided thorough material for the basis of my conclusions. I conducted
member checks or respondent validation in which I received feedback from my teacher
participants in order to rule out any misinterpretation of the data that I collected (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I did this by showing the transcribed interview data to my participants
in the meeting following the interview. For my exit interview, I showed my interview notes that I
had written that day on the interview protocol. I was also aware of my identity as a lesbian and
an elementary school teacher who was proactively trying to represent the LGBTQ community
more in the curriculum and pedagogy in the elementary grades. I was aware of my biases and
was careful not to assume that my own experience as an elementary teacher was the same
experience as other elementary teachers. Miles et al. (2014) state that it is natural for participants
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 109

to disagree with the researcher as people often have different perceptions of the same
phenomenon. For example, while observing the fifth grade class, I noticed that students were
chewing gum and it did not appear that the teacher was aware. After a member check with the
teacher, I learned that the gum chewing is intentional and encouraged because the teacher
believed mint gum warmed up the blood and brought heat to the brain. I saw students breaking
the rules but after clarification from the teacher participant, I learned that students were
following the rules. Member checks that elicited feedback from each of my teachers, typing up
the interviews verbatim, and taking detailed notes during observations were specific ways to deal
with my researcher bias. The rich evidence that I collected and checked with the teachers helped
to make validity threats less plausible. My role as the researcher was to understand the
phenomenon. In qualitative research, the researcher as the primary instrument is the most
effective method for collecting and analyzing data as she/he/ze can respond and adjust to
changes promptly, get clarification with material including member checks for accuracy of
teachers’ responses and actions, and explore unexpected responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
To help me feel confident about the credibility of my study, I triangulated my data by
collecting data from two teachers and used data collection methods in the form of formal, semi-
structured interviews, direct observations, and reflective memos to confirm findings that
developed. Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest triangulation in order to
obtain consistent and dependable data that fits best with the real intentions of the participants.
With regards to the reflexivity of my study, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest as the
researcher, I explain my biases and worldview in order to help readers understand how I arrive at
my interpretation of the data. To do this, I wrote reflective notes and asked myself questions
about how my perspective interfered with what I was hearing from my respondents in interviews
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 110

and from what I was experiencing in observations. As Bogdan and Biklen (2007) say, “Like
everyone else, qualitative researchers have opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and prejudices, and they
try to reveal these in their notes by reflecting on their own way of thinking” (p. 123). My
experience as a kindergarten teacher influenced the way I looked at the instruction, environment,
and the dialogue between the teacher and the students in the classroom. I am a cisgender woman,
which affected how I saw the data as it pertained to the construction of gender identity. I am a
member of the LGBTQ community, which influenced my expectations of the data as they
pertained to sexuality in the study. I have a transformative worldview that focuses on increasing
justice and establishing change for the underrepresentation of the LGBTQ community in
education (Creswell, 2003). I also have a social constructivist worldview and was careful not to
look for things that aligned with that philosophy. My reflective notes helped me to better
understand the views of my participants rather than trying to make their views fit mine. I had a
set of questions prepared ahead of time that I asked myself. I asked myself if I thought I would
have taught the lesson differently or used different materials if I were the teacher in the
classroom. I asked myself if I thought I would have asked questions or responded to questions
differently because I of my membership in the LGBTQ community. I also asked if I would have
pursued a topic or facet of a topic in more depth because of my belief that children need to be
exposed to pedagogy and content that disrupt the gender binary and problematize different
sexual categories at a young age.
I was careful not to allow my prior research in the area of gender identity and sexuality to
tempt me to twist my data into the findings of previous research studies. To address these issues,
I bracketed my biases before my data collection began by talking to fellow researchers in my
dissertation cohort and made a list of all the biases I had and how they could have influenced my
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 111

data collection. I listed my bias as an elementary school teacher and the intersectionality of being
a lesbian and a teacher who was very invested in the use of materials and pedagogy that disrupt
as well as someone who believed strongly in creating conditions that enable students to
experience school as a nonbinary space that supports nontraditional gender identities and
sexualities. Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest discussion and writing
biases down as opposed to silently acknowledging them as it is more likely the researcher will be
conscious of them. I also kept a bracketing journal during data collection and analysis in order to
keep track of any new biases that may come to mind, and in conversations with my dissertation
committee chair, who served as a peer in this process, I named my biases and how they could
affect my data. Specifically, there were times throughout data collection and analysis, in which I
was inclined to interpret my teacher participants’ experiences in ways that would have been
affected by my bias such as my belief that the lack in availability of LGBTQ texts and lessons
influenced my teachers’ pedagogical and curricular choices when in reality, they had no effect.
Ethics
To ensure that my study was conducted ethically, I used the “Ethical Issues Checklist”
from Patton (2015) that identifies 12 items that are important to consider when conducting
qualitative research. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) maintain that for the researcher to be
trustworthy, she/he/ze must conduct the study in an ethical manner.
Aligning with Patton’s (2015) checklist, I explained the purpose of the questions and the
methods I used to my participants before I began data collection. I made clear the reciprocal
benefits available to both teacher respondents such as compensation of any kind. Any promises
that I made throughout the interview or observation process were kept, such as the promise I
made to provide a copy of the approved LGBTQ-themed books for the teacher’s district or the
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 112

promise I made to conduct data collection at a time that was convenient to each of my
respondents. During the interview process, I was asked to come to each of the homes of the two
teacher participants as it was more convenient for them and I obliged. I described any potential
risks that could occur from participating in interviews to the respondents such as the risk that my
questions could bring up memories from earlier in their lives that were unpleasant. I used
pseudonyms for both the school site and the participants to protect their confidentiality. The use
of the pseudonyms with “Mrs.” were representations of how the teacher participants expressed
themselves. It was the language they used with their students and it was the language their
students used with them. I obtained informed written consent from both participants before
interviewing, recorded verbal consent during the introduction of each interview to ensure mutual
protection for both the researcher and the respondent, and I followed all Institutional Review
Board (IRB) guidelines and requirements for protecting human subjects in research. I completed
the district’s ethic review process before beginning my site and participant selection. I explained
data access and ownership to my respondents and let both teachers know that although the
interview and observation data belong to the study, in order to rule out any misinterpretation of
the data that I collected, they would be asked to participate in member checks and review it all
before it is finalized. I paid attention to my own mental health during the study, took care of
myself, and accessed resources made available by my university. Although I was prepared to
offer resources to my teacher participants if they needed help dealing with any problems that
arose during the study, the need did not surface. Patton (2015) stresses that the interviewer’s job
“is first and foremost to gather data” (p. 495) and she/he/ze is not there to judge or engage in
therapy but should not be unresponsive to suffering and pain (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 113

If I had any questions about ethics during my study, I contacted my committee chair for
advice. Regarding data collection boundaries and respondents’ sensitivity to the questions that
were asked, I explained that the interview space is a place where they can express themselves
confidentially. I explained that I respected their decision to decline to answer a question,
however my teacher participants did not decline any questions. I also offered to turn off my
recording device any time during the interview if my respondents wanted to speak privately,
however they did not make that request. Stake (2005) says that “Qualitative researchers are
guests in the private spaces of the world. Their manners should be good and their code of ethics
strict” (p. 459). With regards to ethical and methodological choices, I used the Joint Committee
Standards as my ethical framework and philosophy to guide and inform my work (Yarbrough et
al., 2010). In order to avoid excluding information that contradicted my views, I took rich data
and transcribed it all myself within 4 hours of the data collection.
Limitations and Delimitations
This dissertation contained several limitations of which I was aware. My research
depended upon two different sources of data, which were interviews and observations. The
findings were reliable as both participants were honest and open with their responses in both the
interviews and observations. I interviewed respondents who were known by their principals and
at least one other educator for their use of LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and curriculum in their
classroom. I assumed that the data acquired during interviews would be true to each teacher’s
actual perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and their choices regarding curriculum and
pedagogy. The reliability of this study depended upon this assumption.
Additionally, the data collected for this dissertation was limited to two case studies. The
findings as well as the transferability to similar school contexts was constrained to the
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 114

phenomenon studied in the two classrooms in my study. Some events that I planned to observe
did not take place during the time I visited, such as the reading of some LGBTQ-themed books
in the kindergarten participant’s classroom, and therefore this was also a limitation.
This study also contained several delimitations. Data was collected over the course of 3
months during one semester of school and the information obtained provided only a glimpse of
the phenomenon within each classroom. The interview protocols I wrote are meant to gather the
necessary data to answer my research question. When I conducted the interviews, I asked
questions that led to the necessary data, however my limited abilities as a novice researcher who
was constructing interview protocols for the first time did not always get me the data that I
needed. Due to my novice status, I missed markers and forgot to add probes at times that would
have obtained the necessary data such as when I asked the fifth grade teacher to tell me about the
ways she believed her students understood gender identity. She responded that the students were
conditioned to believe gender was binary but did not say how. I could have used a probing
question to ask her how she came to believe that they were binary in their understanding of
gender identity. The same limitations were true of my novice observation skills. I did not record
pertinent data that would have helped me to answer my research question such as recording the
students’ names on my classroom maps. I used numbers to identify the different students,
however the numbers proved confusing when students moved about the room into different small
groups and work areas. Additionally, I did not anticipate students’ seats changing from each of
my observation visits. I addressed this delimitation by triangulating my data, collecting
interviews and observations which allowed me to compare and cross-check data collected at
different times or places (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to the location of my workplace as a
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 115

teacher as well as funding constraints, my study was also limited to the large metropolitan area
near me in Southern California.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to discover the ways that elementary teachers’ perceptions
of gender identity and sexuality were revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices in their
classrooms. I argued that the extent to which elementary teachers practice LGBTQ-inclusive
curriculum was influenced by their essential beliefs and identities, as well as fear, anxiety, and
stress from parents, community, administrators and society’s prevailing heteronormativity.
Utilizing the case study approach, I engaged in systematic inquiry, gathered data, and looked for
patterns in the data that helped me understand this phenomenon.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 116

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to gain insight into how elementary teachers’
perceptions of gender identity and sexuality were revealed in their pedagogical and curricular
choices. The first three chapters of this dissertation discussed the research literature around
issues related to discrimination in the United States education system for LGBTQ students, the
current state of pedagogical and curricular choices that are lacking in LGBTQ-inclusive content,
and barriers such as internal beliefs, external pressures, and logistical concerns teachers face
when attempting to engage in LGBTQ-inclusive practices, the role that elementary teachers’
perceptions of gender identity and sexuality play in their choices to include content and
pedagogy that disrupt traditional gender and sexuality norms, and the methodological approach
used for this study, including a rationale for choosing a qualitative research design, the sample
and population procedure, and a description of the data collection, instrumentation, and data
analysis methods. The data collected from this study answered the research question: How are
teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality revealed in their pedagogical and
curricular choices? In this chapter, I present the findings of the study.
This dissertation is a qualitative case study approach that utilized a multiple case study
method of examining two elementary school teachers’ classes at two different schools in a large
metropolitan city in the Southern California area. To maintain confidentiality, pseudonyms are
used in place of all teachers’ and schools’ names, as well as the district’s name. For both cases, I
began with two1-hour formal semi-structured interviews with each teacher followed by one 2-
hour formal semi-structured interviews with each teacher and then conducted four 2-hour
observations in each classroom for a total of 8 hours of observation. I will address each case
separately, describing each of the communities in which the schools were located and then
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 117

present the findings and analysis of each case study. This chapter will conclude with a cross-case
analysis between the two case studies and my revised conceptual framework.
Case Study #1: Mrs. Waters, Northbrook Charter Elementary School
Mrs. Waters was a fifth grade teacher at Atlantic Charter Elementary School.
2
Atlantic
Charter Elementary School was located in Northbrook, California, a large city of nearly
3,000,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Northbrook was located in Southern California
and Atlantic Charter Elementary School was located in a trendy urban neighborhood in the city,
near three major freeways, and surrounded by a variety of shops and restaurants. Mrs. Water’s
fifth grade class had 29 students with 12 boys and 17 girls.
3
Twenty-six students were White,
two students were Asian, and one student was Black.
4

Atlantic Charter Elementary School was a K-5 public elementary school that opened in
1924. There were 40 teachers on staff along with 13 special education teachers, 16
paraprofessionals, one principal, one assistant principal, one coordinator, and one assistant
principal, elementary instructional specialist. There were 1,014 students at Atlantic Charter in
2020 and the racial breakdown of the student population of the school was: White 73%, Hispanic
11%, Asian 10%, Black 4 %, Filipino <1%, Pacific Islander <1% (California Department of
Education, 2020). Atlantic Charter was a California Distinguished School and students
performed above state average on state tests (California School Dashboard, 2020).

2
I chose to use the term “Mrs.” As a part of each teacher’s pseudonym because this was how they represented
themselves to me and to their students.
3
I used the language of “boys” and “girls” to describe the students because there was no information available that
would have given insight into another way to represent the gender of the students. With that said, I recognize that
the use of this language reproduces the cisnormative notion that gender is binary. It is entirely possible that there
were students in the classroom whose gender identity did not match their gender assigned at birth.
4
This is the way that students presented themselves based on external information I saw as an observer.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 118

Mrs. Waters had been teaching for 22 years total, 18 years in elementary school and prior
to elementary school, she taught four years of pre-K. She had been teaching in her current district
for the last 15 years, with 10 of those years at Atlantic Charter Elementary School. She decided
to enter the teaching profession after working in Washington D.C. in government affairs/a
lobbying job because she desired a position that had more flexibility and less of a “hustle” that
she did not believe she could continue at the pace she was going. She desired more of a family
friendly atmosphere. She referred to her attire in her previous job as restrictive, stating that she
did not want to wear panty hose and a skirt anymore. She resisted teaching for a long time,
believing in myths about not making enough money or feeling as though she “would never
amount to anything.” She decided to begin a teaching career because she realized she could be in
a “family of teachers” and this was more inviting to her. Teaching ended up being good for her
family life and she enjoyed learning new things every day.
Mrs. Waters’s curricular and pedagogical choices demonstrated that she was primarily
grounded in a heteronormative perspective and also strived to bring a more nuanced perspective
to her students. Her choices were consistent with her articulation of her perspective. Thus, when
asked to articulate her beliefs with regards to gender identity and sexuality, she expressed
uncertainty, commenting on the newness to the topic and a struggle to identify vocabulary that
accurately described her beliefs. While reflecting on her beliefs, she also recognized she had
biases, naming them during her active reflection. Through her interactions with her students, she
revealed her ambivalence about moving away from heteronormative understandings of gender
identity and sexuality. Moreover, she avoided opportunities to challenge heteronormative
understandings of gender identity and sexuality by ignoring or silencing conversations when they
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 119

emerged in her classroom. Finally, she reproduced a dominant heteronormative perspective with
her students, reinforcing historically heteronormative understandings.
Finding 1. Mrs. Waters’s Espoused and Unconscious Beliefs Revealed Ambivalence about
Moving Away from Heteronormative Understandings of Gender and Sexuality
Mrs. Waters beliefs about gender identity and sexuality were not grounded wholly in
essentialist thought or social constructivism and this fluctuation between the two perceptions
caused great indecisiveness in her responses. While Mrs. Waters asserted that she had the desire
to challenge a worldview that promoted heterosexuality as the norm, she demonstrated through
her words that she remained heavily influenced by the hegemonic heteronormative belief system
(Warin & Adriany, 2017) she had internalized as a member of society. Thus, it was difficult for
her to commit fully to a more flexible, socially constructive approach that would allow for
different ways of making sense of gender identity and sexuality (Burr, 1995). Her interview
responses demonstrated the tension between how she saw the world and how she was seeking to
understand the world in three ways. First, this tension was revealed in Mrs. Water’s struggle to
identify vocabulary and use of traditional language to construct gender identity and sexuality and
in her frequent realization of this struggle. This recognition illustrated that she continued to use
traditional language and had not yet sought out new language that would allow her to develop
more novel ways of making sense of gender and sexuality and indicated that she was figuring out
how to integrate new language into her existing understandings. Second, she revealed that she
was in a state of transition when she indicated that situations and terminology concerning gender
identity and sexuality were novel to her. Her unfamiliarity was a signal that she was figuring out
how to integrate new language into her existing understandings of gender and sexuality that were
traditional. Finally, her recognition of her unconscious biases revealed her efforts to adopt a
more flexible orientation towards gender and sexuality. Her identity as a heterosexual and its
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 120

place in the hegemonic heteronormative realm conflicted with the intersection of her belief in
more fluid gender identities and sexualities. As discussed in finding two, this incongruity was
revealed in her curricular and pedagogical choices and demonstrated that she was both grounded
in a heteronormative perspective and more flexible understandings of gender identity and
sexuality at the same time.
Theme 1: Struggle to Identify Vocabulary and use of Traditional Language
Mrs. Waters struggled to identify vocabulary necessary to accurately describe her beliefs
related to gender identity and sexuality, relying instead on traditional language. That signified
she was still constrained in heteronormative beliefs, relying on narrow interpretations of gender
roles and sexuality, rather than seeking a more complex understanding of gender and sexuality
that would problematize sexual categories and reject traditional gender binary categories as
Queer theory suggests (Burr, 1995). The heteronormative belief system supports the idea that
things have a static set of characteristics and for Mrs. Waters, her vocabulary had not yet
transitioned from an essentialist mindset to a socially constructive one that relied on dynamic
human interaction and shared assumptions about reality (Foucault, 1977; Weeks, 1986). For
example, when asked to describe her experience with anyone in her life who had a gender
identity that had evolved over time, she explained,
My friend’s daughter and um…I think I’m in the middle of witnessing a student go
through a gender identity…um…I won’t call it a crisis; I’ll just call it
a…um…uh…awakening.
Here she began by consciously reflecting on her experience as she said, “I’m in the middle of
witnessing a student,” and then paused to find language she did not have as she said, “I won’t
call it a crisis,” a negative term, communicating the underlying idea that gender is fixed as male
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 121

or female and that it is a crisis to not know which gender one is. She shifted to say, I’ll just call it
a…um…uh… awakening,” adopting a neutral or positive term that suggested she was wrestling
with understanding gender as flexible. Her effort to find language, moving from crisis to
awakening, demonstrated her transition from a default grounding in fixed ideas about gender
toward a flexible, socially constructive term, underscoring her desire to be open to new
terminology. This transition is connected to the way Mrs. Waters constructed her identities as
both a heterosexual who was raised in a conventional household and a liberal who described her
beliefs about gender identity as being flexible. The intersection of her identities created a range
of discourses (Burr, 1995) that constantly affected the language she used and the actions she
took.
Another instance in which Mrs. Waters found herself struggling to identify the
appropriate language was when she tried to describe a boy in her class who exhibited what she
thought of as feminine behavior. In this example, she struggled with how she understood the
boy’s feminine behavior as a demonstration of his sexual orientation and her own ability to find
language to express how she interpreted his behavior. In her effort to find the “right” language to
explain why she thought he was demonstrating feminine behavior, she exchanged one traditional
characterization for another, defaulting to gendered language that communicated her
interpretation of this student’s sexual orientation. She explained,
…his um…diction was sort of a, that of someone reporting something to me and
complaining at the same time and I never said anything to him about the way he spoke to
me but it would be something like, “Mrs. Waters, let me tell you something.” (shifts
shoulders and shakes head side to side and changes her tone to one that communicates
flamboyance) And then he’d tell me something and I’d say, “Well, thank you for telling
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 122

me. That’s okay Alex, it’s gonna be okay.” And then he’d tell me, “But don’t you want it
like this, otherwise…” (using a similar motion and tone). So, he sort of had opinions
about things and I kinda believe that he was um… It wasn’t like opinionated meant he
was g…um…effeminate, I just thought he was rather effeminate and rather expressive in
a way that other boys his age were not and had pretty strong opinions about things. Is that
effeminate? I don’t know.
Mrs. Waters’s description communicated that she saw his willingness to complain to her as a
feminine behavior as she said he was “someone reporting something to me and complaining at
the same time.” The implication of her statement was that boys would not have been as willing to
share their dissatisfaction so directly. She supplemented this description by saying, “Mrs.
Waters, let me tell you something,” acting out his speech, shifting her shoulders and shaking her
head from side to side and changing her tone to one that was more flamboyant. Again, her
actions communicated that she took this to be feminine behavior, through her physical
representation of him shifting his shoulders and by changing the tone of her voice. She then
connected her interpretation of his expressive behavior alongside his opinionated speech to his
sexual orientation when she said, “So, he sort of had opinions about things and I kinda’ believe
that he was um…It wasn’t like opinionated meant he was g…um…effeminate,” [emphasis
added]. By communicating that this was feminine behavior and then translating the behavior into
a word that was likely the word “gay,” she revealed what she thought of feminine behavior and
how she associated the behavior with being gay. She then withdrew from “gay” and defaulted to
another traditional word, “effeminate,” a gendered characterization. Her choice to use the word
“effeminate” conveyed that she identified certain behaviors in society as being gender-specific
and the student’s expressive mannerisms in conjunction with his opiniated nature were those she
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 123

believed were traditionally performed by girls. She then embraced the term as she said, “I just
thought he was rather effeminate,” and added that she thought that he was, “rather expressive in
a way that other boys his age were not,” communicating that she believed “boys his age” who
were more masculine did not express themselves in such a way and signaling that her beliefs
were located in the heteronormative realm that involved alignment of biological sex, sexuality,
gender identity, and gender roles (Burr, 1995, Foucault, 1977). Finally, she questioned her word
choice as she said, “Is that effeminate? I don’t know,” recognizing that she continued to grapple
with locating suitable language that adequately described the relationship between her student’s
behavior that she perceived as feminine and how she believed it was a demonstration of his
sexual orientation. Her inquisitive nature and agnostic stance when she ended with, “I don’t
know,” signaled that she was actively thinking through how to incorporate new language and
understandings into her existing traditional perceptions of the relationship between gender
identity and sexuality and recognized that she was in the midst of this process.
Theme 2: Novel Language and Situations
Second, Mrs. Waters’s inability to fully commit to a socially constructive approach was
also demonstrated by her recognition of language and situations or conditions that were novel to
her and by her efforts to adjust her traditional language with more progressive vocabulary. This
indicated that she was wrestling with the socially constructed, binary nature of the language with
which she was familiar and was questioning the conventional mechanics and terms with which
she was comfortable. For example, when discussing the level of importance in using a person’s
preferred pronoun and specifically using the pronoun, “they” to address an individual, Mrs.
Waters said,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 124

R: Well, let me tell you this is novel to me, it is very new and as a teacher and a
teacher of grammar, it is a little bit new and that’s not a euphemism for, “I don’t
like it!” It’s a euphemism kinda’ for, “I have to get a little more used to it, but
I’m not uncomfortable with…to doing it, that’s all.” It’s about just kind of getting
used to saying “they” or…but otherwise…“they” is the only thing I have a hard
time with with grammar.
I: Do you believe it’s important or I mean like a level of…
R: Oh yes! Very important. Honor that person’s identity and honor that person’s
uh…maybe transformation that would be accepted here in this environment in
our country but maybe not somewhere else and whether they’d be persecuted in
other places, ya’ know I’d wanna’ honor it because it’s important to that person,
likely. I didn’t mean to sound all grouchy like, “They is weird! Hmm…I can’t
figure out how to grammatically arrange that!”
5

Mrs. Waters’s hesitance to expand her grammar was reflected in her initial response when she
described the language of “they” as “novel” and “new,” then redirected to “and as a teacher and a
teacher of grammar, it is a little bit new.” She deflected the core idea, the importance in using an
individual’s preferred pronoun, with statements about the newness of the word, illustrating the
tension between how she saw the world and how she was seeking to understand it. Each
statement demonstrated how she attempted to distance herself from the adoption of progressive
language. By extension, her hesitance demonstrated her default inclination to operate within a
fixed, binary interpretation of gender (Burr, 1995). Mrs. Waters expressed this ambivalence with
regards to teaching grammar and how the employment of “they” would mean a shift in her

