**2.1 Lesbian and gay-led families**

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

teacher education need to consider in order to build systemic change?

conditions that threaten their development, health, and lives.

and in the settings in which children and families are themselves served.

**2. Complexities and contexts: who are these teachers, children,** 

Approximately 4.5% of adults in the United States (U.S.) identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ ), translating to a minimum of nearly 15 million people [3]. 1.4 million adults in the U.S. identify as transgender, with a slightly larger estimate of 1.5 million for the European Union (EU), including data from the United Kingdom (UK) [4]. LGBT rights are protected in both the U.S. and the E.U. This includes recognition of same-sex relationships and protections from employment discrimination; however, countries vary significantly on other rights and protections, many of which are under continuous threat. As a result, the experiences (including stressors, barriers, and the effects of discrimination) of LGBT+ people who decide to parent vary tremendously as well. The sections to follow present three groups about whom LGBT-inclusive literature/practices have most frequently been published: children in LGBT-led families, children who do not fit a strict gender binary (including trans children), and LGBT educators themselves.

Social justice is defined within this chapter as equal educational rights and opportunities for LGBT+ people and the individual and systems-level changes required to ensure optimal supports and outcomes for educators, children, and families. Each section of this chapter focusing on promising practices begins with a list of group-specific rights and educator responsibilities that expand upon the definition above. That definition carries with it an acknowledgement of certain truths in the field of EC education and literature within it that addresses equity, diversity, and inclusion. For example, the ongoing suggestion (within EC literature and professional organizations) to implement or teach *welcoming*, *supportive*, and *inclusive* practices presumes the normalization of unwelcoming and exclusionary environments. Practices addressing the needs of "non-traditional" families essentially expose a history and understanding of "tradition" that by definition excludes LGBT-led families and LGBT+ educators. Finally, preparing future EC educators with competencies that will ideally benefit children with diverse potential gender identities or future orientation requires a recognition of the near-worldwide normalization of practices that cause harm to such children and continue to perpetuate

This chapter identifies, describes, and shares practical recommendations around three broad areas related to social justice for LGBT people that have implications for both the preparation and roles of early childhood educators. The sections to follow are designed to serve as a starting point for enhancing practices, raising visibility, mitigating ongoing harm, and identifying further needs both in teacher education

resources, and poor understanding of professional obligations and opportunities all work against teachers, children, and families even *without* the active suppression associated with homophobia and legally/religiously sanctioned discrimination. Literature has emerged which provides some hope, as well as evidence of both the potential benefits of various supportive practices and the harm of failing to employ them in the field of EC education. Furthermore, literature on the devastating effects of isolation, oppression, harassment, and bullying of LGBT+ people is extensive. The purpose of this chapter is to identify dimensions of EC education with potential for direct, positive impact on the lives of LGBT+ people, and to consider what a comprehensive EC educator preparation framework that addresses them might look like. In other words: what areas and practices might the field of EC

**272**

**and families?**

In the U.S. alone, millions of children in the U.S. are raised and cared for in families led by LGBT+ parents; these families include nearly half of lesbians and over 20% of gay men under the age of 50 [5]. Families with LGBT+ parents exist in every family configuration – married spouses, separated or divorced parents, blended families, families led by extended family members, and single parent families. LGBT+ parenting is achieved through adoption, surrogacy, alternative insemination, or other means. LGBT+ parents face scrutiny and opposition rooted in homophobia and discriminatory religious beliefs. Over one million LGBT+ people in the U.S. (where gay marriage is legal in all 50 states) are married to a same-sex spouse, with at least another 1.2 million in same-sex relationships [4]. In the EU, laws pertaining to gay marriage and family-building vary by country. As a result, family configurations differ as well. Many EU states offer full parental rights to lesbian and gay couples. Meanwhile, other countries (including many where gay marriage is still not legally recognized) have acted aggressively against the rights of LGBT+ couples; Hungary, for example, enacted a 2020 law forbidding them from adopting.

Research on lesbian and gay-led families has shown similar parent/child relationship quality and developmental outcomes to that of non-LGBT-led families. Parents' orientation has also shown not to predict children's orientation, gender identity, or the likelihood of abuse or neglect. Such families demonstrate resilience and are strengthened by loving bonds; the only unique sources of stress they face tend to be discrimination, harassment, and bullying by non-LGBT individuals. In 2021, these issues continue to threaten the health and welfare of such families; in fact, hate crimes have recently risen in many countries. Because LGBT-led families regularly interact with EC educators and their children are counted among those receiving birth-three (B-3) and preschool education, it is imperative that EC educators to be prepared to understand and respond to their unique needs.