5
R = Respondent, I = Interviewer
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 125

gender interpretation as she says, “…it is a little bit new and that’s not a euphemism for, “I don’t
like it!” It’s a euphemism kinda’ for, “I have to get a little more used to it.” She indicated that
she needed more time to adjust, which implied she was willing to transition from an essentialist
mindset to one that was socially constructed. For Mrs. Waters, using a plural pronoun to address
a single person defied traditional grammar rules and conflicted with her fixed set of beliefs. She
recognized that positioning herself in a vague, fluid space with regards to gender was something
novel and she needed time to fully commit to this flexible approach. She eventually expressed
her belief that it was “very important” to use the correct pronoun for an individual in order to
“honor that person’s identity and honor that person’s […] maybe transformation” and
supplemented her belief with the idea that one’s gender “transformation” was accepted here in
the United States but “maybe not somewhere else [where they may be] persecuted.” She stated
this as if to telegraph that she believed it was important to expand our language in order to
protect individuals whose pronoun is gender neutral.
In another instance, Mrs. Waters’s struggle to adopt a more socially constructive
approach to gender was demonstrated when she recognized a situation a novel to her and realized
that she was projecting her emotions as a mother onto her friend who was going through that
situation. This indicated that she was wrestling with society’s fixed definitions of male and
female, which tied certain attributes to each gender (Burr, 1995). As she spoke, Mrs. Waters
envisioned how the mother of a child going through a gender transition might grapple with what
she believed to be the exchange of one gender for another. Mrs. Waters did not discuss her
friend’s child but focused instead on the mother and said,
Well, regarding my friend’s daughter uh…it was novel, uh I actually had not experienced
that ever and uh…I mostly thought of my friend more than the daughter and thought
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 126

about what I would feel like, be like in her position of just seeing her um…(clicks
tongue) feel a little sad as if she was saying goodbye to one person and trying to get to
know another. So um I didn’t feel sad for her I just kinda’ understood that that’s what she
was…going through. But it didn’t make me sad, it just made me feel empathic, I guess
that she was saying goodbye to somebody. That was my interpretation of it too.
Mrs. Waters’s hesitance to expound upon a situation regarding someone whose gender was
evolving was first reflected in her response as she said, “Well, regarding my friend’s daughter
uh…it was novel, uh and I actually had not experienced that ever,” then redirected to her
connection to her friend as a mother as she said, “I mostly thought of my friend more than the
daughter and thought about what I would feel like.” She averted the topic of the child’s
experience and what it might have meant for the child to be discovering her/his/zir identity and
instead reflected on her friend’s experience as a mother. This exemplified her ambivalence about
moving away from heteronormative understandings of gender and sexuality and how she had
internalized society’s hegemonic heteronormative belief system that favored fixed gender. Mrs.
Waters was less comfortable with gender fluidity from a mother’s perspective because she saw
the transformation as binary, moving from one to the other, a daughter to a son, rather than a
space where both or neither, as with individuals who were gender nonbinary, could exist. She
indicated that a gender transformation forced an individual to lose the attributes of one gender
when transitioning to another and demonstrated her unease as she said, “[I would] feel a little sad
as if she was saying goodbye to one person and trying to get to know another.” She was unable
to focus on the individual transitioning as doing so elicited feelings of loss and sadness for her.
Implied in her response was her belief that a gender transition would be difficult for her as a
parent due to the lived experience between a parent and a child over time. Mrs. Waters’s belief,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 127

that everything she once knew about the child was gone with the change in gender indicated
more of a deficit for the parent of a child transitioning rather than an asset for the child who
transitioned.
Theme 3: Unconscious Bias
Finally, Mrs. Waters revealed her efforts to espouse a more flexible, socially constructive
approach toward gender identity and sexuality as she often recognized and consistently named
her unconscious biases. This indicated she was transitioning from simply assuming that things in
our world appeared as they did, automatically denoting “real divisions” (Burr, 1995, p. 3) to
seeing the world from a more social constructivist stance. Because Mrs. Waters gained insight
into her existing unconscious biases, she was able to continuously experience revelations that her
default inclination to construct heteronormative gender identity and sexual orientations required
more scrutiny.
One example of Mrs. Waters’s discovering that she carried an unconscious bias was
evident as she talked about a person in her life she interacted with whose sexuality was described
to her as fluid or evolving, she described the experience she had when she learned her yoga
teacher was not heterosexual as she had thought but pansexual by saying,
R: I’d call her like a…she’s sort of a leader in my life. I don’t look to her for
everything, but I look to her um. . . she’s a yogi guru and I just, I kinda’ look to
her for like. . . I’ve always thought of her as like, “Look at that strong-ass
woman!” She’s so strong, she’s so awesome. I wonder what she does in her
private life. I wonder if she had…I immediately went to, “I bet she’s so sought
after by like guys!” I went straight to that and it wasn’t really that at all, but I
ended up knowing about her and…
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 128

I: You saw strength and you saw leadership and…
R: Yeah, and she’s beautiful. She’s gorgeous.
I: And do you think she would describe herself as fluid?
R: Uh…I think so because she described herself as pansexual.
I: Oh yeah.
R: My understanding of that was that she was gonna’ feel sexual attraction to
different genders at different times and she’s not gonna’ hold back.
As Mrs. Waters spoke, she discovered she held a bias with respect to the way she understood her
yoga teacher’s sexual orientation. This realization is revealed in her language that begins with
her talking about how she was an influential female figure in her life as she said, “she’s sort of a
leader in my life,” and “I’ve always thought of her as like, ‘Look at that strong-ass woman!’
She’s so strong, she’s so awesome.” She was attributing these characteristics of strength and
leadership to her teacher’s gender as a female and their importance to her as, implied in what she
said, they were not generally a set of characteristics associated with women. As an extension of
that idea, she acknowledged she was biased in assuming that the teacher was heterosexual when
she said, “I bet she’s so sought after by like guys!” She recognized that she went straight to that
assumption, defaulting to heterosexual as the norm or the stable sexuality in opposition to non-
heterosexual. Mrs. Waters also mentioned the teacher’s physical beauty as she said, “Yeah, and
she’s beautiful. She’s gorgeous,” as if to also transmit the way all these factors, her strength and
leadership in conjunction with her appearance, communicated to her that the teacher must have
been heterosexual. It was not until the yoga teacher identified herself as pansexual on social
media that Mrs. Waters understood her yoga teacher as something outside of the narrow
interpretation of sexuality to which she defaulted. As a married, heterosexual woman herself who
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 129

was raised in a conventional, heteronormative household, she was biased toward heterosexuality
as the stable sexuality but by consciously reflecting on her assumption and naming her bias, she
was able to begin to understand sexuality outside her norm. Mrs. Waters’s efforts to move away
from the heterosexual center were evident as she clarified her new construction of the yoga
teacher’s fluid sexuality when she said, “My understanding of that was that she was gonna’ feel
sexual attraction to different genders at different times and she’s not gonna’ hold back.” This
recognition demonstrated that she was wrestling with what she understood as gender identity and
sexuality and was moving closer to understanding things from a socially constructivist and
flexible stance.
In another instance, Mrs. Waters was actively discovering her unconscious bias that her
identity as a female was inextricably linked with her having female genitalia and that the absence
of such “body parts” called into question her femininity and her sexuality. This signified she was
recognizing she held heteronormative understandings of gender, in which characteristics are
fixed such as genitalia that align with one’s biological sex (Burr, 1995, Foucault, 1977), but
revealed a willingness to adopt a more social constructivist stance or flexible approach (Burr,
1995). Because Mrs. Waters was discovering her unconscious biases regarding genitalia and
their association with her perceptions of gender identity and sexuality, she realized that what she
considered to be her norm may need to be broadened and required further examination. For
example, when describing how gender and sexuality were revealed in the way she made sense of
gender identity, she expressed the key role genitalia played in reinforcing her femininity and in
her ability to have a sexual relationship by saying,
R: …when my buddy was going through a hard time with her um, losing her breasts,
I thought about it all the time in terms of like, how would that be to not have
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 130

something that is so like essential to feeling like a woman? And um…so I do
think that feminine body parts are…I do think like that’s a big part of my identity
and I wouldn’t judge someone for having a mastectomy, but I wonder about that
possibility like, “How would that feel?” So, the norm is sorta’ my paradigm of
like what sorta’ ought to be feminine or female or uh…
I: And thinking of it from a female’s perspective?
R: Yes, so of course that would influence me.
I: How, if at all, does your sexuality get revealed in the way that you make sense of
gender identity?
R: Well, I’m gonna say it’s kinda basic like, “Oh there’s a woman and her body parts
and I identify with like, this is gonna sound so basic but I just identify like uh…a
woman and her body parts and once again I’d start to think of like the absence of
those parts. Or like I had an old friend I hadn’t talked to in so, so, so, so
long and then I heard she died. And she had had cervical cancer and the worst
part about it was that she’d had these humiliating moments apparently where
she’d lost her cervix, lost her abilities to have intercourse and everything about it
sounds like it was just horribly painful and like a struggle and so I guess for me I
think the sexuality part is like the parts mean something, does that make sense?
The parts, the body parts are like what um…help I guess, oh it sounds so old
fashioned now that I’m saying it, but I guess they sorta’ help identify who I am as
a woman and the absence of them might bring a lot of doubt into that.
I: And so as a straight woman do you think of the gender identity of a human, of a
person in a particular way um…how do you think being straight and paired up
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 131

with a man–does that affect sort of how you feel or how you think that might
affect one’s relationship […]
R: Oh, I see, yeah…um…okay like I said though like the absence of something,
might be a big um…I’m not gonna’ say turn off I’m just saying like a big
impediment. And like my own absence of something. […] But…I think it
wouldn’t lessen somebody’s essence if they or I lost something, I’d still be me.
I’d still be the human that I am or my husband say, like if he like had testicular
cancer, he would still be the man I love and it didn’t matter how many body parts
he had or didn’t have, but I do associate that sort of identity with having parts, I
guess and that’s gonna sound kind of old fashioned and I don’t mean it like,
“Everybody should have parts!” I don’t mean that.
In this statement, Mrs. Waters revealed her predisposition to see gender identity as intertwined
with the presence of female genitalia. As she described her experience of a friend who lost her
breasts to cancer she said, “How would that be to not have something that is so like essential to
feeling like a woman? And um…so I do think that feminine body parts are…I do think like that’s
a big part of my identity.” She attributed having breasts to her identity as a female because her
norm or paradigm for a female was a person with breasts and she actively questioned how it
would be to not have this essential female part. The further Mrs. Waters engaged in reflection,
the more she discovered her own default inclination was a narrow interpretation of gender in
which genitalia align with one’s biological sex and how the absence of having genitalia that was
in alignment with the female gender would affect her identity as a woman.
She then reflected on another friend, this time with cervical cancer, when describing how
she made sense of gender with regards to her sexuality and became more aware of her struggle to
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 132

more broadly interpret gender and genitalia alignment when she said, “Well, I’m gonna say it’s
kinda basic like, “Oh there’s a woman and her body parts and I identify with like, this is gonna
sound so basic but I just identify like uh…a woman and her body parts and once again I’d start to
think of like the absence of those parts.” She recognized that her gender identity and femininity
may be more complex than simply possessing body parts that align with one’s biological sex
using the word, “basic,” but struggled with distancing herself from the heterosexual norm that
aligned gender and genitalia. Mrs. Waters demonstrated that body parts were also an essential for
her sexuality as she spoke of the difficulties her friend who lost her cervix from cancer had when
she said, “…the worst part about it was that she’d had these humiliating moments apparently
where she’d lost her cervix, lost her abilities to have intercourse…” She used the word,
“humiliating” to convey the emotional pain she projected on her friend who had lost the female
genitalia necessary to have intercourse and she continued to reflect on the significance of one
losing their female genitalia as she said, “everything about it sounds like it was just horribly
painful and like a struggle and so I guess for me I think the sexuality part is like the parts mean
something, does that make sense?” Her focus was primarily on the disease taking some of her
femininity from her friend and how “horribly painful” an ordeal like that would be. Mrs.
Waters’s alignment of gender identity and genitalia followed the traditional hegemonic
heteronormative fixed system. She named her use of this system and its effect on her identity as a
woman as she said, “The parts, the body parts are like what um…help I guess, oh it sounds so
old fashioned now that I’m saying it, but I guess they sorta’ help identify who I am as a woman
and the absence of them might bring a lot of doubt into that.” Although she believed that the idea
of the “parts” helping her feel feminine sounded “so old fashioned,” she had difficulty moving
away from the idea that losing those parts would make her feel less like a woman.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 133

Regarding sexuality, Mrs. Waters’s focus was on the how the absence of genitalia would
hinder intercourse. She stated that her attraction to her husband would not lessen, however, she
implied that the absence of “parts” would be an obstacle to intercourse as she said, “I’m not
gonna’ say turn off I’m just saying like a big impediment. And like my own absence of
something.” Here, she intertwined gender, gender identity, and sexuality as she implied the
absence of her genitalia would be a “big impediment” to the act of intercourse and at the same
time the absence of genitalia would bring doubt into how she felt as a woman who was part of a
heterosexual relationship. She did not intertwine the absence of genitalia with her identity as a
human or individual, seeing her gender and sexuality as being separate from a core human
existence as she said, “I think it wouldn’t lessen somebody’s essence if they or I lost something,
I’d still be me. I’d still be the human that I am.” She also did not see her entire relationship with
her husband as being intertwined with gender or sexuality, and believed the love she had for him
went beyond the construct of gender and the act of intercourse as she said, “…or my husband
say, like if he like had testicular cancer, he would still be the man I love, and it didn’t matter how
many body parts he had or didn’t have.” Here, she stated that he would “still be the man” she
loved regardless of his “body parts,” implying that, unlike her own gender identity, her
husband’s gender identity did not rely on the presence of genitalia to her. The recognition that
her identity as a woman and a heterosexual relying heavily on the presence of genitalia sounded
“old fashioned” demonstrated that Mrs. Waters was wrestling with the connections she made
among gender, gender identity, and sexuality and showed her reticence to see them as
independent aspects of one’s identity.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 134

Finding 2. Mrs. Waters’s Curricular and Pedagogical Choices Indicated that She Missed
Opportunities to Disrupt Gender Identity and Sexuality Norms with her Students.
Mrs. Waters’s curricular and pedagogical choices demonstrated that she was grounded in
a heteronormative perspective while she was grappling with alternative understandings of gender
identity and sexuality. This instability between the two perceptions caused avoidance in her
curricular and pedagogical plans when it came to disrupting gender identity and sexuality norms
with her students. Society perpetuates a heteronormative ideology that supports oppressive
gender and sexual ideologies associated with power and dominance (Foucault, 1977). Mrs.
Waters demonstrated through her interactions the ways in which she continued to hold on to a
traditional set of ideas that conformed to this heteronormative ideology, while also
demonstrating an ostensible desire to let go of them. The impreciseness of Mrs. Waters’s practice
was seen in her limited interpretations of gender roles and sexuality and in her inability to engage
students with pedagogy and content that contradict the heteronormative narrative, consistent with
assumptions in my conceptual framework. Her interview and observation data demonstrated
missed opportunities to confront heteronormative ideologies in three ways. First, it appeared that
she was attempting to disrupt heteronormative examples but was hindered by a vagueness in
clearly defining the goals of the lesson. Second, she ignored or silenced disruptive conversations
that emerged in her classroom. Third, she inadvertently reproduced and reinforced historically
heteronormative understandings with her class without presenting evidence of instances that ran
counter to these understandings.
Theme 1: Attempting to Disrupt Heteronormative Examples
Through her interactions with her students, Mrs. Waters revealed her ambivalence about
moving away from heteronormative understandings of gender and sexuality. She did this by
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 135

presenting students with lessons that appeared intended to disrupt traditional gender norms but
were lacking in clarity when it came to the goals of the lessons, and instead inadvertently
reinforced traditional gender norms. This lack of clarity and unintended reinforcement of
traditional gender norms signified Mrs. Waters’s unsteadiness between society’s heteronormative
ideologies that supported the oppression of flexible sexuality and gender identities and
alternative understandings that would disrupt these systems of power (Burr, 1995; Foucault,
1977). For example, she demonstrated her inability to clearly define the seemingly disruptive
goals of a lesson and move away from traditional oppressive gender ideologies in the following
interaction. She introduced the lesson about Paul Revere and Sybil Ludington by asking students
to compare the two figures saying, “Today’s lesson is called, ‘Who wore it best?’ Just kidding!
‘Who did it best?’” having the students first read aloud Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem,
“Paul Revere’s Ride.” She then had students silently read an article on Sybil Ludington, a
revolutionary war heroine who rode on horseback to alert militia forces of the coming of British
forces entitled, “Was There Really a Teenage, Female Paul Revere?” from Smithsonian.com.
This was followed by an exchange between Mrs. Waters and her students:
T: We are going to look at some history! Herstory! (Mrs. Waters passed out the
article to students and asked them to read it quietly)
T: Let’s talk about Sybil Ludington. Any surprise?
MS1: I didn’t know about her at all.
MS2: Yeah, I didn’t know until I read this.
T: They say she’s the female version of Paul Revere, but does she have to be the
female version of something?
SS: (weakly) Yes?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 136

(Mrs. Waters explained that American history was not just about why wars were
started or what was in the constitution. She explained that we must give females
their due and make sure that we consider females and their contributions in
history. Next, she asked students questions about who had the power during Sybil
Ludington’s time.)
T: Who was making the laws then?
FS: White…rich, landowning men.
T: She may or may not have made the ride…hard to know for sure because of who
wrote history then.
T: Tell me some facts about her though. What else do we know from the article?
FS: She was the daughter of a local militia commander.
FS: There are stamps and other things made in her image.
MS3: Is this a story?
T: It is a story unless we have some primary source.
(Teacher also brings up fact that Ludington was turned into a heroine or a villain
depending on the times.)
T: She kind of upset history! She’s a bit of a disrupter! I want you to think Paul
Revere vs. Sybil Ludington and what ways did each contribute to the events of the
war? Talk in your groups now.
(Students are not discussing much regarding Ludington or Revere. Poem books
are being collected and students start talking about other things. Teacher does
not elicit responses from students on her question.)
6

6
T = Teacher, SS = Students as a group, FS = Female Student, MS = Male Student
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 137

In this interaction with her students, Mrs. Waters’s pedagogical choice to introduce the lesson on
Revere and Ludington by saying, “Today’s lesson is called, ‘Who wore it best?’ Just kidding!
‘Who did it best?’” implied that the lesson would be a direct comparison between the quality of
the acts of each hero, however she did not present students with the details of Ludington’s ride
before presenting an article that explored the possibility that the story lacked in reliable evidence.
By doing so, she avoided pursuing the comparison between the two equally heroic figures and
any disruptive qualities of the lesson were unclear. This ambiguity revealed Mrs. Waters’s
unsteadiness between society’s heteronormative ideologies and alternative understandings of
gender identity and sexuality (Burr, 1995) as she was not grounded in pedagogy aimed to
disrupt. Mrs. Waters communicated uncertainty as she introduced a lesson about a female
revolutionary war heroine that upset traditional gender norms saying, “We are going to look at
some history!” and switched to “Herstory!” She revealed she was grounded in a heteronormative
perspective that maintained oppressive gender ideologies concomitant with power and
dominance as she chose to use Longfellow’s well-known poem detailing the heroic acts of Paul
Revere and in comparison, chose a brief, online article that focused mainly on challenging the
validity of the lesser-known heroine, Sybil Ludington. Choosing to use two completely different
types of informational texts, she missed the opportunity to utilize content about Ludington that
would have introduced the heroine in a similar way to that of Revere in “Paul Revere’s Ride.”
Neither the article nor the poem was a primary source, however Mrs. Waters did not discuss how
Longfellow’s poem of Paul Revere, written in 1860, often thought of as history, is merely based
on a primary source, a deposition prepared by Revere for the Massachusetts Provincial Congress
in 1775. By providing uneven content between the two figures, presenting the occurrence of
Ludington’s heroic act as questionable, and leaving out the discussion of the fairy tale qualities
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 138

of Revere’s poem, Mrs. Waters avoided an opportunity to compare the two texts, disrupt
historically oppressive gender ideologies, or promote a discussion with her students about the
control men had over what was written at the time of the revolution. In addition to the
imbalanced content between the two chosen texts, Mrs. Waters choice to have “Paul Revere’s
Ride” read aloud while the article about Sybil Ludington was read quietly, conveyed a subtle
message about the differing levels of power and importance between the two pieces. After her
students finished reading the article on their own, Mrs. Waters said, “Let’s talk about Sybil
Ludington. Any surprise?” Two students answered that Ludington’s ride was new information
for them. Here, Mrs. Waters missed the opportunity to discuss the details of Ludington’s historic
ride in more depth and redirected what could have been a discussion about the gender disrupting
Ludington only to bring Revere back into the conversation as she said, “They say she’s the
female version of Paul Revere, but does she have to be the female version of something?”
Seemingly confused by the question, her students weakly replied, “Yes,” and Mrs. Waters
attempted to explain the point she was trying to make that it was important to teach about other
perspectives including the contributions of women throughout history. She then brought students
around to the idea of power and dominance by asking, “Who was making the laws then?” A
student responded saying, “White…rich, landowning men.” Mrs. Waters responded, “She may or
may not have made the ride…hard to know for sure because of who wrote history then,” and
while she confirmed that control of what was written was held by men, she confused any
potential for disruptive goals in the lesson by suggesting that Ludington may not have “made the
ride” and again missed the opportunity to discuss in greater detail heteronormative gender and
sexual ideologies associated with power and dominance. After a student asked if Ludington’s
ride was a story, Mrs. Waters responded, “It is a story unless we have some primary source.”
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 139

Mrs. Waters did not use this opportunity to discuss with students that Longfellow’s poem was
not a primary source nor did she explore what did exist in the form of a primary source for Paul
Revere, signifying her default inclination to adhere to heteronormative perceptions of history and
her predisposition to challenge any disrupter to such perceptions. Mrs. Waters ended the lesson
by restating that Ludington was a disrupter as she said, “She kind of upset history! She’s a bit of
a disrupter!” but then asked her students to work with each other to compare each of the figures
as she said, “I want you to think Paul Revere versus Sybil Ludington and what ways did each
contribute to the events of the war? Talk in your groups now.” Additionally, she asked a student
to collect the books containing the poems. The students did not appear to be discussing the two
figures and Mrs. Waters missed an opportunity to follow up with students and gather students’
comparisons. Mrs. Waters’s choice to avoid interaction with her students following the lesson
confirmed the ways in which she continued to oscillate between traditional ideas that conformed
to heteronormative ideologies and alternative understandings that would allow for the
introduction of historic figures who disrupted heteronormativity.
In another example, Mrs. Waters exhibited avoidance in her pedagogical plans when it
came to a moment that had the potential to disrupt gender identity and sexuality norms with her
students as she moved away from a conversation that began with sexism and shifted the
conversation to issues of race. Mrs. Waters came to have this conversation after she had students
working in small groups, writing out the words to “The Star-Spangled Banner” from memory.
After they finished writing it out, she was helping students to analyze the lyrics and punctuation
in the poem when she asked their opinion regarding the tradition in which only men had to
remove their hats when saying the pledge or singing the national anthem at baseball games and
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 140

whether or not her students believed this tradition was sexist. In an exchange with her students,
she said,
T: Do you think it’s sexist that men always had to remove their hats?
SS: (Emphatically) Yes!
T: Who passed the laws?
(She brings up laws relating to the Pledge of Allegiance. Then begins
speaking about the choice to take a knee or stand. She states that she
respects the choice to kneel but reminds the students to be respectful if they
are ever going to do that. She brings up Colin Kaepernick.)
T: He did that because his country oppresses black people.
In this brief interaction with her students, Mrs. Waters complicated what she seemed to initially
intend to be a discussion about sexism in which men were on the receiving end of the sexist act.
It appeared that she was attempting to raise her students’ consciousness to the possibility that the
tradition—only men removing their hats—during the Pledge of Allegiance or the national
anthem at baseball games was sexist for men. Yet, she struggled to clearly problematize this
issue. She asked students their opinion, “Do you think it’s sexist that men always had to remove
their hats?” After the students responded, “Yes!” she immediately asked, “Who passed the
laws?” possibly signaling that men were in control of the laws and traditions and therefore men
could not be on the receiving end of sexism since they held the power. Her question, “Who
passed the laws?” indicated an effort to point out the juxtaposition of the power men had as they
were the ones passing the laws, and how women had less power and were subjected to the
control that such gendered laws and traditions projected on them. This question presented an
opportunity to discuss how such a tradition expected men to remove their hats, while at the same
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 141

time expected women to leave their hats on, thereby subjecting women to that control. Mrs.
Waters expressed her unconscious limitations by avoiding this opportunity and complicating the
issues of gender and control. She redirected the discussion focused on men and sexism to issues
of men and race. She did this by bringing up the San Francisco 49ers football player, Colin
Kaepernick, and by focusing on his decision to take a knee during the national anthem to protest
police brutality and racial inequality in the United States. Mrs. Waters presented what she
seemingly thought was an analogous event, equating the traditions during the Pledge of
Allegiance at a baseball game to that of a football game and sexism with the racial oppression
that Colin Kaepernick faced. The lesson resulted in unclear goals that complicated the message
she seemingly intended to present. Here, she moved from the juxtaposition of men and women to
a juxtaposition of men and race and added in the topic of respectful protest for issues of racial
injustice as she said, “He did that because his country oppresses black people.” This interaction
indicated that Mrs. Waters was lacking confidence in the topic she seemingly set out to discuss
with her students and appeared to instead rely on students merely absorbing the subject matter as
it was presented with several juxtaposing elements and without further discussion.
Theme 2: Ignoring or Silencing Conversations that Disrupt
Second, she avoided opportunities to challenge heteronormative understandings of gender
identity and sexuality by ignoring or silencing conversations when they emerged in her
classroom. This inability to actively enact pedagogy that challenged the dominant interpretation
of gender and sexuality in her classroom signified Mrs. Waters’s uncertainty as she was
influenced by a heteronormative belief system that mediated her choices to have conversations
that were counter to the status quo because they might threaten the values of the dominant
identity group to which she belonged (Burr, 1995). Interactions with students emerged, both
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 142

within the context of a lesson and during transitions between lessons in which Mrs. Waters
avoided opportunities to overtly disrupt heteronormativity in her classroom. In one such instance,
she bypassed the opportunity to discuss disrupting gender stereotypes with her students. The
students were reading, The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster out loud. They had gotten to the
part in the story where the character, Short Shrift, a police officer, came upon a disturbance in a
market and unjustly blamed the disturbance on the main character, Milo. Ms. Waters stopped at a
line read aloud by a student in which the character reprimanded Milo and said, “Boys are the
cause of everything.” She asked her students,
T: How many of you feel that you have been unjustly persecuted because you are a
boy or girl? What was that like? What did you say? Did you say something?
Could you say something?
FS: (raises hand) When I used to play basketball, a lot of people would say that girls
can’t play basketball.
(Mrs. Waters introduces gross generalizations and clarifies what “gross” means)
T: Not a booger on a desk, but something that is big, wide. (She gives an
example of a gross generalization) “All girls are bad at basketball!” Are all girls
bad at basketball?
SS: No!
T: Are all girls good at basketball? [emphasis added] No! When I was getting my
degree, questions like, “Are girls good at science?” would come up. How many of
you crush it on the pitch? (referring to their soccer abilities)
(Several boys and girls hands go up)
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 143

T: How many of you crush it here in class? (Several boys and girls hands go up)
What do they call this gross generalization?
MS: Sexist? (He giggles along with his male desk partner)
T: Sexist, yeah but what do we call it when we say, “I am always right?”
SS: You’re bragging...selfish...
T: I’m obnoxious but I’m exaggerating.
(She then introduces hyperbole as “Exaggerated text, something we use in
literature.”)
In this interaction, Mrs. Waters did not disrupt gender stereotypes with her students in depth. She
avoided the conversation she initiated when she asked her students a question about gender
persecution, following the reading of a comment from a character in The Phantom Tollbooth and
changed it to one that seemed focused on the idea that individuals could not be categorized as all
good or all bad at something. Stopping at the character, Short Shift’s line in the novel, “Boys are
the cause of everything,” Mrs. Waters used this character’s comment to allow her students the
chance to share their connections to the material as she said, “How many of you feel that you
have been unjustly persecuted because you are a boy or girl?” After a female student shared her
experiences as a basketball player and said, “When I used to play basketball, a lot of people
would say that girls can’t play basketball,” Mrs. Waters shifted the focus of the lesson by moving
on to defining the figurative language terms, gross generalizations and hyperbole. She
characterized the student’s comment as a gross generalization. She first jumped to another
meaning for the word, “gross,” checking in with students to be sure they understood that “gross”
meant, “big, wide” in this instance and not a “booger on a desk.” She then continued, providing
an example of a gross generalization, by saying, “‘All girls are bad at basketball!’ Are all girls
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 144

bad at basketball?” The students answered, “No!” She then shifted to the other end of that
spectrum and asked, “Are all girls good at basketball?” and answered her own question with,
“No!” In her attempts to exemplify a gross generalization, Mrs. Waters obfuscated what seemed
to be her goal of having her students explore their personal connections to gender persecution
and sexist stereotypes. She then used her students’ abilities on the soccer field and their abilities
in the classroom in what seemed to be an intentional effort to show how exaggerated claims
about one’s abilities in a sport or activity can be made that are not meant to be taken literally as
she asked, “How many of you crush it on the pitch?” Students of both genders enthusiastically
raised their hands. She followed with, “How many of you crush it here in class?” Again, both
boys and girls raised their hands. Mrs. Waters then asked what type of gross generalization was
just exemplified? A male student tentatively answered, “Sexist?” laughing a little as he spoke,
with his desk partner laughing as well. Although it is not possible to know what led the boys to
offer this, the way the lesson flowed established the idea that boys and girls were being treated
differently based on gender. They were also repeatedly asked by her to weigh in on whether
something was sexist. Mrs. Waters revealed her hesitancy to fully flesh out the disruptive
discussion of sexism as she said, “Sexist, yeah but what do we call it when we say, ‘I am always
right?’” She actively avoided the student’s response that addressed her initial topic regarding
gender persecution when he answered with, “sexist,” while moving on to hyperbolic language,
thereby making her transmission of the goals of the lesson unclear. By placing greater value on
the use of gross generalizations and hyperbole in this moment, she avoided an opportunity to
challenge heteronormative understandings of gender identity and sexuality as a conversation was
emerging in her classroom. Stopping at this character’s line in the novel communicated a
willingness to explore the topic of sexist stereotypes however, shifting from one idea to the next
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 145

without fully exploring her students’ connections to their own gender persecution communicated
the uncertainty she experienced as a result of being influenced by a heteronormative belief
system which ultimately affected her ability to disrupt gender identity and sexuality in this
interaction.
In another example that happened during a transition between lessons, Mrs. Waters
avoided an opportunity to overtly disrupt heteronormativity and the use of gendered language
among the students in her classroom. A male student, Jarrod, who Mrs. Waters communicated
during her interview as a student who exceled academically, was an athlete, actor, and member
of chorus, recently used the traditionally feminine name Sarah as a password for a game login in
class. Mrs. Waters defined Jarrod as “very strong” and “a confident little boy.” She indicated in
her interviews that she believed he found the use of Sarah as a password funny, was not worried
about him, and said, “I don’t think that there’s a dichotomous personality going on. I think that
he’s just playing with words and names.” However, an interaction with his fellow students
indicated that he may not have been clearly located in a single-gendered space. In this
interaction, while Jarrod was leaving the classroom, several students said goodbye to him using
Sarah instead of Jarrod.
SS: Byyyeee Sarah! (says to Jarrod in a playful, teasing manner as he leaves early
from class.)
(Jarrod smiles and does not correct the students as they laugh)
T: What do you want to be called, Jarrod or Sarah?
J: It’s a joke but if they want to call me Sarah, that’s okay.
T: (Smiles) That makes me smile because that’s my daughter’s name.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 146

(More students laugh and say, “Bye Sarah!” Jarrod leaves the room smiling.)
7

In this interaction, Mrs. Waters publicly addressed the interaction between the students without
intervening further to pursue the genesis of what was explained to her as a joke. She asked,
“What do you want to be called, Jarrod or Sarah?” as if to communicate to her students that she
was paying attention to the interaction and to potentially communicate to Jarrod that she could
create a safe space for him if he needed it. Jarrod then publicly responded, “It’s a joke but if they
want to call me Sarah, that’s okay.” Mrs. Waters then redirected the conversation, focusing on
the name, “Sarah,” and said, “That makes me smile because that’s my daughter’s name,”
communicating that she either did not consider the interaction to be something of real concern or
that she was not willing to explore the possibility that her students were being unkind to a fellow
student who was potentially struggling with his gender identity. Identities that fall outside of the
dominant identity groups, such as a boy who appears to express traditionally feminine qualities,
are marginalized in our society and webs of power and social discourse uphold these societal
practices, supporting the identity of the status quo (Foucault, 1977). Consistent with arguments
put forth by Burr (1995), if Mrs. Waters challenged the dominant discourse in which students in
her class used a girl’s name to tease a boy, she would be engaging in a revolutionary act, pushing
back against such normative societal practices. She avoided engaging in a discussion with Jarrod
both privately and publicly to find out more and in doing so, avoided the opportunity to overtly
disrupt the use of hegemonic gendered language by her students. Drawing on arguments put
forth by Burr (1995), Mrs. Waters’s avoidance indicated she was adhering to the values of the
dominant identity groups who find change that is counter to the status quo threatening.
Consistent with arguments Foucault (1977) presented, Mrs. Waters was grounded in a

7
J = Jarrod
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 147

heteronormative perspective and this part of her identity was being used as a tool of social order
and control which upheld the use of gendered language as a joke in her classroom and affected
her choice to exclude pedagogy that would investigate the origin of such a joke.
Theme 3: Reproducing and Reinforcing Historically Heteronormative Understandings
Finally, Mrs. Waters routinely reproduced a dominant heteronormative perspective with
her students, reinforcing historically heteronormative understandings without presenting
evidence of instances that ran counter to these understandings. She did this by inserting
heterosexual information in spaces that did not require the presence of such information and by
missing opportunities to present non-heterosexual information where heterosexual information
was supplied. Consistent with the arguments put forth by Martino and Cumming-Potvin (2016),
Meyer et al. (2016), Stein and Plummer (1994), Sumara and Davis (1999), and Warin and
Adriany (2017), Mrs. Waters reproduced and reinforced heteronormativity which indicated how
she constructed her intersectionalized identities that were connected to her pedagogical decisions
and her choices to include disruptive content. Drawing on arguments put forth by Burr (1995)
and Foucault (1977), Mrs. Waters’s hegemonic heterosexual narrative maintained societal
practices that supported the identity of the status quo while marginalizing identities that fall
outside the dominant identity groups since they question existing social arrangements and
practices of society. For example, Mrs. Waters demonstrated the reproduction and reinforcement
of heteronormative understandings when she directed her students to greet her husband who
delivered her cell phone to the classroom where her students were learning a dance to go with the
song, “Footloose.” The brief interaction with her students went as follows.
(Students are in dance class learning a dance routine)
T: I forgot my cell phone. My husband is dropping it off.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 148

(There is a knock at the classroom door. Husband walks inside and hands cell
phone to Mrs. Waters)
T: (to students) Say hi to Mr. Waters!
SS: Hi Mr. Waters!
In this interaction, Mrs. Waters acknowledged the person bringing her cell phone as her husband
as she said, “My husband is dropping it off.” This signaled to Mrs. Water’s students that her
status as a married, heterosexual woman was an important part of her identity and one that could
and should be shared without consequence. As heterosexuality is the dominant identity group in
society, its social construction is invisible in the social realm since it is the system in which we
all exist (Burr, 1995). Mrs. Waters then directed her students to greet her husband as she said,
“Say hi to Mr. Waters!” Students were instructed to acknowledge Mr. Waters and recognize Mrs.
Waters’s adherence to this dominant identity group, further normalizing and reinforcing
historically heteronormative understandings.
In another example, Mrs. Waters reproduced a dominant heteronormative perspective
with her students by leaving out non-heterosexual information where heterosexual information
was supplied. In this example, students presented on historical figures of their choice consisting
of a report they went over with the class, followed by a question and answer session about the
historical figure. Some students also included a video presentation with one student portraying
the historical figure in the video. Two female students presented their report on Sally Ride, the
first American woman in space. As part of the video they created, the students included
information about Sally Ride’s 5-year marriage to fellow NASA astronaut, Steven Hawley, but
neglected to mention Ride’s female partner of 27 years, Tam O’Shaughnessy. Mrs. Waters
reproduced a dominant heteronormative perspective in her classroom by neglecting to intervene
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 149

and add that Sally Ride was gay, making her the first known LGBTQ astronaut. In the video, Nia
played the interviewer while Allie played the part of Sally Ride.
SR: (Taken from the transcript of the video that was played in class) Okay, here are
some fun facts.
N: Yay! I mean thank you.
SR: Okay, well I loved to do pranks when I was a kid. I got people so good.
N: I heard you did a book signing. Who was the nicest person you met there?
SR: Oh, that’s an easy question. Umm, what’s her name? She’s right over there.
N: Mrs. Waters.
SR: Yeah, she is so nice.
N: I was wondering, did you get married?
SR: I got married to another astronaut from NASA named Steven Hawley. If you want
to know another fun fact, I am in the National Women’s Hall of Fame and the
Astronaut Hall of fame.
N: You know, this whole time you’ve been looking kind of clear like a ghost. First,
are you dead? Second, are you a ghost?
SR: Actually yes, I am a ghost and I died July 23, 2012.
(After the video ended, the two female students answered three questions from the
class about Sally Ride.)
MS: Is she still alive?
N: No. (She showed the timeline the two students created on the document reader.)
T: Did you know I met Sally Ride?
SS: Yes.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 150

T: (Noticed that July 23
rd
is on the timeline as the day Sally Ride died of pancreatic
cancer) That is my son’s birthday.
MS: (Student who presented on Alan Shepard) Did you know that Alan Shepard went
to space with her?
N: No.
FS: Why did you decide to do Sally Ride?
T: (Answered instead of the presenters) She’s a big part of herstory and NASA.
FS: How did she die?
N: She had cancer.
(Mrs. Waters ends the question and answer session and helps students figure
out what the letters in NASA stood for.)
8

In this interaction, Mrs. Waters reinforced historically heteronormative understandings in her
classroom by ignoring the absence of non-heterosexual information in her students’ presentation.
When they included Sally Ride’s heterosexual relationship, “I got married to another astronaut
from NASA named Steven Hawley,” but neglected to include facts about the astronaut’s LGBTQ
status, Mrs. Waters did not intervene to supplement their presentation with information that
would have disrupted the hegemonic heterosexual narrative. Society’s prevailing
heteronormativity is filtered into all social spaces and teachers curricular and pedagogical
choices, profoundly influenced by existing heterosexualized curriculum and other
heterosexualized messages, are central in interrupting these messages (Stein & Plummer, 1994;
Sumara & Davis, 1999). When the video ended, Mrs. Waters missed opportunities to bring Sally
Ride’s sexuality up again, instead asking students, “Did you know I met Sally Ride?” a fact that

8
N = Nia, SR = Sally Ride
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 151

had been discussed in the video. Mrs. Waters then connected the day Ride had passed away to
her son’s birthday as she said, “That is my son’s birthday.” Her reinforcement of historically
heteronormative understandings demonstrated the way she internalized society’s hegemonic
heteronormative belief system and it reflected her position at the time, grounded partly in fixed
ideas about gender identity and sexuality.
Other instances in which Mrs. Waters reinforced historically heteronormative
understandings included the ways in which she often addressed her students to get their attention
in class. By inserting heterosexual information in a space that did not require the presence of
gendered information, Mrs. Waters reinforced the use of heteronormative binary language. The
following is one of the instances when Mrs. Waters used the dichotomized gendered language to
get the students’ attention as they were coming in from lunch.
(Students enter the classroom after lunch)
T: Boys and girls, squirrels and curls, lizards and germs!
(Students sit down in their desks, turn their attention to the teacher, and teacher
begins going over the norms for an upcoming presentation)
In this interaction, Mrs. Waters addressed her students using dichotomized language as she said,
“Boys and girls…” and used the rhyming words, “squirrels and curls” along with “lizards and
germs” to get their attention and quiet them down. In her interviews, she indicated that she was
conscious of using dichotomized gendered language and reflected on the potential for harm as
she said,
I say ladies and gentlemen, I say lizards and germs, sorta’ funny, but I don’t really think
it’s offensive or anything, but I do think at some point like dichotomizing like the girls
versus the boys–I don’t think that’s right.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 152

Mrs. Waters indicated that although she recognized her use of binary language, she continued to
use it, promoting gender dichotomy in class. She began by indicating that she used a
combination of gendered language as she said, “I say ladies and gentlemen…” and deprecatory
terms as she said, “I say lizards and germs, sorta’ funny…” in order to communicate her humor
and playfulness when addressing the students. Mrs. Waters demonstrated that although she was
primarily grounded in a heteronormative perspective, she was conscious of her bias to use binary
terminology such as “ladies and gentlemen” to address her students but did not take issue with it,
saying, “I don’t really think it’s offensive...” She then compared her usage of binary gendered
language to a situation she would find offensive in which girls and boys would be in competition
with each other based on their gender and said, “girls versus the boys–I don’t think that’s right.”
Consistent with arguments set forth by Burr (1995), Mrs. Waters’s reflection revealed her own
default inclination to operate within a fixed, binary interpretation of gender.
Another example of an interaction exemplifying Mrs. Waters use of binary gendered
language occurred while students were seated at their desks learning how to estimate with the
division of decimals. A female student was leaning on her desk and Mrs. Waters referred to the
student using a binary gendered term.
(Female student leans over on the top of her desk)
T: Mademoiselle, can you sit up please?
(Student sits up)
In this brief interaction, the student was addressed by Mrs. Waters using a binary term as she
asked, “Mademoiselle, can you sit up please? Mrs. Waters reproduced a hegemonic
heteronormative perspective as she used a title that was traditionally used to indicate an
unmarried French girl or woman. This demonstrated her internalization of the hegemonic
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 153

heteronormative belief system in which men’s titles did not carry identifiers that indicated their
marital status, but women did.
Mrs. Waters’s articulation of her beliefs as well as her curricular and pedagogical choices
demonstrated that she was primarily grounded in a heteronormative perspective but exhibited a
willingness to use a more flexible, socially constructive approach. Finding one discussed three
main themes; her struggle to identify vocabulary that described her beliefs related to gender
identity and sexuality and her reliance instead on traditional language, her transitional state in
which she was moving from a place of unfamiliarity with gender identity and sexuality terms
that were novel to her to a place with more progressive vocabulary, and her recognition and
naming of her unconscious biases which revealed her efforts to adopt a more flexible orientation
towards gender and sexuality. Finding two discussed three themes; her efforts to disrupt
heteronormative examples that were hindered by unclear goals of the lesson which inadvertently
reinforced traditional gender norms, her avoidance of opportunities to challenge
heteronormativity by ignoring or silencing conversations that emerged, and her reproduction and
reinforcement of historically heteronormative understandings without presenting examples that
were counter to those understandings. Mrs. Waters’s beliefs and perceptions about gender
identity and sexuality were in transition between a dominant heteronormative perspective and
flexible, socially constructive understandings. As she discovered her unconscious biases, she was
able to name them and reflect on her efforts to espouse more flexible understandings, but
inadvertently reinforced historically heteronormative understandings in the process.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 154

Case Study #2: Mrs. Fuerte, Rockwell Elementary School
Mrs. Fuerte was a kindergarten teacher at Rockwell Elementary School was located in
Northbrook, California, a large city of nearly 3,000,000 people (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
9

Northbrook was located in Southern California and Rockwell Charter Elementary School was
located in an urban residential neighborhood in the city, near two major freeways. Mrs. Fuerte’s
class had 15 students, with nine boys and six girls.
10
All 15 students were Latin-American.
11

Rockwell Elementary School was a public elementary school that opened in 1958. There
were 50 teachers, one principal, and one assistant principal, elementary instructional specialist.
There were 700 students at Rockwell Elementary School in 2020 and the racial breakdown of the
student population of the school was: White 3%, Hispanic 90%, Asian 10%, Black 2 %, Filipino
1%, Pacific Islander <1% (California Department of Education, 2020).
Mrs. Fuerte had been teaching for 24 years, all of which had been in elementary. Her first
year of teaching was in first grade, she taught 6 years in transitional kindergarten, and the
remaining years were spent teaching kindergarten. She also taught after school intervention with
fifth grade students and taught adult ESL for a couple of semesters. She had worked at Rockwell
Elementary School for 13 years. Mrs. Fuerte worked several jobs just out of high school, which
were mostly secretarial. She felt the need to have a job that was more “socially gratifying.”
Initially, she considered the army, the post office, and the police department and believed that
working with the police would provide her with a social position that impacted her community.

9
I chose to use the term “Mrs.” As a part of each teacher’s pseudonym because this was how they represented
themselves to me and to their students.
10
I used the language of “boys” and “girls” to describe the students because there was no information available that
would have given insight into another way to represent the gender of the students. With that said, I recognize that
the use of this language reproduces the cisnormative notion that gender is binary. It is entirely possible that there
were students in the classroom whose gender identity did not match their gender assigned at birth.
11
This is the way students presented themselves based on external information I saw as an observer.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 155

However, she reconsidered and felt that she would not get the social interaction she desired and
believed the job would consist mostly of “stop and arrest.” She stated that she was “a people
person” and took a position working at the Department of Motor Vehicles for 10 years. “I was
the nice one at DMV.” Ultimately, a friend from Venezuela who was a teacher suggested a
position in teaching and Mrs. Fuerte began her career in elementary education.
Mrs. Fuerte’s expressed beliefs revealed both a fixed and flexible understanding of
gender identity and sexuality. On the other hand, her enacted beliefs demonstrated mostly a
fixed, heteronormative understanding that frequently reinforced and reproduced traditional
gendered stereotypes. When asked to articulate her beliefs, she expressed that sexuality was
fixed from within, either aligning with an identity given at birth and societal expectations or
diverging from such expectations, with individuals discovering their sexual identity throughout
their lives. Similarly, she believed gender developed throughout an individual’s life, at times
transitioning completely from one gender to another. She consistently supported the idea that
students’ differences should be celebrated and respected and encouraged students to see
traditionally gendered concepts such as colors and clothing as gender neutral. She believed
strongly in self-determination, advocating choice for her students so that they may have the right
to determine their own trajectory in life. Mrs. Fuerte viewed it her responsibility to respect the
cultural norms of her students’ families and others with whom she interacted and strongly
believed in individuals determining how they chose to adhere to their own religious and cultural
traditions. She respected the norms and traditions of other cultures; however she did not feel
comfortable projecting her own norms and traditions onto her students or others and this belief
appeared to strongly influence any efforts on her behalf to teach formal lessons to her students
that disrupted heteronormative understandings. Thus, she was willing to listen to her students if
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 156

they reached out to her but was hesitant to deliver any sensitive information about gender and
sexuality to students, believing this was not her job but rather the job of her students’ parents.
Any efforts to teach formal lessons that used disruptive content and pedagogy were also hindered
by her fear that she would create conflict with parents and possibly interfere with their religious
and cultural expectations. Through her interactions with her students, she occasionally disrupted
heteronormative behavior through spontaneous interventions, exposure by way of realia,
classroom centers, and books, and by using subversive measures that showed her LGBTQ
allyship. More often, she avoided opportunities to overtly disrupt gender identity and sexuality
norms and ended up reinforcing and reproducing traditional gendered stereotypes.
Finding 1. Mrs. Fuerte’s Expressed Beliefs Revealed Both Fixed and Flexible
Understandings of Gender and Sexuality
Mrs. Fuerte believed gender and sexuality were both fixed and flexible. She believed they
were fixed within a person but if she/he/ze experienced dissonance with her/his/zir gender or
sexuality, through questioning and experimentation, a gender identity or sexuality that diverged
from the original identity may be discovered. It appeared she acknowledged that sexuality and
gender and the roles associated with each were socially constructed phenomena in that they
formed through relationships and shared beliefs with others in society (Burr, 1995), but furthered
that one’s gender and sexuality were coming from a fixed place within. First, Mrs. Fuerte
revealed her understanding that an individual’s gender and sexuality could be known from an
early age or discovered later in life. Second, Mrs. Fuerte revealed that she celebrated her
students’ differences in order to model mutual respect and foster a classroom environment where
students believed they could take on nontraditional gender roles. Finally, Mrs. Fuerte revealed
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 157

that she frequently intervened to emphasize the gender neutrality of things, including colors,
clothing, books, toys, and games.
Theme 1: Gender and Sexuality are Discovered or Known and not Constrained by Birth or
Society’s Expectations
Mrs. Fuerte articulated the belief that sexuality was fixed from within and either aligned
with the identity given at birth and societal expectations or diverged, with individuals
discovering their sexual identity throughout their lives. This belief about gender and sexuality, as
both fixed and flexible, signified Mrs. Fuerte’s heteronormative belief that humans had a fixed
set of characteristics with which they were born and her social constructivist belief that gender
and sexuality could be discovered (Burr, 1995), though she believed the divergence was
contingent upon the individual’s feelings of dissonance and a willingness to question the gender
and sexuality given at birth. For example, when asked to describe her beliefs about sexuality as
either fixed or flexible, she explained,
I think a little bit of both…I think um…that human sexuality is something within
individuals however I think that men or women can also question themselves or question
others and perhaps want to question themselves and um…might ask are they or aren’t
they and they have to figure it out. I had a friend once who is straight….and at some point
cuz’ we’re talking about human sexuality, right? (yes) Okay, so at some point, she dated
a woman and she through that experience figured out that she wasn’t lesbian. She needed
to go through that. I mean, for myself, despite all my gay friends, I never felt like I
needed to experiment. I know who I am and as a sexual being, um…but everybody’s
different.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 158