### **2.2 Trans and nonbinary individuals**

Approximately 1.5 million adults identify as trans in the U.S. [6]. Exact numbers in the EU are unknown and range from 30,000 to as many as 1.5 million. Public awareness and media attention regarding gender diversity has increased dramatically in recent years. In some ways, this visibility has worked to the benefit of trans and gender non-binary individuals through greater representation in media, a rise in prominent figures and role models, and an increase in visible support. The visibility of trans and gender diverse people has been met with a rise in discriminatory action and organized attempts to dehumanize them. The consequences for individuals who do not conform to narrow binary conceptions of gender are devastating. As one example, by adulthood the majority of trans people in the U.S. have lost a job due to discrimination.

Of course, all young children explore and learn about gender regardless of their genetic or physical characteristics. During early childhood, masculinity and femininity are portrayed for them in a variety of ways, and they learn what it means to identify as male or female through the available models, transmitted values, teaching, and through both encouragement and discouragement by adults and peers. The victimization of children whose play, dress, interaction style, or choice of play partners deviates from the expectations of this gender binary is already in full effect when children reach the age of 5–6, when research has identified that they have already experienced teasing, correction and redirection of their play choices, and other unsupportive behaviors that lead to shame, hiding of their emergent identity,

withdrawal, or even aggression. These children benefit from broader laws and local policies that respect their agency to define their gender and ensure that they are safe and protected in school. Children who do not fit the gender binary are vulnerable to verbal harassment and both physical and sexual assault [7]. They benefit from strong teacher-child relationships and supportive learning environments that encourage development of self-awareness, promote acceptance, and push back against developing biases and strict gender norms. Practices that accomplish these goals are not well understood and rarely used in early childhood education. A great need exists for practicing and preservice teachers to better understand and implement both supportive and preventative teaching strategies.

#### **2.3 LGBT+ Educators**

It is estimated that somewhere around 2 million people (almost exclusively female) in the U.S., and 1.2 million in the EU work as early childhood educators, although these figures are underestimates given the diverse roles and titles educators carry within the complex and varied systems of education and care for children under the age of 5 [8]. The number of openly LGBT+ teachers is small in both the U.S. and the E.U. While the number of trans adults in the U.S. has been estimated to be approximately 0.6 percent (approximately 1.4 million people), there are no known statistics on the number of trans and gender-nonconforming people working in schools.

While overall conditions (including employment protections and public perception) have improved for LGBT+ educators, conditions are highly variable across states and the E.U. Misconceptions, isolation, and invisibility are still faced by the majority of LGBT+ educators. Even under the best of circumstances, parent or community opposition or even harassment remain legitimate concerns for educators. Preservice EC educators have also expressed concern about such issues as being accepted in their field experiences, witnessing or experiencing unchecked homophobia, misconceptions about men (particularly gay men) who enter the EC field, the challenges of intersectionality (such as experiences of dual discrimination for being both black and gay), and how/whether identity should come up as they approach graduation and enter the field [9]. For some LGBT+ educators, coming out is a privilege not afforded to them, and for others remaining invisible is not possible. Experiencing negative consequences for these forced decisions is unacceptable. Like most EC educators, LGBT+ EC educators seek human connection, opportunities to collaborate, and enter this field to make a positive impact in the lives of young children and their families. Most of them lack critical supports, preparation, or even an acknowledgement of their need for community, role models, and the freedom to exist authentically in their professional lives.

### **3. In what ways has the field of EC education responded to the need for LGBT+ social justice?**

Teacher education models and practices supporting the aims of LGBT+ social justice have not been comprehensively studied. Preservice teachers have minimal exposure to meaningful learning experiences that support their development of these skills or implementation of practices [10]. Still, policymakers and professional organizations in the fields related to EC education have responded to the needs outlined in the previous sections of this chapter. Policies regarding equity, nondiscrimination, and addressing the needs of diverse children and families are present in professional organizations, position statements, and teacher education