Mrs. Fuerte initiated her response by identifying both a heteronormative understanding and a
socially constructed understanding of sexuality as she said, “I think a little bit of both…” and
then explained how both understandings could be possible as she said, “I think um…that human
sexuality is something within individuals however I think that men or women can also question
themselves…” She used the word “can,” which indicated that this process was not necessary for
everyone, but a discovery that she believed would happen if the individual experienced some
form of dissonance and chose, as she said, to “question themselves.” Mrs. Fuerte inserted, “…or
question others,” implying that questions about one’s sexuality may also be thrust upon them by
others in society, and she went on to say, “[they] might ask are they or aren’t they and they have
to figure it out.” It appeared that Mrs. Fuerte saw the process of questioning one’s sexuality a
critical step for those who had questions about their sexual identity. She described the
importance of such a discovery with an example of a friend who questioned her own sexuality as
she said, “she dated a woman and she through that experience figured out that she wasn’t lesbian.
She needed to go through that.” Mrs. Fuerte believed that the questioning either led one to adjust
her/his/zir sexual identity or remain in the identity she/he/ze had known thus far in her/his/zir life
but indicated that there was a “need to go through” the experience. Mrs. Fuerte never believed
she needed to experiment saying, “for myself, despite all my gay friends, I never felt like I
needed to experiment. I know who I am and as a sexual being, um…but everybody’s different.”
She saw her friendships with gay individuals as exposure to a community who had either
discovered their sexuality or were in the process of discovering their identity and believed that
this contact would have been sufficient to start her questioning her own sexuality if she needed
to. She did not experience any dissonance and believed that she understood her sexuality
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 159

completely. She ended with, “…but everybody’s different,” indicating her opinion that the
process of understanding one’s sexuality is complex and unique to each individual.
Another instance in which Mrs. Fuerte revealed her understandings of the fixed and
flexible, socially constructive nature of gender identity and sexuality was when she described the
internal development of an individual’s gender and how this identity development was not
always visible to others from the outside. She explained,
I think that as um…a person develops from childhood through adolescence, early
adulthood and onwards that humans are evolving and so just because a person looks one
way or another, doesn’t mean it um…it describes what’s going on inside. Ya’ know,
something more I wanna’ say whether it be hormonal or ya’ know chemicals, ya’ know
the way brains have chemicals, so I don’t think you can necessarily judge somebody.
In this example, Mrs. Fuerte described the discovery process involved in figuring out one’s
gender identity as a part of human development as she said, “…a person develops from
childhood through adolescence, early adulthood and onwards…” She appeared to understand this
process as one that happened through early adulthood but included “and onwards” to indicate
that this development could happen into middle and late adulthood, with one’s discovery being
latent, occurring when circumstances were more suitable for an individual. Her description
included both one’s outward appearance as well as the physiological functions and mechanisms
as she said, “I wanna say whether it be hormonal or ya’ know chemicals, ya’ know the way
brains have chemicals…” which signified the belief that one’s gender identity was not a choice
and reinforcing her belief that gender and sexuality were fixed from within, to be discovered by
the individual. This fixed belief prompted her to add, “…so I don’t think you can necessarily
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 160

judge somebody,” telegraphing her support of an individual’s process of discovery with regards
to that person’s gender.
Theme 2: Celebrating Differences in Gender and Sexuality
Mrs. Fuerte consistently stated that she supported the idea that students’ whose gender
identity and sexuality did not follow traditional societal norms should be celebrated and
respected. In her interview, she described the experience a close friend had in which many of her
friends disconnected from her after she came out as a lesbian. Feeling sadness for her friend’s
loss, she believed that if she was not able to support a student who revealed that student was
different, she would be “negating something and kind of like…hiding something and even lying
about it.” She went on to say that regarding the level of support she could provide a student, “I
see it as an opportunity to say I don’t just support it from a distance, this is something near and
dear to my heart.” She believed she had an obligation to support her students so that students in
her classroom who followed nontraditional gender and sexuality norms would not face the
adversity her friend did. Consistent with arguments put forth by Burr (1995), Mrs. Fuerte
accessed part of her belief system that came from a complex interpretation of gender and
sexuality, one that was flexible and formed through daily interactions with friends and others in
her life.
Mrs. Fuerte made choices that disrupted the dominant interpretation of gender and
sexuality in her classroom. This was constructed from her flexible belief system that was
influenced by interactions with others in her life. For example, she described a student named
Eduardo who enacted such nontraditional gendered behavior and her support for this student
when classmates would “point and make fun of him.” Here, she explained how she used her
position of power as a teacher to celebrate his different behavior,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 161

I had this student that I absolutely adored. He was very effeminate in kindergarten. And
so it would have been year two or three because my first year was first grade. Probably
my second year teaching. So he was very effeminate in his physical gestures, in the way
he ran, in the pitch of his voice, in his choices at dramatic play…he wore the little apron
and playing kitchen. And so the other children would sometimes say things. Like, “Why
does Eduardo do this or say this,” or…and I would respond with a smile. I’d go,
“Because that’s what he likes and that’s okay.” And there was [sic] many times when
Eduardo would interrupt whatever we were doing and he wanted to do a pirouette. He
liked doing ballet. And so I would say…like other instances if a child wants to sing or
show off their talent and called to me a teachable moment. And I would the moment and
say, “Okay boys and girls, let’s stop what we’re doing. Eduardo wants to share.” And I
would let him do his little ballet dance that lasted a few seconds and we’d all clap and I’d
encourage the children to celebrate him for who he was and who he is.
In this example, Mrs. Fuerte explained that Eduardo demonstrated nontraditional gendered
behavior as she said, “He was very effeminate in his physical gestures, in the way he ran, in the
pitch of his voice, in his choices at dramatic play...” and referred to him wearing a little apron,
and his fondness for playing in the kitchen center as well. The implication of her statement was
that Eduardo physically gestured and ran in a way that was traditionally aligned with girls and
his voice was of a higher pitch much like the pitch traditionally thought of as feminine and that
boys would not have used these movements or pitch. When questioned by her students about
Eduardo’s behavior, Mrs. Fuerte smiled and expressed verbal support as she said, “Because
that’s what he likes and that’s okay.” She went on to say that Eduardo enjoyed performing ballet
in the classroom and entertained the students with pirouettes. Mrs. Fuerte stated that she
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 162

celebrated Eduardo’s classroom performance as she said, “Okay boys and girls, let’s stop what
we’re doing. Eduardo wants to share.” Here, she used her position of power as the teacher to stop
class, put the focus onto her student, and model the celebration of behaviors that contradicted the
socially constructed gendered norms students have been exposed to as she said, “And I would let
him do his little ballet dance that lasted a few seconds and we’d all clap and I’d encourage the
children to celebrate him for who he was and who he is…” Because Mrs. Fuerte’s belief system
was flexible and formed from interactions with others, she was able to actively choose to disrupt
dominant interpretations of gender in her classroom such as those exhibited by Eduardo.
Another instance in which Mrs. Fuerte celebrated her students’ nontraditional gendered
norms was when she described aspects of her students that would instigate teasing for a
nontraditional gendered article of clothing or hairstyle. Here again, she used her position of
power as a teacher in the classroom to celebrate long hair on a boy, something that is
traditionally worn by girls. She explained,
I did have a little boy I adored a couple years ago. He had long locks. I was crazy about
that little boy, he was so sweet and um…sometimes the children would say, “He has long
hair like a girl.” And you know, I’ll just look at him and say, “Isn’t it beautiful?! I love
his hair.” I don’t really make a big deal out of it, I just affirm that child’s being and in a
way, in a demure sort of way, I’m gonna say celebrate him and I don’t have to make a big
deal out of it and before you know it, all the other children, instead of saying, “Ew!”
They start saying, “Oh, look at his hair, it’s awesome, it’s beautiful, isn’t it?” And so it
becomes this beautiful, wonderful happening where you know it’s kindergarten
appropriate. We don’t have to have some complicated story or complicated lesson, it’s
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 163

just you know we celebrate the way we are, yes! Most of the boys have very short hair
and yes it turns out that [he] has long hair and it’s beautiful.
Here, Mrs. Fuerte began by praising the demeanor of the student as she said, “I was crazy about
that little boy, he was so sweet…” This comment signified that Mrs. Fuerte believed her student
exhibited “sweet” behavior that contradicted traditional gender stereotypes for a boy. His
demeanor may have prompted Mrs. Fuerte to be hypersensitive to comments made about him.
She described the teasing to be about the boy’s hair length and the association his classmates
made with the longer length that girls traditionally had as she said, “…sometimes the children
would say, ‘He has long hair like a girl.’” Mrs. Fuerte celebrated his hair length as she said, “I’ll
just look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it beautiful?! I love his hair.’” She chose to use the word
“beautiful,” a word commonly used to describe an attribute of a female. She defaulted to
gendered language that again communicated her interpretation of this student’s sweet and gentle
nature. Mrs. Fuerte explained that her praise was done in a way that was modest as she said, “I
don’t really make a big deal out of it, I just affirm that child’s being and in a way, in a demure
sort of way.” Her efforts to keep her praise for her student simple and informal aligned with Mrs.
Fuerte’s preferred methods for using disruptive curriculum and pedagogy. She did not believe it
that it was necessary to be overt and favored a less showy approach as she said, “I’m gonna say
celebrate him and I don’t have to make a big deal out of it...” Mrs. Fuerte viewed her approach as
one that modeled the behavior she wanted to see from her students. She used her position of
power as a teacher, showing students the appropriate reaction to emulate as she said, “…before
you know it, all the other children, instead of saying, “Ew!” They start saying, “Oh, look at his
hair, it’s awesome, it’s beautiful, isn’t it?” And so it becomes this beautiful, wonderful
happening where you know, it’s kindergarten appropriate.” She appeared to view this occasion
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 164

as one that was teachable and empowering. Finally, Mrs. Fuerte reiterated her belief that
celebrating her students’ differences was more effective than a more formal lesson as she said,
“We don’t have to have some complicated story or complicated lesson, it’s just you know we
celebrate the way we are, yes!”
Theme 3: Colors and Clothes are for Everyone
Mrs. Fuerte recognized the social construction of colors, clothing, toys, games, and other
things and believed it was her responsibility to model the disruption of such things for her
students. She intervened when students reproduced gendered stereotypes and she used language
with her students that signified gender inclusivity, enacting pedagogy that disrupted the
dominant interpretation of gender and sexuality in her classroom. She described an incidence
when a boy chose a book with pink in the title prompting other boys in her classroom to repulse,
I asked children, I told children we’re gonna read a story and I used my little popsicle
sticks or equity sticks or whatever you wanna call em. And so this child like, “Okay, you
can go and pick a book.” And the child brought us a book and it was called, Pinkalicious.
And the boys were like, “Ew, that’s a girls’ story!” And so I just said, “No, stories are for
all children. Just like colors are for all children,” and that was that. I went into the story
and the children enjoyed it and that was that.
In this example, Mrs. Fuerte explained that she gave her student, a boy, the opportunity to choose
any book he wanted in the classroom and the story he retrieved, Pinkalicious, produced a
negative response from a few boys as she said they exclaimed, “Ew, that’s a girls’ story!” The
response the boys were having to the pink cover illustrating a little girl wearing a pink dress,
fairy wings, and a princess crown atop her head, seemed to be in response to society’s traditional
gendered stereotype that pink is a color exclusively for girls. Mrs. Fuerte disrupted this
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 165

restrictive societal norm, as she explained to her students, “No, stories are for all children. Just
like colors are for all children.” Mrs. Fuerte frequently emphasized throughout her interview that,
“books and toys and colors are for all children, not particular of gender” and she indicated in her
own words that she developed a culture in her classroom that supported either gender to play any
game, choose any color, dress up as they wished, and move their bodies as they pleased. To
foster this culture, she stated that she used language that supported students’ differences as she
explained, “I just said we’re all unique in whichever way that we are and express ourselves and
that’s to be honored.” Her explanation of how she addressed the incident, saying that stories and
colors are “for all children” signified her impulse to keep the discussion about the general topic
of sharing and fairness. She did not specifically focus on the gendering of pink and blue or the
fact that the book a boy chose had a picture of a girl with traditional girl clothing on the cover.
Her language avoided an overtness and aligned with language used in other interactions where
she disrupted gendered norms with a modest approach that addressed the general behavior more
than the inappropriate gendered actions.
Mrs. Fuerte described another instance in which she intervened to disrupt gendered
stereotypes in her classroom. In this instance, a girl chose a vest from the dress-up clothing and
was approached by a boy who opposed her wearing the vest because of her gender. She
explained,
I had these little vests that I bought at the 99 Cents Store and they had little dragons on
them, and I remember a little girl wanted to wear one and a little boy said, “You can’t
wear them. Those are for boys.” Maybe they looked like little karate vests or something.
And I intervened and said, “It’s okay. In our classroom, our friends can dress in any
which way that they want. They can play with anything that they want. That includes the
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 166

little vests. Maybe you went to karate school or maybe you’re a chef in an Asian
restaurant, but you can be anything that you want.” I remember that with the little vests…
that the boys were really quick, they wanted to dominate those little vests.
Here, Mrs. Fuerte intervened to simultaneously disrupt a gendered clothing stereotype and to
reinforce student choice in her classroom dress-up area. After a boy tried to deny a girl the
opportunity to wear a play vest because of her gender as he said, “You can’t wear them. Those
are for boys,” Mrs. Fuerte intervened as she said, “It’s okay. In our classroom, our friends can
dress in any which way that they want…” She used the word, “friends” to describe the student, a
girl, who was being denied the use of a vest, a traditionally male gendered clothing item in our
society, by a fellow classmate who was a boy. Both the use of “friends” in place of girls and the
fact that Mrs. Fuerte avoided specifically addressing the boy’s attempt to gender the vest
signified her modest and generalized approach to the gendered incident. She then specified the
clothing item the boy was gendering in what appeared to be a subtle attempt to point out that
vests can be worn by girls as she said, “They can play with anything that they want. That
includes the little vests.” She went on to describe the types of activities and jobs one might wear
a vest in as she said, “Maybe you went to karate school or maybe you’re a chef in an Asian
restaurant, but you can be anything that you want.” She again avoided using girls, instead
choosing to use “you” to describe imaginative ways to use the vests in the dress-up center. Mrs.
Fuerte appeared to have the desire to deliver messages that disrupted traditional gendered norms
for colors and clothes but was hesitant to deliver them in a way that would seem too overt.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 167

Finding 2. Mrs. Fuerte’s Belief in Self-Determination Guided Her Curricular and
Pedagogical Decisions
Mrs. Fuerte was motivated by a belief in self-determination, viewing the ability to make
choices without external influence and interference as a critical component to her success and
happiness in her personal life. This belief guided her decisions with regards to how she enacted
curriculum and pedagogy that disrupted traditional gender and sexuality norms. Consistent with
arguments put forth by Burr (1995) regarding the repercussions intersectionalized identities have
for each other, it appeared that the way Mrs. Fuerte constructed her identity as the combination
of her Latin-American culture, Catholic traditions, and her rejection of her culture and religion’s
traditional customs concerning gender identity and sexuality, alongside her identities as a liberal-
minded woman and LGBTQ ally, helped to shape her pedagogical and curricular decisions. First,
Mrs. Fuerte revealed her understanding that having choices allowed a person to live a life that
was authentic to her/his/zir belief system and believed she should empower her students to be
advocates for themselves by embedding choice into their daily routines. Second, she revealed her
belief that her job involved teaching acceptance and kindness with regards to the disruption of
heteronormativity and did not involve the imposition of her beliefs and opinions about gender
identity and sexuality onto her students. Finally, Mrs. Fuerte revealed that she feared conflict
with her students’ parents if she contradicted their cultural expectations when using disruptive
pedagogy and content with their children.
Theme 1: Choices
Mrs. Fuerte conveyed the belief that an individual’s ability to have choices in life
empowered her/him/zir to live authentically with regards to her/his/zir own belief system. She
expressed this belief had proven effective in her own life, allowing her to have choices with
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 168

regards to her gender identity and sexuality that she attained through a combination of her own
decisions concerning education and lifestyle, the rejection of her traditional Latin-American and
Catholic customs, and the generation and social class she was born into. Mrs. Fuerte recognized
the right to choose her own ways in which she structured her sexuality and how her social class
affected her ability to do so as she explained,
Perhaps by um…by feeling that I have the right to make my own choices so um…in
terms of having had relationships with men, saying, “I don’t need to wait until I’m
married to experience a sexual relationship.” And just living and learning through both
good and poor choices because if we’re talking about, you said social class? (yeah) Yeah,
I think with certain social classes, let’s say, one that is less able, they’re under the thumb
or the guise of their families and if you’re a little bit higher on that echelon, then you get
to make your own choices and so I feel like that, that I get to make my own choices. No
one’s gonna’ tell me what to do.
In this example, Mrs. Fuerte expressed that her social class, as a member of the middle to upper
class, was revealed in how she made sense of her sexuality because it gave her the ability to
reject the traditional norms regarding marriage as she said, “…by feeling that I have the right to
make my own choices so um…in terms of having had relationships with men, saying, ‘I don’t
need to wait until I’m married to experience a sexual relationship.’” She saw her access to
choices in her life as beneficial to expressing her sexuality the way that she wanted and saw
marriage as a choice that she could take part in when and if she wanted to. She expressed the
inequitable access to choices and the relationship of this inequity to one’s socioeconomic status
as she said, “Yeah, I think with certain social classes, let’s say, one that is less able, they’re
under the thumb or the guise of their families…” She implied that a family that is of a lower
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 169

socioeconomic status than hers may not have as many opportunities as she did due to a financial
dependence and would therefore seek marriage as a viable option for a daughter to succeed. She
believed that being under the “thumb or the guise” of family members would affect a woman’s
ability to have the right to make choices regarding her sexuality that would be entirely her own,
such as those she was able to make. She went on to say how a higher social class enabled an
individual to make choices independent of their families as she said, “…if you’re a little bit
higher on that echelon, then you get to make your own choices and so I feel like that, that I get to
make my own choices.” She ended her statement about status proclaiming her empowered
position, making the point to have said, “No one’s gonna’ tell me what to do.” Her ability to
have the freedom to choose her direction is a power she is proud to control and resonated her
self-determined approach to life.
Mrs. Fuerte expressed this belief had proven effective in her own life and allowed her to
have choices with regards to her gender identity and sexuality. The success of this belief in her
personal life inspired her encourage choice in her classroom with the regular facilitation of her
dramatic play centers and dress-up clothes. In this instance, a student playing in the kitchen
center was singled out by classmates when he exercised his choice to perform a task that was
traditionally performed by girls.
He loved putting on the little apron. And the children would bring it up more than once
and I always felt very protective about that and I would try to squash [sic] it in a
celebratory way like, “Ya’ know, that’s his choice,” and “It’s wonderful,” and “He’s
having fun,” and “That’s great,” and that’s all that matters to me. […] He was very
effeminate in the way he moved his body and in I’m gonna say his communication. He
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 170

was very tender, he wasn’t rough, and he liked, he always had a smile and he loved
ballet.
Mrs. Fuerte signified that she believed the most effective way to empower her students to live
authentically with regards to her/his/zir own belief system was in her ability to create an
opportunity for choice. In this example, she explained that a male student seized that opportunity
by wearing a pink apron from the kitchen center as she said, “He loved putting on the little
apron.” The pink apron, a clothing item that was traditionally worn by girls, was something that
she noticed brought her student joy. It seemed she saw his positive emotion while wearing the
apron as evidence that he was living his authentic life as she said, “Ya’ know, that’s his choice,”
and “It’s wonderful,” and “He’s having fun,” and “That’s great,’ and that’s all that matters to
me.” She explained that she was aware that her student displayed nontraditional gendered
behavior as she said, “He was very effeminate in the way he moved his body and in I’m gonna
say his communication.” She believed it was her responsibility to protect him and reinforce his
choice when his classmates teased him as she indicated, “And the children would bring it up
more than once and I always felt very protective about that and I would try to squash [sic] it in a
celebratory way…” She praised the student and reinforced his choice, pointing out how this
instance exemplified the autonomy she hoped her students would practice when exploring her
classroom centers and the importance her intervention made when a student’s freedom to
expression was threatened in that autonomous space.
Theme 2: Not My Job
Mrs. Fuerte revealed her understanding that the responsibilities of her job as a teacher
involved modeling acceptance and kindness with regards to the disruption of heteronormativity
and did not involve the imposition of her personal beliefs and opinions regarding gender identity
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 171

and sexuality onto her students. This aligned with her broader belief in self-determination which
maintained that an individual should be able to make choices without external influence and
interference. Although she opposed projecting her own beliefs onto her students and others,
drawing on arguments set forth by Warin and Adriany (2017), society’s internalized hegemonic
heteronormative belief system is continually influencing her beliefs.
Pedagogically, Mrs. Fuerte expressed that she gravitated toward a flexible approach that
allowed for student autonomy by way of her dramatic play centers, realia, dress-up clothing, and
other facilitated measures that gave students the chance to exercise choice and live authentically.
When students used their imaginative play to express sexuality in a way that articulated intimate
relations, something she did not predict, Mrs. Fuerte became uncomfortable and identified these
expressions as ones that were not included in her job description as she explained,
I think for me it would be the whole conversation with intimacy. I don’t think that’s
appropriate for me. So, if they started asking questions like, “Oh, well we know that…”
You know the way children play, they put two dolls together, a male and a female doll
they put them on top of each other sometimes and they giggle. Whether it be hetero or
homosexuality, I think the topic of ya know I might just quickly say, “Oh,” ya’ know
something like, “That happens. You might need to talk to your family about it.”
In this example, Mrs. Fuerte explained the level of appropriateness with regards to her ability to
disrupt gender and sexuality norms as she said, “I think for me it would be the whole
conversation with intimacy. I don’t think that’s appropriate for me.” She indicated that any
conversation with her students of an intimate nature is not part of her disruptive goals with
regards to gender and sexuality. She started to describe the types of questions they may ask as
she said, “So, if they started asking questions like, ‘Oh, well we know that…’” but appeared to
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 172

be uncomfortable completing the sentence and switched over to a description of an enacted
example of inappropriate play as she said, “You know the way children play, they put two dolls
together, a male and a female doll they put them on top of each other sometimes and they
giggle.” She inserted, “Whether it be hetero or homosexuality,” as if to telegraph that she would
not discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual behavior, however in her original
description, she used male and female as the genders of the dolls on top of each other signifying
her default inclination to a heteronormative relationship. Mrs. Fuerte then signified that a child’s
depiction of sexual intercourse using two dolls would prompt her to intervene and direct any
further enactment, questions, or comments to the child’s family as she said, “I think the topic of
ya know I might just quickly say, ‘Oh,’ ya’ know something like, ‘That happens. You might
need to talk to your family about it.’ Mrs. Fuerte believed that her job as an educator allowed her
to show support and acceptance for students’ gender identity and sexuality, however she did not
feel that she could effectively disrupt traditional gender and sexuality norms that students
portrayed with dolls without imposing her own beliefs on her students.
Regarding content, Mrs. Fuerte explained that interactions with parents about the content
of books had shaped her stance on the selection of any future literary materials as she never
wanted to appear that she was extending her influence in her job as a teacher beyond the material
she was expected to cover. She explained,
I never want to be accused by a parent of teaching something out of my realm. I was once
accused of teaching witchcraft because I read a Scooby Doo Halloween story during
Halloween time. And I just learned…ya’ know I was still a brand-new teacher that you
have to be very careful because families will sometimes point fingers and make
accusations.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 173

Here, she began by expressing that she came to the decision that she did not want to be seen as
someone who did anything beyond her job as a teacher as she said, “I never want to be accused
by a parent of teaching something out of my realm.” Mrs. Fuerte used the word “never” to
indicate that discussions with parents regarding her practice were discussions she wanted to
avoid. She described an example of a time when parents complained about a book she read to
students with a Halloween theme as she said, “I was once accused of teaching witchcraft because
I read a Scooby Doo Halloween story during Halloween time.” She indicated that this experience
affected her future literary selections and she explained that she was made aware early in her
career of the power parents had as she said, “And I just learned…ya’ know I was still a brand-
new teacher that you have to be very careful because families will sometimes point fingers and
make accusations.” It appeared that Mrs. Fuerte was more concerned about the idea that the
parents at her school, who are primarily Christian, saw this as a piece of literature that should not
be read by their child’s teacher than she was about there being any truth to the accusation. This
was a pivotal moment in her career as a teacher in that all future decisions regarding literature or
other content would need to be thought through carefully before she used the materials in her
lessons with the students.
Theme 3: Fear of Creating Conflict with Parents by Contradicting Their Cultural
Expectations
Mrs. Fuerte revealed that she feared conflict with parents of her students who may have
seen her disruptive pedagogy and content as a challenge to their cultural expectations. The
demographic of the school in which she taught was primarily Latin-American and Christian.
Mrs. Fuerte understood the community as she herself was raised in a Latin-American, Catholic
family, however part of her identity was the rejection of Latin-American and Catholic traditions
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 174

and cultures. Individual identities are formed through the intersection of cultural discourses
throughout one’s life (Burr, 1995) and Mrs. Fuerte appeared to have been affected by her own
socially constructivist beliefs and the heavy task of communicating with a community that
consisted of a culture and religion that was primarily essentialist in their beliefs.
For example, when asked to describe the level of support she was receiving from other
teachers at her school with regards to disrupting heteronormativity and whether she thought
teachers might have been experiencing fear, she described the apprehension the teachers may
have had in response to the family demographic at her school explaining,
I think it could be a combination of everything. It could be sometimes a combination of
purposeful ignorance, purposely not wanting to talk about it or um…maybe not wanting
to upset a community which is primarily Christian and the beliefs that go, I’m gonna say
the archaic beliefs that go with all that. You know the beliefs in sin and that it’s wrong
and all that. (under her breath) All that bullshit.
In this example, she began by indicating that there may have been multiple, intersecting reasons
for apprehension by teachers to use disruptive content and pedagogy as she said, “I think it could
be a combination of everything.” Mrs. Fuerte detailed the possible combination as she explained,
“It could be sometimes a combination of purposeful ignorance, purposely not wanting to talk
about it or um…” She signified that her fellow teachers may have been intentionally forgoing
educating themselves on disrupting heteronormative understandings. She then indicated that her
fellow teachers may be intentionally avoiding the topic altogether. Mrs. Fuerte continued by
specifically offering up her school’s Christian parent community and the teachers disinterest in
upsetting their beliefs as she suggested, “…maybe not wanting to upset a community which is
primarily Christian and the beliefs that go, I’m gonna say the archaic beliefs that go with all
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 175

that.” She stopped in the middle of the statement to add the word “archaic” to the belief system
of her Christian parents, signifying that she saw traditional Christian beliefs regarding gender
and sexuality as being no longer relevant. She then specified the archaic label as she said, “You
know the beliefs in sin and that it’s wrong and all that. (under her breath) All that bullshit.” Mrs.
Fuerte indicated that teachers at her school were aware of the Christian faith of the parent
population and she believed they feared retribution if they chose to disrupt traditional gender and
sexuality norms. Mrs. Fuerte telegraphed her unhappiness with the lack of support from teachers
but was strongly opposing the teachings of many Christian faiths which regard homosexuality as
a sin, specifically indicating that the sinful nature of homosexuality was not part of her belief
system as she said uttered quietly, “All that bullshit.” The use of a curse word emphasized her
disgust with the historical treatment of members of the LGBTQ community by Christian church
organizations.
In another instance, Mrs. Fuerte described how she believed the effects of society’s
prevailing heteronormative structure affected her decisions to disrupt heteronormativity in the
classroom through pedagogy and content as she explained,
R: I think it makes me feel inhibited. Because you know there could be that angry
parent whose gonna go in with tons of accusations and demand that their child be
removed from your classroom.
I: Do you fear in any way not just the removal of the child but any kind of other
negative effects?
R: I’m not afraid of losing my job, no.
I: Job loss or…
R: Reprimand…
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 176

I: Or an informal reprimand or being shunned by fellow staff members or anything
like that?
R: I could see that with some staff members, sure but…(Does that affect you or…?)
No, no. I mean, I see it as a possibility with parents but I think that if you want to
include this in the pedagogy and these are resources used by the school district,
they’re gonna back you up and you’ve got your union rep as well.
Here, she began by explaining how society’s heteronormative structure may embolden an angry
parent to use accusatory language against a teacher for using pedagogy or content that disrupted
traditional gender or sexuality norms. The fear that this could happen hindered her ability to
freely use content and pedagogy that disrupted heteronormativity as she said, “I think it makes
me feel inhibited.” Mrs. Fuerte expressed that the source of her inhibition was that the parent
would complain to the principal in the main office and demand the removal of a student from her
room as she said, “Because you know there could be that angry parent whose gonna go in with
tons of accusations and demand that their child be removed from your classroom.” This
statement indicated that Mrs. Fuerte did not believe she had sufficient support coming from her
principal as her main concerns were the accusations and the student removal. Specifically, she
used the words “go in” rather than “come in” indicating that her fear was centered around the
parent going to the office, directly to her immediate supervisor, instead of approaching her
directly with her/his/zir concerns. She implied that she did not want to be known in her school
community for any kind of accusations nor did she want to be known for having a student
removed from her classroom for something she was accused of doing. When asked if she feared
any other negative effect, she indicated that she felt safe beyond the accusation and student
removal as she said, “I’m not afraid of losing my job, no.” When asked if she feared an informal
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 177

reprimand or being shunned by fellow staff members, she indicated these were also not concerns
as she said, “I could see that with some staff members, sure but […] No, no.” indicating that she
believed that she had established positive relationships with her coworkers that would not result
in negative consequences but that the consequences for her some of her fellow staff members in
the same position may be different. Finally, Mrs. Fuerte added information to the response that
indicated she believed she had support coming from her district and union as she said, “…I think
that if you want to include this in the pedagogy and these are resources used by the school
district, they’re gonna back you up and you’ve got your union rep as well.” She used the words,
“used by the school district” to imply that she would feel most comfortable using district-
provided resources and if she did, she believed the district would support her if a parent
complained. She also included that her union representative would support her which implied
that she viewed complaints about the use of disruptive pedagogy as an instance that could
possibly require job protection, but believed she was adequately protected by her union
membership.
Finding 3. Mrs. Fuerte’s Curricular and Pedagogical Choices Indicated that She Avoided
Opportunities to Overtly Disrupt Gender Identity and Sexuality Norms with her Students
and Often Reproduced and Reinforced Traditional Gendered Stereotypes
Mrs. Fuerte approached opportunities to disrupt heteronormativity in her classroom in
subtle and subversive ways that did not deliver overt messages through formal lessons, but rather
telegraphed acceptance of nontraditional gender identities and sexualities through her actions
among students, daily classroom routines, and her role as an ally. With regards to disrupting
gender and sexuality norms, Mrs. Fuerte understood her job as a teacher to be one that facilitated
a safe and inclusive environment that celebrated students’ gender identities and sexualities,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 178

occasionally representing the spectrum of family types through literature and discussion without
projecting her own beliefs and opinions onto students directly. Consistent with arguments put
forth by Foucault (1977), although Mrs. Fuerte’s desire was to disrupt the dominant narrative
with regards to traditional gendered stereotypes to allow for more flexible understandings, her
efforts were tempered by external forces including the webs of power and social discourse in her
school setting that attempted to uphold heteronormativity. Thus, her methods to deliver content
and pedagogy in an imperceptible manner often reproduced and reinforced the traditional
gendered stereotypes she was trying to disrupt. Mrs. Fuerte’s interview and observation data
demonstrated they ways in which she disrupted gender identity and sexuality norms with her
students in three ways. First, she used moments of spontaneous intervention to disrupt teasing
related to heteronormativity and deliver positive language meant to reassure students that a
student’s differences should be “celebrated” and not ridiculed. Second, she used exposure by
way of realia, classroom centers, and books that were disruptive of the heteronormative
understanding and encouraged acceptance of the LGBTQ community. Finally, saw herself as an
LGBTQ ally and showed her support by wearing an LGBTQ pride tee-shirt, explaining to
students who asked that the man next to her cousin was his husband in a photo displayed in her
classroom, and using forthright language with her students that indicated she was someone who
took action to support the LGBTQ community.
Theme 1: Disruption Through Spontaneous Intervention
First, Mrs. Fuerte revealed her frequent use of spontaneous intervention to disrupt
heteronormative behavior in her classroom. At times, she did this by interacting with her
students, using her actions and positive language to reassure students that one’s exploration of
nontraditional gender identity and sexuality or use of traditionally gendered objects should be
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 179

“celebrated” and not ridiculed. Other times, she intervened to add to an interaction already in
progress or address inappropriate behavior, but inadvertently reinforced traditional gendered
stereotypes in doing so. This was also a common way for her to disrupt teasing related to
heteronormativity. She did not rely on formally planned lessons but rather these spontaneous
interventions and believed that by modeling the behavior she wanted to see, she made a
difference for her students who were consistently influenced by the heteronormative thinking of
their parents and society as a whole. For example, Mrs. Fuerte demonstrated her use of
spontaneous intervention when she inserted herself into an interaction between two male students
in the kitchen center during rotation time. The interaction with her students went as follows,
(During center rotations, Mrs. Fuerte notices two male students in the kitchen.
She walks over to help a boy tie a pink apron.)
T: We wear an apron when we cook. A chef is someone who cooks.
MS1: My mom likes to cook!
(A boy walking by, not playing in the kitchen center stops to comment.)
MS2: My grandpa likes to cook!
T: My husband likes to cook too!
(The boy wearing the apron appears to enjoy cooking in the kitchen and keeps the
apron on the entire time he plays there. He smiles as he pours tea for the other
boy playing in the center.)
In this interaction, Mrs. Fuerte began by intervening in the boys’ imaginative play to help tie the
pink apron the boy was putting on. This signaled to the students, both the boys in the center and
others in the classroom, that boys can wear pink, a color traditionally associated with girls and an
apron, a clothing item traditionally worn by girls and women in society. Mrs. Fuerte silently
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 180

supported the male student who had chosen to wear the pink apron and his choice of dress by
helping to tie the strings of the pink apron. She also silently supported the way that he was
adopting a behavior that was traditionally associated with girls and women. Mrs. Fuerte then
vocalized her support as she said, “We wear an apron when we cook. A chef is someone who
cooks.” She used the pronoun “we” which appeared to indicate that the role of a person who
cooks in a family could be either male or female and either gender could wear an apron. Mrs.
Fuerte then shifted to use the word, “chef” to describe “someone who cooks,” indicating her
association of the roles to that of a profession that is dominantly held by men, rather than
indicating that the boys were performing the task of cooking in a household kitchen, a task
dominantly held by women. Mrs. Fuerte telegraphed her support of the boys performing the task
of cooking, a disruptive act. At the same time, she added language that indicated the cooking that
was taking place was that of two professionals in a restaurant, not family members in a
household kitchen, thereby reinforcing a heteronormative act. Her default language reinforced
traditional roles, reproducing gendered expectations. After Mrs. Fuerte spoke, the boy in the pink
apron said that his mom liked to cook. A boy walking by, not playing in the center said his
grandpa liked to cook. Mrs. Fuerte added, “My husband likes to cook too!” making a connection
to the boy’s grandpa, a male, and reinforcing the role of men as cooks by adding that her
husband enjoyed cooking. By choosing to use her husband and not herself or another female
family member as an example of someone she knew who liked to cook, she disrupted gender
norms. Her intervention in the center activity and assistance also appeared to provide structure
and supported gentle, on task play between the boys that continued after she left with the boy
continuing to wear the apron as he poured tea for his friend, both behaviors and tasks
traditionally associated with feminine behavior.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 181

In another interaction, Mrs. Fuerte spontaneously intervened to address behavior that she
believed was inappropriate, but inadvertently reinforced traditional gendered stereotypes for the
two students playing in the kitchen center in the classroom. The interaction with her students was
as follows,
(Teacher sends students back to centers. A male student, Jerry, and female student
go to the house center. Jerry pretends he’s ironing and gets burned.)
Jerry: Tsss! Tsss!
T: (playfully) Careful Jerry! Don't get burned!
FS: Let’s play house!
Jerry: Okay! (Jerry puts the iron away and pretends that the house is on fire.) Quick! Get
the baby out! He’ll get burned! (Now Jerry pretends to start making dinner for the
female student.) Let me get you some green beans. Sit down. (She sits and he
brings her play green beans in a box.) Here, you have to eat it in the box. (The
female student pretends to eat.) Aw! Nobody likes my food! (The female student
smiles.) Here’s some cheechus! [sic] (Possibly Chicharróns = pork/pork rind
snacks) (She pretends to eat, and the play continues now with the two students
pretending unifex cubes are ice cubes. They throw them at each other. The female
student then pretends to be a dog and the ice cubes become dog food in a bowl for
her to pretend to eat. It is time to clean up. Both students leave and the teacher
reminds them to clean up.)
T: (Trying to convince him to return to clean up as he is walking toward the rug)
Thank you Jerry for cleaning up!
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 182

(Jerry returns but plays instead. The female student returns to clean up and Jerry
goes to the rug while the female student finishes straightening the center.)
In this interaction, Mrs. Fuerte began by making a comment about Jerry acting out that the iron
burned him as she said, “Careful Jerry, don’t get burned!” Jerry then shifted his action to a
frantic one in which he imagined that the house was on fire as he shouted, “Quick! Get the baby
out! He’ll get burned!” to his female classmate. Jerry appeared to have interpreted Mrs. Fuerte’s
comment as validation for his action-packed role playing. Immediately following the attention
Jerry was getting from Mrs. Fuerte, he increased his violent behavior in the kitchen center,
imagining that the house was on fire and he would be a hero and “…get the baby out!”
Consistent with arguments put forth by Kindlon and Thompson (2002), “Boys’ need to feel
competent and empowered leads them to express a keen power-based, action-oriented sense of
justice, fairness, good and evil” (p. 161). It was a default expectation for Jerry to want to be seen
as a hero who was powerful and in charge. The gendered interaction escalated from this point
with the students turning blocks into ice cubes, which they began to throw at each other. The
female student, perhaps seeing that there would not be a chance for a gentler, more thoughtful
play family experience, took a submissive role as a dog and the ice cubes became her dog food in
a bowl. The gendered behavior continued into clean-up time as the female student followed
directions, picking up all the blocks and tidying the center while Jerry made his way to the rug.
Mrs. Fuerte said, “Thank you Jerry for cleaning up!” as a way to encourage him to return to the
center to clean. Consistent with reverse psychology, Mrs. Fuerte used language that encouraged
Jerry to return to the kitchen center to clean, but this effort did not persuade Jerry to do the
desired task. Without explicitly indicating that the behavior Jerry was exhibiting was
inappropriate and unacceptable, Jerry appeared to understand Mrs. Fuerte’s avoidance as
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 183

validation for his gendered behavior and did not ultimately see cleaning up as an expectation.
Instead of cleaning, he returned to the center to play and eventually left again while the female
student finished cleaning up, a traditional gendered expectation for a girl.
Theme 2: Disruption Through Exposure
Mrs. Fuerte revealed that another method of disruption to heteronormative behavior was
the way in which she exposed students to dramatic play centers and realia that allowed for the
disruption of traditional roles in society into her classroom environment. She also revealed that
she had recently begun providing exposure to LGBTQ-themed books, both by reading them to
her students with little to no lesson taught and by having them in the classroom for students to
look at and read. She believed that her students absorbed the lesson or the message through the
exposure she provided but did not always check for understanding or follow up to assess their
understanding and often reproduced and reinforced traditional gendered stereotypes. Although
Mrs. Fuerte wanted to disrupt the dominant narrative with regards to traditional gendered
stereotypes, lack of support from parents, fellow teachers, librarians, administrators, including
the lack of available materials, influenced her to approach disruptive moments in subtle and
subversive ways. Consistent with arguments put forth by Martino and Cumming-Potvin (2016),
due to the lack of support, these external elements can help to reinforce existing heteronormative
conditions.
For example, Mrs. Fuerte demonstrated how students were given the opportunity to
discover gender roles in society in her dramatic play centers. The interaction with her students,
where two boys played loudly in the library center, went as follows,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 184

(Two male students, one (MS1) of whom was making significant interruptions
during a story earlier, play loudly in a center in the back of the classroom,
pretending that a large plastic dinosaur is eating a bear.)
T: Too noisy!
(MS2, the other boy in the center, gets the Cookie Monster stuffed animal and
asks the dinosaur toy to kill Cookie Monster.)
T: (To both boys) You need to do another activity because you are so loud!
MS2: Mrs. Fuerte, give me another chance!
(Mrs. Fuerte agrees and MS2 gets quieter.)
MS2: (Voicing Cookie Monster to MS1) I’m going to pretend I’m drinking beer.
MS1: Pretend you’re drunk and you fall down the slide!
(M2 takes out a Clifford the Dog stuffed animal and a smaller bear toy now. The
boys make the toys fight now.)
MS2: (stops the fighting with the toys) Hey I’m not playin’ around! (He sees an
elephant stuffed animal in the center) Oh the elephant! I like elephants! (He
presses the elephant to his face and kisses it romantically.
T: (Shouts from across the room) Remember I gave you another chance?
(The two boys continue to play loudly with MS1 placing baby dolls on top of
MS2’s face while he lays on the ground. MS2 acts like he is dead with the dolls
laying on his face. Mrs. Fuerte intervenes and calls both boys over to have them
breathe to calm down. At that moment, she also realizes that there are some
students who are in the wrong centers, which includes MS2. Mrs. Fuerte has MS2
join her at the table she is at and has him practice counting.)
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 185

In this example, Mrs. Fuerte began by shouting across the room to the boys to address their loud
and inappropriate behavior as she said, “Too noisy!” Her response was focused on the level of
noise rather than the violent content in the play, telegraphing to the boys that the behavior they
were performing was acceptable, just not for this time of the day. This type of occurrence, in
which loud, rough behavior reinforced traditional gendered norms, took place frequently across
data I collected in Mrs. Fuerte’s classroom. Appearing to have interpreted Mrs. Fuerte’s
comment as validation for the behavior to continue at a quieter level, the boys continued with
two different toys, with one boy encouraging the other to kill his toy. Mrs. Fuerte addressed the
boys’ noise level again as she said, “You need to do another activity because you are so loud!”
This prompted one of the boys to ask for another chance. Mrs. Fuerte agreed but again did not
respond to the content of the behavior in the center. The boys’ behavior continued to be
inappropriate with the play shifting to two toys getting drunk on imaginary beer, followed by two
new toys engaging in a fight, and a romantic kiss to an elephant toy. Mrs. Fuerte, alarmed by the
noise in the center and unaware of the content, gave her final warning as she shouted from across
the room, “Remember I gave you another chance?” By not investigating or objecting to the
content of the behavior, she has allowed the level of physicality in the center and she has created
a set of expectations for what it means to be a boy in her classroom environment. The boys
continued with violent behavior, moving to the kitchen center, with one boy placing the baby
dolls on top of the other boy’s face while he laid on the ground “dead.” Mrs. Fuerte, perhaps
seeing this behavior from her seat across the room, called the boys over to have them breathe to
calm down, a practice that again reinforced the idea that the behavior in question was
inappropriate due to the level of noise and not the level of physicality. More specifically, Mrs.
Fuerte did not address weaponizing of the baby dolls, which are toys her students were
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 186

intentionally exposed to in order for them to treat them as proxies for real children in the play
house, with the same level of gentleness as one would a real, vulnerable baby. In this interaction,
Mrs. Fuerte’s intention to expose her students to play centers and realia that allowed for the
disruption of traditional roles in society became instead an instance in which her silence with
regards to the gendered behavior neutralized the behavior, thereby reinforcing and reproducing
stereotypical boy behavior in her classroom. Mrs. Fuerte promoted the reproduction of a gender
stereotype consistent with what Kindlon and Thompson (2002) referred to as destructive male
archetypes who society understands as either, “a boy as a wild animal—out of control and
incapable of responsible behavior or intelligent thought—or as an entitled prince who isn’t held
accountable to the same moral standards as the rest of us” (p. 167). In this instance, Mrs. Fuerte
has cast the boys as entitled princes, who are excused from the content of the centers, monitored
only for the level of noise, and held to a “lesser standard of moral accountability in [their] actions
and behavior toward others” (Kindlon & Thompson, 2002, p. 167).
In another interaction, Mrs. Fuerte exposed her students to an LGBTQ-themed book
about a family with two moms as part of a lesson on different types of families. She believed that
her students absorbed the message of disrupting heteronormativity by having the book read to
them with little discussion beforehand and no discussion after. The interaction with her students
went as follows,
(Teacher calls students to the rug for a discussion.)
T: We have been talking about families.
(She hangs a poster on the board entitled, “Families.” Under the title, there is a list
of different types of families: “2 moms, 2 dads, big brother, big sister, 1 mom, 1
grandpa, 1 grandma, mom and dad.” It appears to be review from a recent lesson).
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 187

T: There are different kinds of families. Some have one dad, some have one mom,
some have a brother that takes care of the family. Some families have just one
mommy. Some have two mommies; some have two daddies. (A conversation
between two boys starts off to the side. Mrs. Fuerte seems to hear it, but does not
respond)
MS1: Two daddies?!
MS2: Yeah, I saw that one time! Because in The Loud House, I saw that!
MS1: Oh.
(Mrs. Fuerte pairs up the students to share what they have learned about
families) two male students share.
MS3: You go! (lots of laughing)
MS4: Some families have a family named Andy!
MS3: Some families have a family named Anthony! (More laughing)
(A female and male student share. Female student is trying to take off her boot
when Mrs. Fuerte comes near.)
MS5: (He notices that the teacher is coming and quickly speaks) Some families have
one gramma only!
T: Not all families are the same. I’m thinking of the person who does cooking,
cleaning and takes care of the family...
FS: Some families have two dads.
MS6: Some families have a brother taking care of them.
MS7: Some families have one mom and one sister.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 188

T: I’ve met many families where it’s the grandma who takes care of everyone and
I’ve known families where there’s a mommy and a daddy. (She then introduces
the book, A Tale of Two Mommies by Vanita Oelschlager)
SS: (Excited) Ooohh! Cool!
T: But first, we’ve got to finish centers and do a little holiday practice.
MS7: (Disappointed) Ohhh! I wanna read it now!
(After centers and holiday practice, she read the story)
T: (As she read the story) If you have a mama and a mommy...
MS7: And a mommy?! (Teacher does not stop reading)
(Students notice rhyming and sweet moments in the story. Throughout the story,
students say, “Aw!” in response to the sweet moments among the two moms and
the son.)
SS: (After the book is finished) I like the book! Me too!
T: I like it too. We’ll talk about it later. But I know that we need to go back to
centers.
In this example, Mrs. Fuerte began by referring to a previously made list used for what seemed
to have been the first part of a lesson on how families could be different in their structure as she
said, “We have been talking about families.” The order of the families on the list went from
nontraditional families, starting with LGBTQ families and ended with a traditional mom and dad
family. By listing two nontraditional families first, it appeared that Mrs. Fuerte was consciously
disrupting heteronormative understandings of family structure. She then read some of the family
types from the list; however they were read in a different order as she said, “Some have one dad,
some have one mom, some have a brother that takes care of the family. Some families have just
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 189

one mommy…” Mrs. Fuerte started with single-parent families and ended by saying, “some have
two mommies; some have two daddies.” A boy reacted and said, “Two daddies?!” to boy sitting
next to him. The boy confirmed what his friend had said by informing him that he saw a family
with two dads once on a popular cartoon television show. Mrs. Fuerte appeared to hear the
comment but did not respond. By not responding, she created the opportunity for students to be
exposed to the disruptive idea that families have many compositions. She normalized LGBTQ
families without overtly engaging in a conversation with the students regarding the connection
the boy made. Mrs. Fuerte paired up the students to share what they had learned so far about
different types of families. The same two boys, Andy and Anthony, began their sharing with a lot
of giggling and appeared to poke fun at the topic saying, “Some families have a family named
Andy!” and “Some families have a family named Anthony!” Mrs. Fuerte was not near this
interaction and was not able to help the boys get back on task. Another pair, a male and a female,
were also off task, but Mrs. Fuerte came close to them to hear what they were sharing. The male
student quickly shared, “Some families have one gramma only!” Mrs. Fuerte responded to the
boy, with what seemed like a comment that would bring him closer to coming up with different
types of parent compilations as she said, “Not all families are the same. I’m thinking of the
person who does cooking, cleaning and takes care of the family...” She continued to allow the
students to share the family types and the focus became one in which the importance seemed to
be that different types of families were being read or remembered from the previously created
list, giving students exposure to nontraditional and traditional families, without any discussion or
connections made as a whole group. She was normalizing the LGBTQ family types but also
minimized or diluted the disruptive qualities of the lesson by what appeared to be random
listings as she then said, “I’ve met many families where it’s the grandma who takes care of
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 190

everyone and I’ve known families where there’s a mommy and a daddy.” She used a female
family member, a grandma, as an example of the person “who takes care of everyone,” a
traditionally gendered expectation for women and brought “mommy and daddy” back to the
conversation, a familiar heteronormative example that did not disrupt.
Next, Mrs. Fuerte introduced the LGBTQ-themed story, A Tale of Two Mommies by
Vanita Oelschlager, a story about a nontraditional family consisting of two moms and their son
and their day at the beach. Because the story had two moms, it also broke down gender norms
with regards to roles each parent took on in the household. Upon hearing the title, it appeared
students were elated as they shouted, “Ohhh! Cool!” She stagnated the momentum that had built
up around a story that would explore a different type of family by delaying the reading as she
said, “But first, we’ve got to finish centers and do a little holiday practice.” About thirty minutes
later, after centers and holiday practice, Mrs. Fuerte began to read the story as she said, “If you
have a momma and a mommy…” A male student interrupted and asked, “And a mommy?!” Mrs.
Fuerte did not stop the story to respond to the comment made by the student. Students
interrupted throughout the story to say, “Aw!” in response to sweet moments among the family
members and to point out rhyming words, but no other comment was made about the
nontraditional aspect of the story. Mrs. Fuerte did not engage the students in a conversation
about the book’s content, which discussed a family that did not fall into the stereotypical family
structure nor did she discuss the content related to the breakdown of traditional gender norms as
two women performed all of the parental roles—something the boy in the story explained to his
new friends on the beach. Throughout the lesson on families, Mrs. Fuerte placed a greater focus
on the variety of families that exist, exposing students to the content, generalizing the topic
rather than overtly discussing a nontraditional family with two moms.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 191