**275**

*Foundations for Promoting LGBT+ Social Justice through Early Childhood Teacher Education*

standards in the U.S. and E.U. Specifically, sexual orientation, gender, and family structure are repeatedly named as forms of diversity that must be addressed via an equity lens. EC education is cited across multiple professional fields as a critical professional context where the foundations and negative effects of racism, sexism, and homophobia are rooted, cementing a firm link between the role of EC educators and not only the rights of LGBT+ individuals, but their well-being, positive identities, and protection from harm. As an example, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Code of Ethical Conduct [11] in the U.S. prioritizes, above all other concerns that practices that are "emotionally damaging…disrespectful, degrading…or intimidating to children" must not under any circumstances be employed in EC education [11]. In numerous position statements and professional articles published by NAEYC, authors have attempted to articulate and provide examples of practices to address gender identity inclusivity, and gender bias, as well as practices to support LGBTQIA staff. NAEYC and other organizations also acknowledge the need for recruitment of LGBT+ faculty in EC education and identify it as a priority for teacher education programs. Organizations such as the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network in the U.S., ILGA-Europe, and other country-specific organizations have advocated for educators, collected and widely shared useful data, and pushed back against harmful policies. Professional development targeting anti-bias practices is increasingly available and desired by educators, particularly in the virtual environment, but more is needed. On the whole, most education advocacy organizations focus almost exclusively on children in elemen-

Social justice issues not only affect EC education from its broader educational and societal contexts, but arise within schools and EC centers themselves when: a) neglect or erasure of, or discrimination against LGBT-led families with young children is evident and allowed; b) rigid gender norms are upheld in EC classrooms in opposition to the developmental needs of young children who do not present as stereotypically masculine or feminine; c) children's identities are silenced, punished, or ignored; d) educators are subjected to negative judgment or discrimination due to their orientation or identity. In the section to follow, examples of these issues

The existing problem of defaulting to heteronormative practices in EC is rooted

both in assumptions of heterosexuality, pathologizing or erasing other groups, and in the mistreatment of those who are either not heterosexual, perceived as LGBT+, or whom heterosexuals fear will become LGBT+. Worsening this harm is the persistence on the part of heterosexuals to equate teachers addressing LGBT+ needs with introducing the topic of sexual activity to children. This misconception has fueled fear and resistance to supporting children and families, raised the anxiety and reinforced the isolation of LGBT+ educators, maintained confusion and hesitation regarding developmentally appropriate teaching practices, and inhibited the progress of this field. Unfortunately, research on perceptions of LGBT+ people (including educators) continues to reinforce or even legitimize this misconception. For example, surveys may ask respondents questions about their opinions regarding marriage, family, and children in LGBT+ families alongside questions about gay and lesbian sexual relations. This normalizes the idea that scrutinizing the sexual behavior of parents is both a right of educators and somehow relevant to respecting the rights of LGBT+-led families or meeting the needs of their children - a horrific

The disconnect between what is known about child development and the practice of educators is, of course, not unique to LGBT+ issues. Even in publications focused on racism, space is frequently provided to the concern that "sensitive" topics such as race are too complex or upsetting for young children to explicitly

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96522*

tary/primary school through adulthood.

in action are explored in greater detail.

notion unthinkable to heterosexual parents.

#### *Foundations for Promoting LGBT+ Social Justice through Early Childhood Teacher Education DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96522*

standards in the U.S. and E.U. Specifically, sexual orientation, gender, and family structure are repeatedly named as forms of diversity that must be addressed via an equity lens. EC education is cited across multiple professional fields as a critical professional context where the foundations and negative effects of racism, sexism, and homophobia are rooted, cementing a firm link between the role of EC educators and not only the rights of LGBT+ individuals, but their well-being, positive identities, and protection from harm. As an example, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Code of Ethical Conduct [11] in the U.S. prioritizes, above all other concerns that practices that are "emotionally damaging…disrespectful, degrading…or intimidating to children" must not under any circumstances be employed in EC education [11]. In numerous position statements and professional articles published by NAEYC, authors have attempted to articulate and provide examples of practices to address gender identity inclusivity, and gender bias, as well as practices to support LGBTQIA staff. NAEYC and other organizations also acknowledge the need for recruitment of LGBT+ faculty in EC education and identify it as a priority for teacher education programs. Organizations such as the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network in the U.S., ILGA-Europe, and other country-specific organizations have advocated for educators, collected and widely shared useful data, and pushed back against harmful policies. Professional development targeting anti-bias practices is increasingly available and desired by educators, particularly in the virtual environment, but more is needed. On the whole, most education advocacy organizations focus almost exclusively on children in elementary/primary school through adulthood.

Social justice issues not only affect EC education from its broader educational and societal contexts, but arise within schools and EC centers themselves when: a) neglect or erasure of, or discrimination against LGBT-led families with young children is evident and allowed; b) rigid gender norms are upheld in EC classrooms in opposition to the developmental needs of young children who do not present as stereotypically masculine or feminine; c) children's identities are silenced, punished, or ignored; d) educators are subjected to negative judgment or discrimination due to their orientation or identity. In the section to follow, examples of these issues in action are explored in greater detail.