Theme 3: Silent Support/Allyship
Mrs. Fuerte revealed that she saw herself as an ally for the LGBTQ community and
believed that telegraphing to her students her allyship using subversive techniques such as
wearing an LGBTQ pride tee shirt or displaying a photograph of her cousin and his husband in
the classroom was an effective and safe way to disrupt heteronormativity. She believed her
students and other students at the school absorbed her supportive messages in a way that was
quiet and safe without having to teach an overt lesson that may bring about parent complaints.
I do remember being really excited to wear a shirt that my cousin bought for me and it
had a little rainbow, so it was my I’m gonna say quiet way of celebrating the LGBTQ
month, awareness month. And um…not saying anything about it but ya know perhaps a
child, not in my class, maybe an older one on the playground might recognize it and
understand it especially if they’re third or fourth or fifth grade. And um…there were no
children who asked me, because of course ya know there might be that child who might
ask me, “Teacher, are you gay?” And I’m okay with that question.
In this instance, Mrs. Fuerte began by describing an LGBTQ pride tee shirt she wore to work that
she believed showed her support for the LGBTQ community to her students in a discreet way as
she said, “I do remember being really excited to wear a shirt that my cousin bought for me and it
had a little rainbow, so it was my I’m gonna say quiet way of celebrating the LGBTQ month,
awareness month.” She saw wearing this tee shirt as a disruptive act, particularly for older
students, who may understand the rainbow’s symbolic meaning. She did not use the tee shirt in
an overt way to teach her students about the symbols of the LGBTQ community or their origins,
rather the disruption was one of happenstance. She explained that the shirt provided an
opportunity for students to initiate outreach and though students had not yet taken advantage of
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 192

the opportunity, she would be comfortable if they came to her and asked her about her own
sexuality as she said, “…there were no children who asked me, because of course ya know there
might be that child who might ask me, ‘Teacher, are you gay?’ And I’m okay with that
question.” She indicated that she would allow students to ask her if she was gay and it appeared
that she would be comfortable in telling them that she was not, perhaps as an opportunity to
explain to the students that she is an ally to the community, using her support as a method of
disruption. This silent support appeared to be a way for Mrs. Fuerte to contend with both the
internal and contextual drivers that inhibited her from teaching with more overt methods. Her
internal belief in self-determination, advocating choice for her students so that they may have the
ability to discover gender and sexuality on their own without the imposition of their teacher’s
beliefs was one inhibiting factor. Contextually, silent support appeared to be a way for Mrs.
Fuerte to safely navigate the webs of power and social discourse in her school community where,
drawing on arguments set forth by Burr (1995), the hegemonic narrative would disapprove of a
more overt challenge to the status quo.
In another example, Mrs. Fuerte revealed the importance she placed on the language she
used with her students when discussing the identity of a member of the LGBTQ community.
Regarding a photograph she had hanging in her classroom that included Mrs. Fuerte, her cousin,
and his husband, students asked who the men in the photo were and she explained,
Yeah, they thought that it might have been my husband or my dad even though he looks
younger than me! And so I just, “That’s my cousin and that’s his husband.” Cause they
don’t get partner. They might not understand that. So, I think it’s more forthright to say,
“It is his husband, they are married.”
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 193

Mrs. Fuerte saw the act of hanging a photograph of her with her cousin and his husband in the
classroom as one that disrupted heteronormativity for her students as throughout the years,
students would ask who the men in the photo were and she would answer honestly. She
described a recent interaction in which the students mistook one of the men in the photo as her
husband or her father and she clarified who the men were as she said, “That’s my cousin and
that’s his husband.” She indicated that her kindergartners would not understand the word
“partner” as being a romantic partner and so actively decided not to use that term as she said,
“Cause they don’t get partner. They might not understand that.” Moreover, she believed that
when referring to two LGBTQ spouses, it was particularly important to be straightforward about
their identities with her students given the history of persecution in the community as she said, “I
think it’s more forthright to say, ‘It is his husband, they are married.’” This statement indicated
the disruptive qualities Mrs. Fuerte hoped to message to her students who may not hear two men
referred to as each other’s husband in another setting. Consistent with arguments set forth by
Warin and Adriany (2017), teachers who take a social justice stance may be inspired to find
ways to confront heteronormative structures despite contextual elements such as the lack of
support from parents, administrators, fellow teachers, librarians, and other staff at her/his/zir
school. For Mrs. Fuerte, the use of language that was direct and specific when describing the
identities of LGBTQ persons was a small, but meaningful way to show her allyship to the
community and to normalize LGBTQ families for her students.
Cross Case Analysis
My conceptual framework argued that teachers’ beliefs, whether they are essentialist or
social constructivist, are continually influenced by society’s internalized hegemonic
heteronormative belief system and are products of social discourses about gender identity,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 194

sexuality, and equity (Warin & Adriany, 2017). This study proposed that teachers who carry a
heteronormative belief system would be expected to deliver limited interpretations of gender
roles and sexuality and would not be expected to engage students with pedagogy and content that
disrupt that narrative. In contrast, teachers who support a socially constructed interpretation of
gender and sexuality would use content and pedagogy that disrupt heteronormative
understandings in their classrooms.
In a cross-case analysis, the following patterns emerged between Mrs. Waters and Mrs.
Fuerte’s curriculum and pedagogy with regards to their choices to use curriculum and pedagogy
that disrupt heteronormativity:
• Different ways of understanding fixed and flexible
• Missed/avoided opportunities to overtly disrupt gender identity and sexuality norms
• Disruption through exposure/absorption
• Reinforcement and reproduction of heteronormativity
With regards to their beliefs about gender and sexuality, the two teachers did not construct the
notions of fixed and flexible in the same way. Mrs. Waters saw the flexible nature of one’s
gender identity and sexuality as a movement from one fixed point to another while Mrs. Fuerte
saw an individual’s gender and sexuality as being internally fixed with the individual discovering
her/his/zir gender identity and sexuality. Although Mrs. Waters’s and Mrs. Fuerte’s constructions
of the fixed and flexible nature of gender and sexuality diverged from each other, their
demonstrations of pedagogy and curriculum were heavily influenced by the dominant narrative
surrounding gender and sexuality and the two teachers exhibited several commonalities in their
practice. For one, both Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte expressed a desire to disrupt society’s
hegemonic heteronormative narrative, however neither teacher took advantage of opportunities
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 195

to overtly disrupt gender identity and sexuality norms with their students. Additionally, both
teachers relied on students absorbing the disruptive subject matter through exposure, either by
providing materials in the form of books, realia, and dramatic play centers, by reading an
LGBTQ-themed book with little to no discussion of gender or sexuality, or by moving away
from a conversation with students that began with the topic of gender and sexuality, but shifted
to a conversation of a different topic. Finally, both Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte inadvertently
reinforced and reproduced historically heteronormative understandings through their curricular
and pedagogical choices.
Different Ways of Understanding Fixed and Flexible
Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte did not construct the fixed or flexible nature of gender
identity and sexuality in the same way. Mrs. Waters saw the flexible nature of one’s gender
identity and sexuality as a transition from one fixed point to another while Mrs. Fuerte saw an
individual’s gender and sexuality as being internally fixed and the discovery of one’s gender
identity and sexuality was up to the individual.
Mrs. Waters indicated she was not able to fully commit to a flexible, socially constructive
approach to gender identity and sexuality and was heavily influenced by society’s hegemonic
heteronormative belief system that she had internalized. One of the ways this tension between
how she saw the world and how she was trying to understand it was demonstrated was by her
interaction with situations and terminology regarding gender identity and sexuality were novel to
her. When wrestling with these new situations and terminology, Mrs. Waters demonstrated a
default inclination to operate within a fixed, binary interpretation of gender and wrestled with
society’s fixed definitions of male and female, which attached certain attributes to each gender
(Burr, 1995). An example of this was when Mrs. Waters described what it must have been like
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 196

for a friend of hers whose child was going through a gender transition and how she believed the
transition would be the exchange of one gender for another. She explained,
Well, regarding my friend’s daughter uh…it was novel, uh I actually had not experienced
that ever and uh…I mostly thought of my friend more than the daughter and thought
about what I would feel like, be like in her position of just seeing her um…(clicks
tongue) feel a little sad as if she was saying goodbye to one person and trying to get to
know another. So um I didn’t feel sad for her I just kinda’ understood that that’s what she
was…going through. But it didn’t make me sad, it just made me feel empathic, I guess
that she was saying goodbye to somebody. That was my interpretation of it too.
She focused on the mother of the child who was transitioning and how she felt throughout the
process and avoided the topic of the child’s experience as she/he/ze discovered her/his/zir
identity. She was uncomfortable with the topic of gender fluidity as she saw the transformation
as binary, moving from one gender to the other expressing her connection to the sadness the
mother might feel as she said, “as if she was saying goodbye to one person and trying to get to
know another.” This indicated her internalization of society’s hegemonic heteronormative belief
system that privileged the idea of fixed gender.
Mrs. Fuerte, on the other hand, saw an individual’s gender and sexuality as being both
internally fixed and, if a person experienced dissonance with her/his/zir gender or sexuality,
flexible in that the discovery of her/his/zir gender identity and sexuality could be attained
through questioning and experimentation. An example of this was when Mrs. Fuerte explained
her beliefs about the nature of sexuality as she said,
I think a little bit of both…I think um…that human sexuality is something within
individuals however I think that men or women can also question themselves or question
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 197

others and perhaps want to question themselves and um…might ask are they or aren’t
they and they have to figure it out. I had a friend once who is straight….and at some point
cuz’ we’re talking about human sexuality, right? (yes) Okay, so at some point, she dated
a woman and she through that experience figured out that she wasn’t lesbian. She needed
to go through that. I mean, for myself, despite all my gay friends, I never felt like I
needed to experiment. I know who I am and as a sexual being, um…but everybody’s
different.
Mrs. Fuerte appeared to see the process of questioning one’s sexuality as a critical step for those
who felt dissonance. She believed that one’s gender and sexuality either aligned with the identity
given at birth and supported societal expectations or a person’s gender and sexuality diverged
and if the individual was willing to question their identity, they could go through a process of
discovery in which her/his/zir fixed identity could be uncovered.
Missed/Avoided Opportunities to Overtly Disrupt Gender Identity and Sexuality Norms
The data from the interviews and observations of both Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte
showed that neither teacher took advantage of opportunities to overtly disrupt gender identity
and sexuality norms with their students however, the reasons why opportunities were not taken
differed for each teacher. Mrs. Waters missed opportunities to overtly disrupt as she was not
grounded in any disruptive pedagogy due to her fluctuation between heteronormative ideologies
and alternative understandings of gender identity and sexuality. Mrs. Fuerte avoided
opportunities to teach using more overt methods due to both internal and contextual drivers.
Mrs. Waters was ambivalent about moving away from heteronormative understandings of
gender and sexuality and this instability caused avoidance in her curricular and pedagogical
plans when it came to overtly disrupting traditional gender and sexuality norms. One of the ways
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 198

she missed opportunities to overtly disrupt was the presence of imprecise goals in her lessons.
An example of this was her lesson about Paul Revere and Sybil Ludington. After students read
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, “Paul Revere’s Ride” aloud, they silently read an article
entitled, “Was There Really a Teenage, Female Paul Revere?” from Smithsonian.com.
Following, is the interaction that took place after students read both selections.
T: We are going to look at some history! Herstory! (Mrs. Waters passes out the
article to students and asks them to read it quietly)
T: Let’s talk about Sybil Ludington. Any surprise?
MS1: I didn’t know about her at all.
MS2: Yeah, I didn’t know until I read this.
T: They say she’s the female version of Paul Revere, but does she have to be the
female version of something?
SS: (weakly) Yes?
(Mrs. Waters explains that American history is not just about why wars get
started or what was in the constitution. She explains that we must give females
their due and make sure that we consider females and their contributions in
history. Next, she asks students questions about who had the power during Sybil
Ludington’s time.)
T: Who was making the laws then?
FS: White…rich, landowning men.
T: She may or may not have made the ride…hard to know for sure because of who
wrote history then.
T: Tell me some facts about her though. What else do we know from the article?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 199

FS: She was the daughter of a local militia commander.
FS: There are stamps and other things made in her image.
MS3: Is this a story?
T: It is a story unless we have some primary source.
(Teacher also brings up fact that Ludington was turned into a heroine or a villain
depending on the times.)
T: She kind of upset history! She’s a bit of a disrupter! I want you to think Paul
Revere vs. Sybil Ludington and what ways did each contribute to the events of the
war? Talk in your groups now.
(Students are not discussing much regarding Ludington or Revere. Poem books
are being collected and students start talking about other things. Teacher does
not elicit responses from students on her question.)
Although she intended to introduce a female historical legend in a lesson that had the potential
to disrupt traditional gender norms, Mrs. Waters missed an opportunity to compare the two texts,
disrupt historically oppressive gender ideologies, or promote a discussion with her students about
men being in control over written material of the time. By providing students with an article that
questioned the validity of the ride done by Ludington as the students’ only source of information
on the legend alongside a well-known poem based on the story of Paul Revere’s ride, without
any mention of a primary source about his ride, a comparison between the two figures and any
disruptive qualities of the lesson were unclear. Mrs. Waters unsteadiness between
heteronormative ideologies and alternative understandings of gender identity and sexuality
contributed to the fact that she was not based in disruptive pedagogy and to the confusion
surrounding the goals of the lesson.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 200

In Mrs. Fuerte’s case, she avoided opportunities to overtly disrupt gender identity and
sexuality norms in her classroom. Her avoidance had to do with both her internal belief in self-
determination in which she advocated for choice in the classroom so that students could have the
ability to discover gender and sexuality without projecting her beliefs on them, alongside
contextual drivers that prompted Mrs. Fuerte to find ways to safely navigate the webs of power
and social discourse in her school community. She respected the norms and traditions of other
cultures and did not want to create conflict with parents or potentially interfere with their
religious and cultural expectations. Mrs. Fuerte revealed her understanding that her job as a
teacher was to model acceptance and kindness with regards to disrupting heteronormativity, not
to impose her personal beliefs and opinions about gender and sexuality onto her students. These
factors appeared to greatly influence any efforts on her behalf to teach more formal, overt lessons
to her students that disrupted heteronormative understandings. An example of Mrs. Fuerte’s
methods she believed subtly disrupted heteronormativity while silently supporting nontraditional
gender and sexuality norms was when she wore an LGBTQ pride tee shirt with a rainbow on it to
work during LGBTQ Awareness Month.
I do remember being really excited to wear a shirt that my cousin bought for me and it
had a little rainbow, so it was my I’m gonna say quiet way of celebrating the LGBTQ
month, awareness month. And um…not saying anything about it but ya know perhaps a
child, not in my class, maybe an older one on the playground might recognize it and
understand it especially if they’re third or fourth or fifth grade. And um…there were no
children who asked me, because of course ya know there might be that child who might
ask me, “Teacher, are you gay?” And I’m okay with that question.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 201

She saw wearing this tee shirt as a disruptive act for students who understood the symbolic
meaning of the rainbow for the LGBTQ community. She believed that the tee shirt had to ability
to give students the opportunity to reach out to her and initiate a discussion about sexuality. She
was not comfortable overtly disrupting gender and sexuality norms but was comfortable with a
subversive method that telegraphed her allyship to the LGBTQ community. This silent support
allowed Mrs. Fuerte to abide by her internal belief in self-determination while safely navigating
the webs of power and social discourse in her school community.
Disruption Through Exposure/Absorption
The data from the interviews and observations of both Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte
revealed that both teachers used exposure as a means to disrupt heteronormativity in their
classrooms. Mrs. Waters relied on students absorbing the disruptive subject matter regarding
gender and sexuality as she presented it even though the exposure to the material was presented
with several confusing, juxtaposing elements and lacked further discussion with her students
necessary to clarify these elements of confusion. Mrs. Fuerte exposed students to dramatic play
centers and realia that provided her students with the opportunity to disrupt traditional roles in
society. She also provided exposure by reading LGBTQ-themed books and having them in the
classroom for students to look at independently.
Mrs. Waters appeared to believe that her students would absorb the subject matter she
presented them regarding the disruption of traditional gender and sexuality norms even though
the exposure to the material was presented in a confusing way and lacked further discussion with
her students necessary to clarify these elements of confusion. An example of this occurred when
following an activity in which students were writing out the words to “The Star-Spangled
Banner” from memory, Mrs. Waters began a conversation about whether or not her students
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 202

believed the tradition of men removing their hats when saying the Pledge of Allegiance or
singing the national anthem was sexist.
T: Do you think it’s sexist that men always had to remove their hats?
SS: (Emphatically) Yes!
T: Who passed the laws?
(She brought up laws relating to the Pledge of Allegiance. Then began
speaking about the choice to take a knee or stand. She stated that she
respected the choice to kneel but reminded the students to be respectful if they
are ever going to do that. She brought up Colin Kaepernick.)
T: He did that because his country oppresses black people.
Mrs. Waters complicated what she seemed to initially intend to be a discussion about sexism,
redirecting the discussion focused on men and sexism to issues of men and race. Her move away
from a conversation with students about the topic of gender and sexuality shifted to a
conversation of a different topic, resulting in unclear goals that complicated the message she
seemed to intend. This interaction indicated Mrs. Waters was lacking confidence in the topic she
seemed to discuss with her students and through the presentation with several juxtaposing
elements, she appeared to rely on students merely absorbing the subject matter from the exposure
she offered and did not offer further discussion or clarification.
Similarly, Mrs. Fuerte believed that her students absorbed the messages of gender and
sexuality disruption through the exposure she facilitated in her classroom, but she did not assess
students’ understanding or overtly engage students in a conversation about the topic. In the
following example, during a lesson on different types of families, Mrs. Fuerte exposed her
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 203

students to an LGBTQ-themed book about a family with two moms with little discussion prior to
reading the book and no discussion after.
(Students are called to the rug for a discussion.)
T: We have been talking about families.
(She hangs a poster on the board entitled, “Families.” Under the title, there is a list
of different types of families: “2 moms, 2 dads, big brother, big sister, 1 mom, 1
grandpa, 1 grandma, mom and dad.” It appears to be review from a recent lesson).
T: There are different kinds of families. Some have one dad, some have one mom,
some have a brother that takes care of the family. Some families have just one
mommy. Some have two mommies; some have two daddies. (A conversation
between two boys starts off to the side. Mrs. Fuerte seems to hear it, but does not
respond)
MS1: Two daddies?!
MS2: Yeah, I saw that one time! Because in The Loud House, I saw that!
MS1: Oh.
(Mrs. Fuerte pairs up the students to share what they have learned about
families) two male students share.
MS3: You go! (lots of laughing)
MS4: Some families have a family named Andy!
MS3: Some families have a family named Anthony! (More laughing)
(A female and male student share. Female student is trying to take off her boot
when Mrs. Fuerte comes near.)
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 204

MS5: (He notices that the teacher is coming and quickly speaks) Some families have
one gramma only!
T: Not all families are the same. I’m thinking of the person who does cooking,
cleaning and takes care of the family...
FS: Some families have two dads.
MS6: Some families have a brother taking care of them.
MS7: Some families have one mom and one sister.
T: I’ve met many families where it’s the grandma who takes care of everyone and
I’ve known families where there’s a mommy and a daddy. (She then introduced
the book, A Tale of Two Mommies by Vanita Oelschlager)
SS: (Excited) Ooohh! Cool!
T: But first, we’ve got to finish centers and do a little holiday practice.
MS7: (Disappointed) Ohhh! I wanna read it now!
(After centers and holiday practice, she reads the story)
T: (As she reads the story) If you have a mama and a mommy...
MS7: And a mommy?! (Teacher does not stop reading)
(Students notice rhyming and sweet moments in the story. Throughout the story,
students say, “Aw!” in response to the sweet moments among the two moms and
the son.)
SS: (After the book is finished) I like the book! Me too!
T: I like it too. We’ll talk about it later. But I know that we need to go back to
centers.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 205

Mrs. Fuerte exposed her students to the different family compositions and to a book that
explored a nontraditional family composition, two moms, without overtly engaging in a
conversation with her students about the disruptive content of the lesson. She appeared to believe
that her students absorbed the message of disrupting heteronormativity simply by listing families
that were both traditional and nontraditional, followed by students sharing the different
variations of families listed, and finally reading a story about a boy who has two moms. By
listing different family types, she normalized the LGBTQ families but also minimized or diluted
the disruptive qualities of the lesson by returning to traditionally gendered expectations in a
family such as her comment about a grandma who “takes care of everyone” and by discussing a
mommy and daddy pairing, a heteronormative example. Mrs. Fuerte generalized the topic rather
than overtly discussing a family that did not follow the stereotypical family structure or the
breaking down of traditional gender norms that occurs when there are two women or two men
performing all the parental roles.
Reinforced and Reproduced Heteronormativity
Both Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte inadvertently reinforced and reproduced a dominant
heteronormative perspective with their students. Mrs. Waters inserted heterosexual information
in spaces that did not command the presence of information regarding any sexuality type and
missed opportunities to represent the LGBTQ community where the heterosexual community
was represented. Mrs. Fuerte used default language with her students that reinforced traditional
gender roles, reproducing gendered expectations.
Mrs. Waters routinely reproduced a dominant heteronormative perspective with her
students without demonstrating evidence of instances that contradicted these perspectives. An
example of this occurred when Mrs. Waters did not intervene to supplement information when
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 206

two students presented on astronaut Sally Ride, including information about Ride’s 5-year
marriage to fellow NASA astronaut Steven Hawley, while neglecting to mention her female
partner of 27 years, Tam O’Shaughnessy.
SR: (Taken from the transcript of the video that was played in class) Okay, here are
some fun facts.
N: Yay! I mean thank you.
SR: Okay, well I loved to do pranks when I was a kid. I got people so good.
N: I heard you did a book signing. Who was the nicest person you met there?
SR: Oh, that’s an easy question. Umm, what’s her name? She’s right over there.
N: Mrs. Waters.
SR: Yeah, she is so nice.
N: I was wondering, did you get married?
SR: I got married to another astronaut from NASA named Steven Hawley. If you want
to know another fun fact, I am in the National Women’s Hall of Fame and the
Astronaut Hall of fame.
The absence of intervention by Mrs. Waters during the presentation or after during a question
and answer session generated a reproduction of a dominant heteronormative perspective. Her
students learned only a portion of Sally Ride’s identity as they were denied facts about her
identity as a lesbian and that she was the first known LGBTQ astronaut. Moreover, allowing her
students to represent her sexuality as a heterosexual, without including information about her 27-
year partnership with Tam O’Shaughnessy misrepresented Sally Ride’s identity and was
historically inaccurate. By not attending to the details of a historical figure’s life more carefully,
allowing certain piece of information to stay in while other pieces were left out, Mrs. Waters
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 207

enabled the reproduction of heteronormativity even though it may not have been her intention to
do so.
Although Mrs. Fuerte’s desire was to disrupt the dominant narrative with regards to
traditional gendered stereotypes, at times she defaulted to language that reinforced traditional
gender roles and reproduced gendered expectations with her students. An example of Mrs.
Fuerte’s use of default language occurred when Mrs. Fuerte spontaneously intervened in the
kitchen center where two boys were getting ready to cook.
(During center rotations, Mrs. Fuerte notices two male students in the kitchen.
She walks over to help a boy tie a pink apron.)
T: We wear an apron when we cook. A chef is someone who cooks.
MS1: My mom likes to cook!
(A boy walking by, not playing in the kitchen center stops to comment.)
MS2: My grandpa likes to cook!
T: My husband likes to cook too!
(The boy wearing the apron appears to enjoy cooking in the kitchen and kept the
apron on the entire time he played there. He smiles as he poured tea for the other
boy playing in the center.)
She used the word “chef” to describe the boys’ actions in the kitchen. She associated the roles
the boys had taken to those of a profession that is dominantly held by men rather than connecting
them to the task of cooking in a household kitchen, a task dominantly held by women. Her
default language reinforced traditional roles and reproduced gendered expectations for the boys.
Although Mrs. Fuerte telegraphed her support of the boys performing the disruptive task of
cooking by helping to tie the apron strings, she added language that reinforced the
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 208

heteronormative act, that the two boys were professional chefs in a restaurant and not family
members preparing a meal in a household kitchen.
Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte both expressed a desire to disrupt society’s hegemonic
heteronormative narrative for their students. From the data derived from interviews and
observations of their classroom interactions, four patterns emerged that were consistent with both
of their teaching practices. The patterns created a picture of a teacher who was making an effort
to show respect for students and families whose gender identity and sexuality did not follow
traditional societal norms by providing alternative representations of gender and sexuality in both
pedagogical and curricular choices, but demonstrated interactions that did not disrupt traditional
gender and sexuality in an overt way. There were four themes common to both teachers: each
teacher expressed different fixed and flexible understandings of gender identity and sexuality,
both teachers missed or avoided opportunities to overtly disrupt gender identity and sexuality
norms, both teachers disrupted heteronormativity through exposure/absorption, and both teachers
unintentionally reinforced and reproduced heteronormativity in their practice. Mrs. Waters’s
ambivalence about moving away from heteronormative understandings of gender identity and
sexuality stemmed from her being primarily grounded in a heteronormative perspective. The
hegemonic heteronormative belief system she had internalized made it difficult for her to fully
commit to a socially constructive approach that would allow for her to teach overt lessons that
provided clear goals and messages that disrupted heteronormativity. Mrs. Fuerte’s avoidance to
overtly disrupt gender identity and sexuality norms in her classroom stemmed from her internal
belief in self-determination, promoting choice in her classroom to enable students’ individual
discovery of gender and sexuality without the imposition of beliefs from teacher to student.
Alongside her belief in self-determination, her avoidance also stemmed from contextual drivers,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 209

which prompted Mrs. Fuerte to carefully find ways to disrupt without upsetting the networks of
power, such as parents and administrators, in her school community. Mrs. Waters and Mrs.
Fuerte both expressed a desire to disrupt society’s dominant heteronormative narrative but did
not take opportunities to use pedagogy and content that carried out this task in an overt manner,
ultimately reinforcing and reproducing gender and sexuality norms with their students.
Revised Conceptual Framework
Although I had asked questions during my interviews with each teacher (see Appendix
X) that addressed the level of influence the state and district had on the teacher participants’
efforts to deliver content and pedagogy that disrupted heteronormativity, information did not
emerge from either participant. In fact, it became clear from my data that the teacher participants
were mostly influenced through their larger life experiences and heteronormative understandings
from their own identities, beliefs, and culture, and from society. Thus, in the following section, I
present my revised conceptual framework that emerged as a result of what I learned in my study
after I collected, analyzed, and interpreted data.
While I had presupposed that the state and district context would emerge as relevant to
the way the teachers made sense of their efforts to deliver content and pedagogy that disrupted
heteronormativity, their own internalization of heteronormativity outside of the school setting
was their primary driver. Additionally, they were receiving nominal messages from their parent
community and administrators in the school setting that marginally reinforced what they had
already experienced and were struggling to make sense of with regards to gender identity and
sexuality. There was no evidence of a direct role of the district or the state. The enactment of
their lessons as well as other classroom interactions were expressions of what they believed, and
they aligned with messages they received from parents and perceived to be aligned with
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 210

messages they received from the administration at their schools. The two teachers in this study
were known by their administrators and other educators for teaching content and pedagogy that
disrupted gender and sexuality norms and therefore, this conceptual framework is a theory of
action with respect to teachers who are also in this particular category.
In my revised framework, I argue teachers come into the classroom space as
demonstrations of much larger societal understandings with beliefs and identities grounded in a
heteronormative framework and this had a much more substantial influence on their pedagogical
and curricular choices. Consistent with my original conceptual framework, teachers’ beliefs and
identities are then reflected in the interactions they have with their students in the classroom as
they relate to the choices they make with respect to LGBTQ-inclusive content. Support or a lack
of support from parents, community, and administrators may have only minimal effects on
teachers’ choices.
As demonstrated in Figure 5, I present my revised conceptual framework model as a
series of concentric circles, with the five levels categorized from the most intimate level in the
center to the broadest on the outside. In my revised conceptual framework, I argue that
heteronormativity weaves through the spaces of society, school, and the inner circle. I will
discuss each of the three components in the model in more detail.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 211

Figure 5
Conceptual Framework

As shown in Figure 6, located in the common center of the concentric model, are the
most intimate levels: the teacher, the students’ experiences, and the continuum representing the
degree to which LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy are present. A bidirectional arrow
connects the teacher and the students’ experiences since teachers’ choices with curriculum
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 212

Figure 6
Inner Circle

and pedagogy are influenced by teachers’ beliefs, identity, and actions that they take in response
to student experiences such as spontaneous interventions and discussions that emerge in the
classroom (Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014; Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016; Payne &
Smith, 2014; Robinson, 2002; Taylor et al., 2016; Warin & Adriany, 2017). Teachers’ actions
are on a continuum and may either come from a fixed, less flexible, essentialist belief system,
where they would be more likely to enable problematic behavior, such as teasing and bullying
that occurs among students regarding gender and sexuality or from a flexible, socially
constructed belief system, where they are more likely to respond to and try to prevent such
behavior (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016; Payne & Smith 2014; Robinson, 2002; Taylor et
al., 2016). Teachers who have more awareness and raise to their own consciousness issues
around gender and sexuality, are likely to attempt to use disruptive content and pedagogy but
simultaneously hold onto internalized heteronormative belief systems that interfere with these
ventures into disruptive content and pedagogy. Teachers’ actions also include opportunities to
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 213

support or discourage the behavior of students whose actual or perceived gender and sexuality
fall outside the heteronormative realm, such as a child who identifies as a boy wearing a dress
(Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014; Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016; Robinson, 2002; Warin
& Adriany, 2017). Additionally, students’ questions, such as those about gendered colors, toys,
and activities and those about family structure and sexuality can also be the catalysts for student-
inspired, teachable moments from which LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and pedagogy can be
implemented (Martino & Cumming-Potvin, 2016). In all cases, teachers’ beliefs and identities
strongly mediate their level of action or inaction to such teacher/student interactions and would
fall somewhere on the continuum when choosing how to respond and are therefore located inside
the inner circle.
As is shown in Figure 7, the black arrows pointing toward the inner circle represent the
school setting and the direct influence the elements have on teachers’ pedagogical and curricular
choices (Brant, 2017; Burr, 1995; Cumming-Potvin & Martino, 2014; Meyer et al., 2016; Payne
& Smith, 2014; Taylor et al.2016). Within the school context ring, these individual elements of
parent community and administrators may nominally influence teachers by reinforcing what they
Figure 7
Arrows from Contexts

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 214

already experience from spaces outside the school setting in society. Any support or lack of
support from the parent community and administrators with regards to teachers’ choices to
include content and pedagogy that disrupt gender and sexuality are contained within the school
context.
As shown in Figure 8, located in the outer-most ring, is society’s prevailing
heteronormativity, the most expansive system, which filters into all the educational contexts
Figure 8
Arrows from Heteronormativity

surrounding the teacher in the classroom. This flood of influence from the heteronormative
structure is represented by the purple arrows pointing from the outer-most ring to the center.
Since all social spaces are heterosexualized, the ways in which teachers carry out their curricular
and pedagogical decisions are heavily influenced by an existing heterosexualized curriculum
among many other heterosexualized messages (Stein & Plummer, 1994; Sumara & Davis, 1999).
This revised concept map illustrated how the teacher, located in the center, is vital in the
disruption of heterosexualized educational settings in order to promote social justice and
represent marginalized groups of people (Sumara & Davis, 1999).

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 215

Conclusion
This revised conceptual framework provides a theory of the phenomena that I researched
which informed my study. I argue that teachers’ beliefs and identities and the way they
differentiate the messages they primarily receive from society alongside minimal influence from
the school setting, affect their choices to include LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy and
their decision to either overtly confront heteronormative conditions in the classroom or succumb
to the reinforcement and reproduction of society’s prevailing heteronormativity.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 216

Chapter Five: Discussions, Implications, and Recommendations
This dissertation examined how elementary teachers implement pedagogy and content
that is LGBTQ-inclusive given their perceptions of gender identity and sexuality. A qualitative,
multi-case study was conducted to address the research question:
• How are elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality revealed in
their pedagogical and curricular choices?
In order to answer this question, I used nonprobabilistic, purposeful sampling to select two
elementary school teachers who had the reputation for attempting to use LGBTQ-inclusive
pedagogy and curriculum in their classrooms. I selected teachers who worked in public K-5
elementary schools located in Southern California. I confirmed that the schools the teachers
worked in were not actively pursuing an agenda to implement LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum,
affected by an initiative that was underway at the district level, or actively discouraging LGBTQ-
inclusive agendas or initiatives. The schools did not have a specific set of demographic
characteristics with regards to race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status (SES) as one school with a
particular demographic is not more likely than another to include students or families from the
LGBTQ community (Newport, 2018). The data that I collected to answer these questions
included in-person interviews prior to classroom observations, four direct observations in each
classroom with anchor interviews throughout when necessary, and a final interview of each
participating teacher.
Summary of Findings
Mrs. Waters was a fifth grade teacher who was primarily grounded in a heteronormative
perspective. She asserted that she had the desire to disrupt heteronormativity for her students;
however, the fluctuation between essentialist and social constructivist thought caused great
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 217

indecisiveness, making it difficult for her to fully commit to a more flexible approach with
regards to her curricular and pedagogical choices. The data showed that Mrs. Waters’s expressed
beliefs revealed tension between her worldview and how she was attempting to comprehend the
world in three ways: she struggled to identity vocabulary necessary to precisely describe her
construction of gender identity and sexuality, relying instead on traditional language, she
revealed she was in a state of transition, recognizing situations or conditions related to gender
identity and sexuality that were novel to her, often trying to adjust her traditional language with
more progressive vocabulary, and she revealed her recognition of her unconscious biases which
uncovered her efforts to adopt a more flexible orientation towards gender and sexuality.
The data showed that Mrs. Waters was ambivalent about moving away from
heteronormative understandings of gender identity and sexuality toward more alternative
understandings. This unsteadiness between the two perceptions affected her ability to clearly
define the goals of the lesson, which resulted in missed opportunities to disrupt gender identity
and sexuality norms in her curricular and pedagogical plans with her students. She did this by
ignoring and silencing conversations that arose in her classroom, often inadvertently reproducing
a dominant heteronormative perspective with her students that reinforced heteronormative
understandings without presenting evidence of occurrences that ran counter to these
understandings.
Mrs. Fuerte was a kindergarten teacher whose articulated beliefs revealed both a fixed
and flexible understanding of gender identity and sexuality. She expressed that sexuality was
fixed from within, aligning with the identity an individual was given at birth and societal
expectations or diverging if the individual experienced dissonance, with a discovery of
her/his/zir fixed gender identity and sexuality throughout her/his/zir life. With regards to gender,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 218

she expressed the belief as binary, that the transition would be one in which the individual would
completely change from one gender to another. She stated that students’ differences should be
celebrated and respected and believed it was her responsibility to model the disruption of what
she believed was the socially constructed concept of gendered things such as colors, clothing,
toys, and games with her students. She expressed a belief in self-determination and believed in
facilitating choice for her students using dramatic play centers, dress-up clothes, and realia. She
believed it was her responsibility to respect the culture and traditions of her students’ families
and did not believe she should impose her own norms and traditions onto her students. This
belief appeared to greatly affect her efforts to teach formal lessons to her students that contained
disruptive content with regards to gender and sexuality as she did not want to create any conflict
or interfere with their religious and cultural expectations. Finally, she did not believe it was her
job to deliver any content that had sensitive content about gender and sexuality; this was the job
of her students’ parents.
The data showed that Mrs. Fuerte occasionally disrupted heteronormative behavior in
subtle and subversive ways that did not deliver overt messages through formal lessons. She
demonstrated this in three ways: through spontaneous interventions that stopped teasing and
modeled positive language that celebrated students’ nontraditional gender and sexuality norms,
through exposure intended to allow students to discover their gender identity and sexuality using
dramatic play centers as well as access to LGBTQ-themed books, and through her expressed
allyship, wearing an LGBTQ pride tee-shirt to school and displaying a photograph in her
classroom of her cousin and his husband accompanied by forthright language that openly shared
his identity with her students. Although Mrs. Fuerte’s desire was to disrupt dominant gender and
sexuality narratives, her belief in self-determination for her students, alongside the lack of
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 219

support from parents and administration, and the enactment of her subtle disruption methods
often reproduced and reinforced the traditional gendered stereotypes she was trying to interrupt.
In the following section, I will address the implications and recommendations that I have
drawn from my study.
Implications and Recommendations
This dissertation explored the ways in which two public elementary school teachers’
beliefs, whether they are essentialist or social constructivist, were continually influenced by
society’s internalized hegemonic heteronormative belief system and how their beliefs and
perceptions of gender identity and sexuality were revealed in their pedagogical and curricular
choices. Both teachers exhibited methods that depended on students absorbing the disruptive
subject matter through exposure. Mrs. Fuerte provided materials in the form of books, realia, and
dramatic play centers while Mrs. Waters had conversations with students that began with the
topic of gender or sexuality and shifted to a conversation of a different topic, making the goals of
the lesson unclear. Findings from this study revealed that although both teachers expressed the
desire to disrupt a worldview that promoted heterosexuality as the norm, they did not take
opportunities to use pedagogy and content in a manner that overtly carried out this task,
ultimately reinforcing and reproducing traditional gender and sexuality norms with their
students. In the following section, I will discuss the implications and recommendations for
teacher practice, educational policy, and future research that emerged from these findings.
Practice
Neither teacher in this study demonstrated the knowledge or skills needed to construct
conditions where students were able to challenge heteronormative expectations. For Mrs. Waters,
Mrs. Fuerte, or any other similarly situated teacher to be able to foster these conditions, teachers
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 220

need to understand how to approach the content in ways that allow them to create conditions for
students to be able to challenge heteronormative expectations. In order to do this, teachers must
be given the opportunity to critically reflect on gender identity, sexuality, and heteronormativity
and be prepared for their own emotional responses as well as those from parents and students
(Malins, 2016). One recommendation to address this implication is to ensure that teachers’
practice be supported and enriched with professional learning that engages them in critical
reflection, providing them with the tools they need to acknowledge their own biases and
recognize the ways that they are themselves perpetuators of the status quo with regards to
traditional gender and sexuality norms. Critical reflection would make it possible for teachers to
become aware of and challenge hegemonic assumptions and power dynamics that surround their
practice (Brookfield, 2010). Engaging in critical reflection would allow teachers to have the
structures in place that would encourage them to push for a broader set of understandings in
order to work toward normalizing conversations about nontraditional gender and sexual
identities with their students (Malins, 2016). Consistent with arguments put forth by Webster-
Wright (2009), using professional learning to engage in critical reflection would allow for an
ongoing, job-embedded, holistic and iterative process in which teachers would be given
opportunities to receive feedback. Professional learning would not only support teachers as they
enhance their learning by critically reflecting on gender and sexuality but would “encourage a
spirit of critical inquiry where professionals can gain insight into their own learning and the
assumptions they hold about their practice” (p. 727). Professional learning experiences that
support teacher critical reflection would help teachers recognize the already heterosexualized
classroom and its effects on students as stated by Birden (2002), “By ignoring sexual diversity, a
curriculum is perpetuated that presumes all youth to be heterosexual until proven otherwise,
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 221

presenting a formidable barrier to the psychosocial development of LGBTQ youth” (p. 56).
Thus, critical reflection could facilitate transformative learning by not only enhancing teacher
practice but has the potential to alter societal norms and advance positive change.
In this study, both teachers struggled to utilize the materials they included in their lessons
that were intended to disrupt heteronormativity in their classroom and by either avoiding
discussions with students about the topic of gender and sexuality norms or missing opportunities
that students brought forth regarding gender identity and sexuality, they demonstrated the need
for guidance in implementation. Another professional learning opportunity that teachers would
benefit from would be guidance in using resources and pedagogy that have the potential to
disrupt heteronormativity. Teachers need to deepen existing skills and knowledge associated
with implementing the curriculum where it exists and make pedagogical choices that achieve the
goal of disruption. Meyer et al. (2016) argued for a “deeper paradigm shift towards applying
queer and anti-oppressive pedagogies in Pre-k-12 schools,” we need to “create spaces that are
more gender-inclusive of all students and the ways in which people grow, change, and become”
(pp. 37-39). To achieve this, they suggest six principles that can be applied to traditional school
settings that could enhance teachers’ curricular and pedagogical choices: (a) develop a more
student-centered, flexible curriculum where students voices and interests are central to the
learning process, (b) promote interdisciplinary and project-based learning that moves away from
a subject-focused curriculum, exploring links between subjects and applying knowledge in more
authentic ways, (c) model and promote creativity to encourage students to appreciate divergent
thinking and respect creative differences among students, (d) establish restorative justice
programs so that students learn to listen to each other in a structured way, (e) reduce or entirely
remove sex-segregated activities and spaces as well as heterosexual activities, organizing
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 222

students and resources in a way that is gender-neutral and not specific to a sexuality, and (f)
integrate discussion of gender diversity as well as sexuality as a social justice issue throughout
the curriculum, providing intentional lessons on gender identity and sexuality as a social justice
issue (Meyer et al., 2016).
Both teachers in this study expressed a lack of support from parents, administrators, and
other school staff when it came to a providing a school culture that represented all students and
families with regards to their sexuality and gender identity. Both Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte
demonstrated this lack of support through their diffidence in approaching overt lessons that
disrupted heteronormativity, often subtly exposing students to content with the hope that they
would absorb the goals of the lesson. This unclarity caused them to inadvertently reinforce and
reproduce traditional gender and sexuality norms. For Mrs. Waters, Mrs. Fuerte, or any teacher
in a similar position to be able to have confidence in teaching lessons that disrupt
heteronormativity, teachers need opportunities that help them go beyond simply recognizing the
need for disruptive pedagogy and curriculum to integrating a detailed focus on anti-oppressive
education in their schools that addresses the marginalization of the LGBTQ community and the
privilege associated with heteronormativity (Taylor et al., 2016). A recommendation to address
this implication is to ensure that teachers are provided with professional learning that educates
them on how the marginalization of the LGBTQ community affects school climate. Kumashiro
(2000) argues that teacher education and professional learning should ideally prepare teachers to
go beyond education “for the Other” and “about the Other” to evaluate the unjustness of
heteronormativity and learn ways to take action and make changes to the culture of their school.
Taylor et al. (2016) contend that in order for teachers to take action, using pedagogy and
curriculum overtly and confidently without fear of professional repercussions, and to work
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 223

against systems of gender and sexuality norms in their schools, they must be provided with the
following three interventions. First, teachers must “understand their legal and professional rights,
but also their legal and professional obligations and they need time to converse with each other
and to work through their own rationales for inaction” (p. 133). Second, they recommend that
teachers be provided with information that clarifies the purpose of LGBTQ-inclusive education,
particularly that it does not involve instruction in sexual practices. Finally, they suggest that
teachers be provided with guidance in applying inclusive education principles, similar to those
implemented for other marginalized groups of people, across the curriculum, to ensure that
teachers move from a place of support to a place of active practice (Taylor et al., 2016).
Additionally, professional learning should be dedicated to teachers and principals identifying the
degree to which LGBTQ-related content is currently present in the curriculum used at their
school. The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) recommends that one way
educators can promote safer school environments is by examining how much content includes
LGBTQ people, history, and events and lessons that accomplish social emotional learning (SEL)
that provides opportunities for students to reflect on their own identities, including gender
identity and expression and family diversity (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network,
n.d.).
Policy
Both teachers in this study expressed their lack of knowledge regarding existing policies
that promote LGBTQ inclusion at the school, district, and state levels. Specific school based and
system wide policies would include content and pedagogy that disrupt heteronormativity, lessons
that avoid bias and include positive representations of LGBTQ people, history, and events as
well as other disruptive measures that encompass the school environment and school culture
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 224

such as safety and respect for individuals who identify with a nontraditional gender or sexuality.
For the teachers and administrators at Mrs. Waters’s and Mrs. Fuerte’s schools or any similar
public elementary school, policies must be enacted to empower teachers to confidently practice
LGBTQ-inclusive education with the knowledge that their colleagues and administration, as well
as district and state, support them in their endeavors. Similarly, for students and families of
comparable public elementary schools, concrete policies that ensure safety and respect for
LGBTQ individuals, which an inclusive curriculum is part of, are related to less-hostile school
experiences and increased feelings of connectedness to the school community (Kosciw et al.,
2018). GLSEN (n.d.) advocates that “Inclusive curriculum benefits all students by promoting
diversity and teaching them about the myriad of identities in their communities” (para. 1). One
policy recommendation that addresses this implication is to ensure that school leaders in the
elementary environment are provided with professional learning on the importance of support for
LGBTQ-inclusive education, specifically enhancing their understanding of the relevance and
appropriateness of LGBTQ topics for early childhood education (Robinson, 2002). Principals
should also be a part of the professional learning process for teachers that fosters learning about
how to enact disruptive curriculum and pedagogy as it is important for a principal to fully
understand the area in which a teacher's attempt to grow is focused, to check in regularly with the
teacher throughout the year to see, in this case, how much disruptive content and pedagogy is
being used, and to consider such progress when evaluating the teacher in this area (Hunter,
1988).
Principals need ongoing district-level support and training that prepares them for parent
pushback particularly regarding the intersection of gender and sexual identity topics and cultural,
religious, and moral values which can intensify homophobia and heterosexism in their school
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 225

culture. Principals would benefit from training that helps them understand how to introduce
LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum at their school. GLESEN (n.d.) recommend that it is best for
school leaders to communicate LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and school policies to teachers in
professional development settings. They also recommend utilizing Back to School night to
address parents directly with the schools’ obligation to provide a safe and supportive learning
environment for all students as well as a pledge to have a diverse, equitable, and inclusive school
culture for all. Finally, it is essential that principals understand that LGBTQ families may not be
visible, but their invisibility does not mean they are absent nor does the appearance that they are
absent equate with irrelevancy (Robinson, 2002). Many LGBTQ families in elementary school
environments are silent as a result of homophobia and heterosexism operating within the
educational setting. School leaders and policies enacted at the school, district, and state level can
help in making connections with LGBTQ students and families as well as all families in the
elementary school setting while bringing visibility and representation to an underrepresented
community.
Neither teacher in this study believed that she had a sufficient supply of LGBTQ-
inclusive books in her school’s library. Both teachers believed they would receive support from
their librarians to purchase some inclusive materials if they approached them, but both were
unsure of their place in the purchasing process. Mrs. Waters referred to parents as the governing
force behind book selection and purchase for their school library and believed that it may be
more worthwhile to purchase books for her own classroom, rather than for the entire school
community. Ryan et al. (2013) argue that even without professional development, the availability
of books with inclusive content is a powerful way to support inclusive practices in schools.
Regarding the availability of LGBTQ-inclusive books the authors said, “Children [can make]
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 226

deep and lasting connections with the characters they read about” (p. 102). The availability of
digital sites such as Vimeo and YouTube can also give teachers access to videos that are
LGBTQ-inclusive (Ryan et al., 2013). For Mrs. Waters, Mrs. Fuerte, or any other similarly
situated teacher to be able to have access to high-quality books, videos, and other technology that
disrupt gender and sexuality norms, school libraries must enrich their collection to include a
wide variety of fiction and non-fiction resources for all grade levels at the school and technology
plans must consider the availability of resources that address LGBTQ inclusivity, giving access
to sites and apps that would house inclusive digital content. Schools that have developed a
School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) could use funds to address the need for such
inclusive materials as content of the SPSA is aligned with goals for improving student
achievement and to improve academic performance. Policy recommendations to address this
implication would include the revising of technology policies to require LGBTQ-inclusive
digital content be made available to all K-12 teachers and students as well as the revising of
policies to require the inclusion of LGBTQ-inclusive themes in school libraries. Additionally,
policies need to be revised to ensure that librarians throughout the district receive training in the
form of professional development on the importance of LGBTQ-inclusive books, the required
amount in the school library, and a plan detailing the level of communication necessary with
teachers regarding the use of the materials. Policies about LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and
curriculum could also be included in policies that engage anti-racist and culturally relevant
pedagogy and curriculum. The intersectionality of identities for students who are LGBTQ and
Latinx, Asian, or Black should be considered when determining the need to provide content in
schools that address a wide range of identities. Such policies would provide the support that is
necessary at an elementary school to assure teachers like Mrs. Waters and Mrs. Fuerte that they
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 227

are part of a school culture that is focused on supporting and representing all students in their
school community.
Research
This study provided insights into how the beliefs and perceptions of gender identity and
sexuality of two public elementary school teachers were revealed in their curricular and
pedagogical choices. Although measures were taken to confirm the data and findings of the two
teacher participants were as accurate as possible, the study was limited by the amount of time
available to observe their practice in their classrooms. Additional time would provide for more
comprehensive observational data of each teacher and a more detailed understanding of the ways
in which their beliefs and perceptions were revealed in their curricular and pedagogical choices.
Furthermore, the addition of interview data from principals at each site would also enrich
the understanding of the culture of each school site observed. There is an implication for further
research to determine the level of support offered by the principal and insight into her/his/zir
beliefs and perceptions of gender identity and sexuality. It is not clear the role the principal
played in the level of LGBTQ inclusivity at each school using only the data from teachers’
perceptions of each principal. Further research is also needed to explain parent and other adult
participation in the school with regards to their perceptions of gender identity and sexuality.
Additionally, research is needed that explores content and pedagogy that address the needs of
students who are LGBTQ and Latinx, Asian, or Black and should be considered in conjunction
with the need for materials that address anti-racist and culturally relevant pedagogy and
curriculum. In order to create a more complete picture of the school culture, further research is
needed from the role of the principal, the roles of parents and other adults, as well as a look into
available content and pedagogy that address the needs of students who encompass
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 228

intersectionalized identities to position teachers to successfully implement LGBTQ-inclusive
content and pedagogy in their classrooms and to position schools to support the needs of all
learners.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 229

References
Bedford, D., & Julian, R. (2008). It’s a George Thing! Egmont.
Birden, S. (2002). Teaching with “attitude”: Coming to grips with the truths and consequences of
ignoring sexual diversity in school. The Journal of Educational Foundations, 16(4), 53-
70.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (5th ed.). Pearson A & B.
Bostock v. Clayton Cty, Bd. Of Comm’rs, 723 Fed. Appx. 964 (11
th
Cir.2018)
Bower, L., & Klecka, C. (2009). (Re) considering normal: Queering social norms for parents and
teachers. Teaching Education, 20(4), 357-373.
Brant, C. A. (2017, January). How do I understand the term queer? Preservice teachers, LGBTQ
knowledge, and LGBTQ self- efficacy. In The Educational Forum (Vol. 81, No. 1, pp.
35-51). Routledge.
Brookfield, S. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In Lyons, N. (ed.)
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry (pp. 215-236). Springer.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. Routledge.
California Department of Education (2020). http://www.cde.ca.gov/
California School Dashboard (2020).
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/19647336016365/2018
Chein, I. (1981). Appendix: An introduction to sampling. In L. H. Kidder (Ed.), Selltiz,
Wrightsman & Cook’s research methods in social relations (4
th
ed.). (pp.418-441).
Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 230