The existing problem of defaulting to heteronormative practices in EC is rooted both in assumptions of heterosexuality, pathologizing or erasing other groups, and in the mistreatment of those who are either not heterosexual, perceived as LGBT+, or whom heterosexuals fear will become LGBT+. Worsening this harm is the persistence on the part of heterosexuals to equate teachers addressing LGBT+ needs with introducing the topic of sexual activity to children. This misconception has fueled fear and resistance to supporting children and families, raised the anxiety and reinforced the isolation of LGBT+ educators, maintained confusion and hesitation regarding developmentally appropriate teaching practices, and inhibited the progress of this field. Unfortunately, research on perceptions of LGBT+ people (including educators) continues to reinforce or even legitimize this misconception. For example, surveys may ask respondents questions about their opinions regarding marriage, family, and children in LGBT+ families alongside questions about gay and lesbian sexual relations. This normalizes the idea that scrutinizing the sexual behavior of parents is both a right of educators and somehow relevant to respecting the rights of LGBT+-led families or meeting the needs of their children - a horrific notion unthinkable to heterosexual parents.

The disconnect between what is known about child development and the practice of educators is, of course, not unique to LGBT+ issues. Even in publications focused on racism, space is frequently provided to the concern that "sensitive" topics such as race are too complex or upsetting for young children to explicitly

*Teacher Education in the 21st Century - Emerging Skills for a Changing World*

implement both supportive and preventative teaching strategies.

**2.3 LGBT+ Educators**

working in schools.

**for LGBT+ social justice?**

withdrawal, or even aggression. These children benefit from broader laws and local policies that respect their agency to define their gender and ensure that they are safe and protected in school. Children who do not fit the gender binary are vulnerable to verbal harassment and both physical and sexual assault [7]. They benefit from strong teacher-child relationships and supportive learning environments that encourage development of self-awareness, promote acceptance, and push back against developing biases and strict gender norms. Practices that accomplish these goals are not well understood and rarely used in early childhood education. A great need exists for practicing and preservice teachers to better understand and

It is estimated that somewhere around 2 million people (almost exclusively female) in the U.S., and 1.2 million in the EU work as early childhood educators, although these figures are underestimates given the diverse roles and titles educators carry within the complex and varied systems of education and care for children under the age of 5 [8]. The number of openly LGBT+ teachers is small in both the U.S. and the E.U. While the number of trans adults in the U.S. has been estimated to be approximately 0.6 percent (approximately 1.4 million people), there are no known statistics on the number of trans and gender-nonconforming people

While overall conditions (including employment protections and public perception) have improved for LGBT+ educators, conditions are highly variable across states and the E.U. Misconceptions, isolation, and invisibility are still faced by the majority of LGBT+ educators. Even under the best of circumstances, parent or community opposition or even harassment remain legitimate concerns for educators. Preservice EC educators have also expressed concern about such issues as being accepted in their field experiences, witnessing or experiencing unchecked homophobia, misconceptions about men (particularly gay men) who enter the EC field, the challenges of intersectionality (such as experiences of dual discrimination for being both black and gay), and how/whether identity should come up as they approach graduation and enter the field [9]. For some LGBT+ educators, coming out is a privilege not afforded to them, and for others remaining invisible is not possible. Experiencing negative consequences for these forced decisions is unacceptable. Like most EC educators, LGBT+ EC educators seek human connection, opportunities to collaborate, and enter this field to make a positive impact in the lives of young children and their families. Most of them lack critical supports, preparation, or even an acknowledgement of their need for community, role models, and the freedom to exist authentically in their professional lives.

**3. In what ways has the field of EC education responded to the need** 

Teacher education models and practices supporting the aims of LGBT+ social justice have not been comprehensively studied. Preservice teachers have minimal exposure to meaningful learning experiences that support their development of these skills or implementation of practices [10]. Still, policymakers and professional organizations in the fields related to EC education have responded to the needs outlined in the previous sections of this chapter. Policies regarding equity, nondiscrimination, and addressing the needs of diverse children and families are present in professional organizations, position statements, and teacher education

**274**

learn about. There is little evidence to suggest that adults should worry about harm associated with introducing these topics too early; in fact, it is of greater concern when they are ignored. It is long overdue for EC educators to transcend older and more abstract notions of inclusivity and work toward reframing of EC education as an essential context for asset-based, LGBT+-supportive practices that enhance (rather than detract from) the lives of children, families, and educators.