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Sage Publications.
Cramer, R., Hexem, S., LaPollo, A., Cuffe, K. M., Chesson, H. W., & Leichliter, J. S. (2017).
State and local policies related to sexual orientation in the United States. Journal of
public health policy, 38(1), 58-79.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design. (3
rd
ed.). Sage.
Cumming-Potvin, W. & Martino, W. (2014). Teaching about queer families: Surveillance,
censorship, and the schooling of sexualities. Teaching Education, 25(3), 309-333.
Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq.
Elwin, R., & Paulse, M. (1990). Asha’s mums. Toronto, ON: Women’s Press.
Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.
Ewert, M. (2011). 10,000 Dresses. Seven Stories Press.
Foster, M. (1993). Self-portraits of Black teachers: Narratives of individual and collective
struggle against racism. In D. McLaughlin & W. G. Tierney (Eds.), Naming silenced lives:
Personal narratives & processes of educational change, (pp. 155-176). Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Foucault, M. (1990). The History of sexuality: An introduction. Vintage.
Gay, L., & Network, S. E. (2011). Teaching respect: LGBT-inclusive curriculum and school
climate (Research Brief). New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Retrieved on July 18, 2014.
Gay, L., & Network, S. E. (2012). Playgrounds and Prejudice: Elementary School Climate in the
United States. a Survey of Students and Teachers. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 231

Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). Developing LGBTQ-Inclusive Classroom
Resources. https://www.glsen.org/activity/inclusive-curriculum-guide
Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., Villenas, C., & Giga, N. M. (2016). From Teasing to Torment:
School Climate Revisited. A Survey of US Secondary School Students and Teachers. Gay,
Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). 121 West 27th Street Suite 804, New
York, NY 10001.
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Howe, J. (2005). Totally joe (Vol. 2). Simon and Schuster.
Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). Student Non-Discrimination Act. Retrieved from
https://www.hrc.org/resources/student-non-discrimination-act#
Hunter, M. (1988). Effecting a reconciliation between supervision and evaluation—a reply to
Popham. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1(3), 275-279.
Johnson, G. (2001). Sticks and Stones. Montreal: National Film Board of Canada.
Kilodavis, C. (2011). My princess boy. Simon and Schuster.
Kindlon, D., & Thompson, M. (2002). Thorns among roses: The struggle of young boys in early
education. The Jossey-Bass reader on gender in education, 153-181.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., & Truong, N. L. (2018). The 2017
National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (GLSEN). 121 West 27th Street Suite 804, New York, NY 10001.
Kumashiro, K. (2000). Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational
Research, 70, 25-53.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 232

Kumashiro, K. (2003). The" acceptability" of race/gender/sexuality-based discrimination in
democratic schools. Transformations: The Journal of Inclusive Scholarship and
Pedagogy, 7-34.
Lindenbaum, P. (2007). Mini Mia and her darling uncle. Stockholm: R&S Books.
Lowry, L. (1993). The giver. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin.
Malins, P. (2016). How inclusive is “inclusive education” in the Ontario elementary classroom?:
Teachers talk about addressing diverse gender and sexual identities. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 54, 128-138.
Martino, W., & Cumming-Potvin, W. (2016). Teaching about sexual minorities and “princess
boys”: A queer and trans-infused approach to investigating LGBTQ-themed texts in the
elementary school classroom. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
37(6), 807-827.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage
publications.
Meyer, E. J., Tilland-Stafford, A., & Airton, L. (2016). Transgender and gender-creative students
in PK-12 schools: What we can learn from their teachers. Teachers College
Record, 118(8), 1-50.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. (3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Newport, F. (2018). In US, estimate of LGBT population rises to 4.5%. Gallup: Politics.
Retrieved from: https://news. gallup. com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.
aspx.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 233

Nylund, D. (2004). When in Rome: Heterosexism, homophobia, and sports talk radio. Journal of
Sport and Social Issues, 28(2), 136-168.
Oelschlager, V. (2011). A tale of two mommies. Vanita Books.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Payne, E., & Smith, M. (2014). The big freak out: Educator fear in response to the presence of
transgender elementary school students. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(3), 399-418.
Richardson, J., & Parnell, P. (2005). And Tango makes three. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
Robinson, K. H. (2002). Making the invisible visible: Gay and lesbian issues in early childhood
education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 3(3), 415-434.
Ryan, C. L., Patraw, J. M., & Bednar, M. (2013). Discussing princess boys and pregnant men:
Teaching about gender diversity and transgender experiences within an elementary
school curriculum. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1-2), 83-105.
Savino, C. (Writer), & Savino, C. (Director). The Loud House. Nickelodeon.
Slesaransky-Poe, G., & García, A. M. (2009). Boys with gender variant behaviors and interests:
From theory to practice. Sex Education, 9(2), 201-210.
Smith, L. M. (1978). 8: An evolving logic of participant observation, educational ethnography,
and other case studies. Review of Research in Education, 6(1), (316-377).
Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage
handbook of qualitative research (3
rd
ed.). (pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 234

Stein, A., & Plummer, K. (1994). "I can't even think straight" "Queer" Theory and the missing
sexual revolution in sociology. Sociological Theory, 12(2), 178-187.
Sumara, D., & Davis, B. (1999). Interrupting heteronormativity: Toward a queer curriculum
theory. Curriculum Inquiry, 29(2), 191-208.
Taylor, C. G., Meyer, E. J., Peter, T., Ristock, J., Short, D., & Campbell, C. (2016). Gaps
between beliefs, perceptions, and practices: The Every Teacher Project on LGBTQ-
inclusive education in Canadian schools. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(1-2), 112-140.
Warin, J., & Adriany, V. (2017). Gender flexible pedagogy in early childhood education. Journal
of Gender Studies, 26(4), 375-386.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding
authentic professional learning. Review of educational research, 79(2), 702-739.
Weeks, J. (1986). Sexuality. London: Routledge.
Wind, S. A., Jones, E., Bergin, C., & Jensen, K. (2019). Exploring patterns of principal
judgments in teacher evaluation related to reported gender and years of
experience. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 150-158.
Yarbrough, D.B., Shula, L.M., Hopson, R.K., Caruthers, F.A. (2010). The program evaluation
standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd. Ed). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 235

Appendix A
Teacher Perceptions of Gender Identity and Sexuality Protocol

RQ: How are elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality revealed in
their pedagogical and curricular choices?

Introduction:

Thank you for letting me interview you today. Your insight is valuable to understanding the
experience of an elementary teacher who is known for enacting LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and
content in her/his/zir classroom.
I would like to record what you say so that I do not miss any of it. I do not want to rely solely on
my notes and miss something that you say or accidentally misrepresent you in some way. Is it
okay with you that I use a recording device? If at any time during the interview you would like
me to turn the recorder off so that you may say something off-record, just let me know and I will
turn it off.
The goal of this study is to learn what elementary teachers’ believe about the role of gender
identity and sexuality in relation to their curricular and pedagogical choices in their classrooms.
I’m interested in learning about how you think about gender identity and sexuality and their role
in your classrooms.
The interview should take about an hour.
I would like to start by asking you some questions about your belief system as it pertains to
gender identity and sexuality.
1. Would you describe your beliefs about gender identity as being fixed or flexible? For
example, do you believe a person is born assigned with the correct gender at birth or is
gender a characteristic that is developed throughout a person’s life?
2. Who, if anyone, in your life have you interacted with whose gender identity has evolved
over time and what was that experience like?
3. How important do you believe it is to address an individual by that individual’s preferred
pronoun. Why?
4. Some people would say that it should be easy to identify an individual’s gender identity
by that individual’s outward appearance. What would you say?
5. Would you describe your beliefs about sexuality as being fixed or flexible? For example,
do you believe a person’s sexuality is set or can it be fluid or evolve throughout a
person’s life?
6. Who, if anyone, in your life have you interacted with whose sexuality was described to
you as fluid or evolving and what was that experience like?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 236

7. Some people would say that an individual’s sexuality is private information. What would
you say?

We’ve talked a little about your belief system as it pertains to gender identity and sexuality.
Now, I would like to ask you some questions about how you construct your identity.

8. How would you say you construct your identity? For example, someone might describe
himself as white, male, heterosexual, a teacher, raised on the east coast, middle class,
religious, among other identifiers.
9. How, if at all, does your race get revealed in the way that you make sense of gender
identity?
10. How, if at all, does your culture get revealed in the way that you make sense of gender
identity?
11. How, if at all, does your social class get revealed in the way that you make sense of
gender identity?
12. How, if at all, does the generation you are a part of get revealed in the way that you make
sense of gender identity?
13. How, if at all, does your gender get revealed in the way that you make sense of gender
identity?
14. How, if at all, does your sexuality get revealed in the way that you make sense of gender
identity?
15. How, if at all, do your religious beliefs or lack of get revealed in the way that you make
sense of gender identity?
16. How, if at all, does your race get revealed in the way that you make sense of sexuality?
17. How, if at all, does your culture get revealed in the way that you make sense of sexuality?
18. How, if at all, does your social class get revealed in the way that you make sense of
sexuality?
19. How, if at all, does the generation you are a part of get revealed in the way that you make
sense of sexuality?
20. How, if at all, does your gender get revealed in the way that you make sense of sexuality?
21. How, if at all, does your sexuality get revealed in the way that you make sense of
sexuality?
22. How, if at all, do your religious beliefs or lack of get revealed in the way that you make
sense of sexuality?

I would like to ask you some questions about elementary-aged students’ comprehension of
sexuality and gender identity.

23. Tell me about the ways you believe elementary-aged students understand gender identity.
24. Thinking about your class from this year, what would be a recent example of how your
students demonstrated their understanding of gender identity?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 237

25. Thinking about your class from this year, tell me about a recent experience where your
students experienced gender identity.
26. Tell me about the ways you believe elementary-aged students understand sexuality.
27. Thinking about your class from this year, tell me about a recent experience where your
students demonstrated their understanding of sexuality.
28. Thinking about your class from this year, tell me about a recent experience where your
students experienced sexuality.

I would now like to ask you some questions about sexuality and gender identity in your
classroom with regards to your curricular choices.

29. What, if anything, about your identity do you draw on for your content choices with
regards to LGBTQ-inclusive topics?
30. What, if anything, about your identity do you think makes it harder for you when you are
making content choices with regards to LGBTQ-inclusive topics? For example, does
your religious background or lack of religion in your life affect the types of books you
use in your lessons such as a book about a child who is transgender.
31. Some people would say that the topic sexuality is not appropriate for an elementary level
conversation. What would you say?
32. If there has been an instance where the topic of sexuality was raised by a student in some
direct or indirect way, tell me about that experience.
a. What did the child say?
b. What, if anything did you say (or do)?
33. If there has been a time when you have raised the topic of sexuality in response to
something happening (not planned) in your classroom, tell me about that.
34. Describe a recent time in your classroom that you believe represented your belief about
your role in facilitating children’s relationship to sexuality.
35. Some people would say reading stories that contain two mommies or two daddies to
elementary students is teaching them to be gay. What would you say to them?
36. Tell me about a time when you chose to read a story that contained two mommies or two
daddies. If that has not been something you have done, tell me about a time when a
student brought up the topic of two mommies or two daddies when you were reading a
story to them that didn’t have that set of relationships.
37. Tell me about a recent lesson plan you have used that addressed sexuality.
a. Share the lesson plan with me.
b. Tell me about how you approached the construction of this plan.
c. What were you thinking about?
d. What did you want the students to learn?
e. Why was it important to you to teach this lesson?
38. Some people would say that the topic gender identity is not appropriate for an elementary
level conversation. What would you say?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 238

39. If there has been an instance where the topic of gender identity was raised by a student in
some direct or indirect way, tell me about that experience.
a. What did the child say?
b. What, if anything did you say (or do)?
40. If there has been a time when you have raised the topic of gender identity in response to
something happening (not planned) in your classroom, tell me about that.
41. Describe a recent time in your classroom that you believe represented your belief about
your role in facilitating children’s relationship to gender identity.
42. Walk me through a recent lesson plan you have used that addressed gender identity. Tell
me about your decision to address gender identity in the lesson.
a. Share the lesson plan with me.
b. Tell me about how you approached the construction of this plan.
c. What were you thinking about?
d. What did you want the students to learn?
e. Why was it important to you to teach this lesson?

Now, I would like to ask you some questions about sexuality and gender identity in your
classroom with regards to your pedagogical approach.

43. What, if anything, about your identity do you draw on for your pedagogical choices with
regards to LGBTQ-inclusive topics?
44. What, if anything, about your identity do you think makes it harder for you when you are
making pedagogical choices with regards to LGBTQ-inclusive topics? For example,
does your religious background or lack of religion in your life affect the way you discuss
different types of families with your students?
45. What, if anything, do you believe you need to teach your students about sexuality? What,
if anything, would you point to as the reason you think it is important to teach?
46. What, if anything, do you believe you should not talk about with them?
47. If you have had an experience in which a child raised her/his/zir hand and said something
or asked about something that had to do with sexuality, describe how you responded.
48. Think about a time when you have had one or more students who have called another
student gay, sissy, or some equivalent. What was that experience like?
49. Think about a time when you had a student talk about his parents as being two mommies
or two daddies or a transgender family member or friend. Walk me through that
experience.
50. How, if at all, have you talked with your students about gender, like what it means to be a
boy or what it means to be a girl?
a. Tell me about a recent conversation that you had with a student.
b. What happened to lead to that conversation?
c. What did you say? What did the student say?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 239

51. How if at all have you talked with your students about how they dress or look. (e.g., a
boy wearing pink or a girl with a haircut that caused students to tell her that she looked
like a boy)
52. Tell me about a conversation you have been a part of where the kids were playing with
toys you use in your classroom that have a gender that might be associated with them
(e.g., dolls or trucks).
a. Describe a time when you gave students the time to play with those toys.
b. What did you say to them?
c. How the kids talk about the toys as they interacted with them?
d. What, if any, explicit gender connections did the kids make?
e. What, if anything did you say to them as they were playing? For example, have
you had the experience where a boy wanted to play with a doll and someone told
him that he couldn’t? Or a girl wanted to play with cars or trucks and someone
told her that was a boy activity? Or a girl was told that she couldn’t play sports
because she was a girl? Or something else? Describe the experience to me. What
did the kids do? What did you do?
53. If you have had an experience in which students talked about the gender of dolls, describe
how they talked about it.
54. How did you talk about the gender of the dolls?
55. How, if at all, have you addressed a child who is gender non-conforming? Or who
identified as gender non-conforming?
56. Tell me about a conversation regarding students playing in a kitchen area or playing
house and the tasks that they are performing. Describe what you said about a boy who
performed the task of cooking or cleaning while a girl did something else.
57. If you have had the experience in which two children of the same gender partnered up
while playing house and said, “We’re the parents,” or something similar, describe what
you said to the students.
58. If you have had the experience in which a boy came to school wearing something that is
traditionally feminine, for example a dress or nail polish, describe what you said to him.
59. If you have had a situation in which students teased a boy for wearing something that is
traditionally feminine, describe what you said to the boy. Describe what you said to the
students who teased him.
60. If you have had the experience where a boy in your class exhibited behavior that is
traditionally feminine, describe what you thought about his behavior.
61. If you have had a situation in which students teased a boy for exhibiting behavior that is
traditionally feminine, tell me how you handled the situation.
62. If you have had an experience in which a girl came to school wearing something that is
traditionally masculine, for example a tee shirt with a cartoon that is marketed to boys on
it, or buzz cut hair, describe what you thought about it?
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 240

63. If you have had a situation where students teased a girl for wearing something that is
traditionally masculine, tell me how you handled it.
64. If you have had a situation where a girl in your class exhibited behavior that is
traditionally masculine, describe what you thought about it.
65. If you have had a situation where students teased a girl for exhibiting behavior that is
traditionally masculine, tell me about how you handled it.
66. If you have had the experience where one of your students who you saw as a girl told you
she was a boy or who you saw as a boy told you he was a girl, describe how you
responded to the student.
67. If you have had the experience in which a child in the class raised their hand and said
something or asked about something that had to do with gender identity, describe how
you responded to that student.

We’ve discussed sexual orientation in your classroom. Now, I would like to ask you about
available LGBTQ-inclusive content at your school.

68. Tell me about books, videos, or other content you have in the classroom that disrupt
traditional gender norms.
a. How, if at all, do the students know these resources are available?
b. Under what circumstances, if any, do the students use them?
c. Tell me about an instance where a child chose a resource that disrupts traditional
gender norms.
69. Tell me about books, videos, or other content you have in the classroom that disrupt the
heteronormative structure.
a. How, if at all, do the students know these resources are available?
b. Under what circumstances, if any, do the students use them?
c. Tell me about an instance where a child chose a resource that disrupts traditional
gender norms.
70. If you have a school library, tell me about books, videos, or other available content that
are LGBTQ-inclusive.

We’ve discussed available LGBTQ-inclusive content at your school. Now, I would like to ask
you about your room environment.

71. Describe an experience that you believe represents how, if at all, you have created a safe
space in your classroom that welcomes and acknowledges LGBTQ students and families.
72. Describe an experience that you believe represents how, if at all, your room is not a safe
space?
73. What, if anything, do you think you would like to add to make the space more welcoming
to the LGBTQ students and families?

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 241

We’ve discussed your room environment. Now I would like to ask you some questions about the
level of support you are receiving from parents, administration, fellow teachers, and other
staff, such as a librarian or cafeteria worker.

74. How would you describe the level of support you are receiving from parents at your
school with regards to your content that disrupts heteronormativity?
a. Describe a recent interaction that you have had with a parent that demonstrates
the kind of positive support you have received with regards to this content.
b. Describe a recent interaction that demonstrates negative support or a lack of
support or antipathy for your choice to use content that disrupts
heteronormativity.
75. How would you describe the level of support you are receiving from parents at your
school with regards to your pedagogy that disrupts heteronormativity?
a. Describe a recent interaction that you have had with a parent that demonstrates
the kind of positive support you have received with regards to your pedagogy.
b. Describe a recent interaction that demonstrates negative support or a lack of
support or antipathy for your choice to use pedagogy that disrupts
heteronormativity.
76. How would you describe the level of support you are receiving from administration at
your school with regards to your content that disrupts heteronormativity?
77. How would you describe the level of support you are receiving from administration at
your school with regards to your pedagogy that disrupts heteronormativity?
78. Describe any professional development opportunities that provided support in your
efforts to deliver pedagogy or curriculum that disrupted heteronormativity.
79. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the school
level supported your efforts to deliver content that disrupted heteronormativity.
80. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the school
level supported your efforts to deliver pedagogy that disrupted heteronormativity.
81. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the school
level hindered your efforts to deliver content that disrupted heteronormativity.
82. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the school
level hindered your efforts to deliver pedagogy that disrupted heteronormativity.
83. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the state
level supported your efforts to deliver content that disrupted heteronormativity.
84. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the state
level supported your efforts to deliver pedagogy that disrupted heteronormativity.
85. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the state
level hindered your efforts to deliver content that disrupted heteronormativity.
86. Using an experience you have had, describe how any policies or procedures at the state
level hindered your efforts to deliver pedagogy that disrupted heteronormativity.
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 242

87. Describe an experience that you have had that you believe is representative of the level of
support you are receiving from fellow teachers at your school with regards to your
content and pedagogy that disrupt heteronormativity?
88. Describe an experience that you have had that you believe is representative of the level of
support you are receiving from other staff, such as a librarian or cafeteria worker at your
school with regards to your content and pedagogy that disrupt heteronormativity?
89. Describe an experience that you have had that you believe is representative of the level of
support you are receiving or have received from other school sites.

We’ve discussed the level of support you are receiving from staff members. Now, I would like to
ask you a question about society’s effect on your choices to include content and pedagogy that
disrupt heteronormativity.

90. In what ways, if any, do you believe society’s prevailing heteronormative structure
affects your decisions to disrupt heteronormativity in the classroom through pedagogy
and content (e.g., television commercials, toys, and other social spaces)?
a. What would be an example of something that has happened outside of the
classroom that has played a role in your decision-making in relation to including
LGBTQ-inclusive content and pedagogy?

I would like to end by asking you about your career as an elementary teacher.

91. How long have you been teaching elementary school students?
92. How many years have you been an elementary teacher?
93. What other grade levels have you taught, if any?
94. How many years have you worked at this school?
95. How did you decide to enter the teaching profession?
That covers the things I wanted to ask. What, if anything, did we not talk about that would help
me understand your experiences with your students and the way you approach gender identity
and sexuality in your classroom?
Thank you for participating in the interview and sharing your insight as an elementary teacher.

ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 243

Appendix B
Classroom Observation Protocol
Teacher Name: ___________________________
Grade Level: ___________________________
Observer: Susan Simpson
Date: ___________________________

Type of Lesson Observed:

Language Arts Lesson Social Studies Lesson

Health Lesson

Other: Explain
____________________________________________

____________________________________________
Activity Description:
1. Time spent on the activity: Start________ End________ Total Minutes: _________________
2. Activity and materials: _________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
In a narrative, describe the activities taking place in the classroom. Focus on teacher to
student(s), and student to student interaction as well as activities of individual students. A
narrative requires that you directly quote the teacher as he/she asks questions, models
reading strategies, presents material, works with students in small group, large group, or
individually. Additionally, you should document student engagement in response to the
teacher, as well as individual or group work and non-work activities.
TIME ________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 244

Classroom Observation Map
Teacher Name: _______________________________________
Grade Level: _______________________________________
Observer: Susan Simpson
Date: _______________________________________

1. Describe the classroom. Include the arrangement of student desks, teacher desks, learning
centers, library/book resources, computer/s, sinks, and other instructional equipment,
evidence of student work. Make sure all of the items on the Classroom Environment
Checklist are represented on the map. Note the seating arrangement of the students by
race (Latino = L, Asian = A, Black = B, White = W) and gender (Male = Male, Female =
Female, Transgender = T, N= Non-conforming). E.g., BF/AM

Total number of students ______

Front
Back
ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF GENDER 245

Classroom Environment Scan

Seating Arrangement (check as many as apply)

__ Rows of tables/desks facing front of room
__ Circle/semi-circle of tables/desks
__ Clusters or pods of tables/desks
__ Individual tables/desks
__ Rug area
__ Other (describe)
__________________________________________________________

Evidence of Heteronormative Disruption (check as many as apply)

__ Poster(s) on wall
How many___
__ Classwork displayed
__ LGBTQ-inclusive books in classroom library
How many ___
__ Toys or other realia
Description __________________________________________________________
__ Other
Description__________________________________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Pedagogy and content that disrupt existing heteronormative structures and curriculum with positive representations of LGBTQ people, history, and events are connected to more welcoming school experiences for all students. To understand elementary teachers’ choices with regards to content and pedagogy that disrupt gender and sexuality norms, this study addressed the following research question: How are elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices? This multi-case study examined the beliefs and perceptions of two elementary school teachers, one kindergarten and one fifth grade teacher, and their interactions with their students. The teachers taught in public elementary schools in a metropolitan city in Southern California and were known for attempting LGBTQ-inclusive pedagogy and curriculum. The data for this qualitative study included teacher interviews, observations, and reflective notes. The findings from this study revealed that although both teachers expressed a desire to disrupt society’s hegemonic heteronormative narrative, their inability to overtly disrupt traditional gender and sexuality norms with their students resulted in the reinforcement and reproduction of heteronormativity. In order to foster conditions where students are able to challenge heteronormative expectations, teachers must be given the opportunity to critically reflect on heteronormativity, deepen existing skills and knowledge associated with implementing curriculum, make pedagogical choices that achieve the goal of disruption, and be allowed opportunities that go beyond recognizing the need for disruptive pedagogy and curriculum to integrating anti-oppressive education in schools that addresses the marginalization of the LGBTQ community and the privilege associated with heteronormativity.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Queer consciousness: one kindergarten teacher’s action research to support colleagues in creating safer schools for queer people

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

Student perceptions of teacher pedagogical practices in the elementary classroom

PDF

A teacher's use of data to support classroom instruction in an urban elementary school

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Unearthing identity consciousness of novice STEM teachers to promote queer-inclusive classrooms: a qualitative action research study

PDF

Developing a critical consciousness toward culturally responsive teaching through critical reflection: A professional development curriculum for elementary teachers

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Impact of elementary grade teachers practicing radical love in Florida classrooms

PDF

Do you see you in me!? No, I do not. I other you.

PDF

Inadvertent evangelisms (or not): teachers’ views on religion, religious beliefs, positionality and presence and their influence on their curricular choices in the classroom

PDF

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

Changing the story: an action research study on utilizing culturally relevant pedagogical practice to enact a movement toward liberatory curriculum and instruction

PDF

Supporting world language teachers to develop a culturally sustaining curriculum and reflect on its enactment

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

Asset Metadata

Creator Simpson, Susan (author)

Core Title Elementary teachers’ perceptions of gender identity and sexuality and how they are revealed in their pedagogical and curricular choices: two case studies

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 10/23/2020

Defense Date 09/04/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag anti-oppressive education,curriculum,elementary teacher perceptions,gender identity,heteronormativity,LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogy,sexuality

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Pascarella, John (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email susan.simpson3000@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-384860

Unique identifier UC11666337

Identifier etd-SimpsonSus-9062.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-384860 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SimpsonSus-9062.pdf

Dmrecord 384860

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Simpson, Susan

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA