**6. How are these competencies and skills best developed?**

The assumption that non-LGBT+ teachers will reflect on and change their practices rests on their willingness, experience, support, and sense of community. Evidence has repeatedly identified teachers' fear and discomfort in addressing LGBT+ issues [22]. Teachers are unlikely to develop an awareness of their biases and transform into advocates for social justice unless they have been specifically prepared to find, build, and contribute to systems that challenge heteronormative, exclusionary, and biased practice. Educator preparation must build these skills and provide opportunities to apply and reflect upon them, as well as creating both safe spaces and communities of support.

Some teacher education programs have incorporated supportive practices such as addressing negative attitudes and stigma, providing diversity training, and including advocacy practices for LGBT+ students and families. However, EC teacher education is characterized by a lack of comprehensive and cohesive preparation in these areas of practice. In the U.S. in particular, traditional models of EC teacher education are largely seen as ineffective and inequitable. They have done little to address high teacher turnover rates associated with complex systemic issues, and indicators of quality in teaching are minimal and fail to capture skills relevant to addressing equity. Teachers report that they lack the knowledge and skill in addressing issues affecting the LGBT+ community, and that they fear the repercussions of becoming advocates. In addition, they cite their own biases and prejudiced beliefs as a justification for allowing inequity and harm to occur.

For preservice and practicing EC educators who are interested and committed to action, limited professional development is available. Other than where EC programs provide opportunities for collaboration around social justice issues (such as affinity groups devoted to LGBT+ equity) it is up to individual teachers to figure out for themselves how to proceed. Integrating new knowledge and practices requires that teachers collaborate to plan, learn from, and reflect on their work on their journey to developing expertise [23–25].

#### **6.1 Collaborative, field-based teacher education as a context for effective and authentic preparation**

In order to consider how to most appropriately and effectively address areas such as those represented in this chapter, the limitations of traditional models (emphasizing university-based coursework and clinical hours followed by internships) must be acknowledged. Teaching expertise is most effectively built through

**285**

**Table 3.**

**Aspect of preparation**

Knowledge and skills

Faculty supervision

Role of early childhood teachers

Role of school-based administrators

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

authentic experiences and interactions. Building intensified, purposeful field-based learning experiences has been repeatedly identified as a key strategy for preparing preservice educators to enter the field with the necessary resilience, knowledge, and skills to serve diverse children, families, and communities [23, 26]. Models which emphasize these experiences are viewed as both authentic and of greater value by educator-partners. Teacher education has, for years, been shifting in focus from university-based preparation of individual teachers with a goal of placement and retention in schools [23] to authentic preparation of engaged teachers with broad-

Field-based teacher education programs transcend the notion of merely adding hours in the field through outcomes-based learning opportunities designed and sequenced so that students work alongside practicing teachers and teacher education faculty throughout their preparation, with opportunities to build teaching skills under their collaborative supervision [24]. These models are grounded in mutually beneficial partnerships between community organizations, schools, and teacher education programs. With opportunities for growth through authentic experiences and continual feedback and reflection, these models are much more likely to provide the types of field experiences required to support complex and challenging practices. Findings have demonstrated the initial effectiveness of field-

based models in meeting the needs of students and community partners.

**Challenge to transcend from traditional approaches**

inauthentic online learning and with work in availability-based clinical site

clinical experiences may be planned and delivered by different faculty or departments, leading to misalignment

Meaningful yet manageable individual courses require isolation of various

Isolated silos where university-based preparation and supervision of practice do not always reinforce one another

Practicing teachers have little voice in the design of teacher preparation programming and limited

communication with university faculty

School and center administrators have little to no contact with individual faculty members outside of approving candidate

*Challenges within traditional preparation models and potential field-based solutions.*

Purpose Bridging university- based and

placements

Format Foundational/methods courses and

and discontinuity

competencies

placements

**Table 3** presents some of the key differences and challenges associated with models emphasizing traditional preparation and those embedded in fieldwork [25]:

**Solutions within field-based models**

Integrate the content knowledge and practices associated with effective teaching and social justice in the field

Knowledge and skills organized developmentally: students move purposefully toward competency; preparation proceeds through sites chronologically along the developmental continuum of EC

Preparation activities/ assignments respond to the complex and integrated needs of children and families in diverse community contexts

Faculty teach through direct and consistent involvement in EC programs; university-based work exists

Teachers meet with faculty before, during, and after field-based learning, as well as modeling, supporting students, and providing regular

Administrators identify opportunities for mutual benefit, support teachers and engage with students.

to serve field-based learning

feedback

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

ened impact on children, families, and communities [25].

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

authentic experiences and interactions. Building intensified, purposeful field-based learning experiences has been repeatedly identified as a key strategy for preparing preservice educators to enter the field with the necessary resilience, knowledge, and skills to serve diverse children, families, and communities [23, 26]. Models which emphasize these experiences are viewed as both authentic and of greater value by educator-partners. Teacher education has, for years, been shifting in focus from university-based preparation of individual teachers with a goal of placement and retention in schools [23] to authentic preparation of engaged teachers with broadened impact on children, families, and communities [25].

Field-based teacher education programs transcend the notion of merely adding hours in the field through outcomes-based learning opportunities designed and sequenced so that students work alongside practicing teachers and teacher education faculty throughout their preparation, with opportunities to build teaching skills under their collaborative supervision [24]. These models are grounded in mutually beneficial partnerships between community organizations, schools, and teacher education programs. With opportunities for growth through authentic experiences and continual feedback and reflection, these models are much more likely to provide the types of field experiences required to support complex and challenging practices. Findings have demonstrated the initial effectiveness of fieldbased models in meeting the needs of students and community partners.


**Table 3** presents some of the key differences and challenges associated with models emphasizing traditional preparation and those embedded in fieldwork [25]:

#### **Table 3.**

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

LGBT+ people and continues to inflict harm on educators.

a justification for allowing inequity and harm to occur.

journey to developing expertise [23–25].

**authentic preparation**

spaces and communities of support.

**6. How are these competencies and skills best developed?**

The assumption that non-LGBT+ teachers will reflect on and change their practices rests on their willingness, experience, support, and sense of community. Evidence has repeatedly identified teachers' fear and discomfort in addressing LGBT+ issues [22]. Teachers are unlikely to develop an awareness of their biases and transform into advocates for social justice unless they have been specifically prepared to find, build, and contribute to systems that challenge heteronormative, exclusionary, and biased practice. Educator preparation must build these skills and provide opportunities to apply and reflect upon them, as well as creating both safe

Some teacher education programs have incorporated supportive practices such

For preservice and practicing EC educators who are interested and committed to

action, limited professional development is available. Other than where EC programs provide opportunities for collaboration around social justice issues (such as affinity groups devoted to LGBT+ equity) it is up to individual teachers to figure out for themselves how to proceed. Integrating new knowledge and practices requires that teachers collaborate to plan, learn from, and reflect on their work on their

**6.1 Collaborative, field-based teacher education as a context for effective and** 

In order to consider how to most appropriately and effectively address areas such as those represented in this chapter, the limitations of traditional models (emphasizing university-based coursework and clinical hours followed by internships) must be acknowledged. Teaching expertise is most effectively built through

as addressing negative attitudes and stigma, providing diversity training, and including advocacy practices for LGBT+ students and families. However, EC teacher education is characterized by a lack of comprehensive and cohesive preparation in these areas of practice. In the U.S. in particular, traditional models of EC teacher education are largely seen as ineffective and inequitable. They have done little to address high teacher turnover rates associated with complex systemic issues, and indicators of quality in teaching are minimal and fail to capture skills relevant to addressing equity. Teachers report that they lack the knowledge and skill in addressing issues affecting the LGBT+ community, and that they fear the repercussions of becoming advocates. In addition, they cite their own biases and prejudiced beliefs as

Even if such needs are met, improving the working conditions and supporting the practice of LGBT+ educators requires change in the preparation and support of *all* preservice teachers. This may involve educating them on LGBT+ issues while dispelling misconceptions that inflame their biases. In a broad sense, this preparation could be integrated into efforts to awaken or support their interest in teaching for equity; however, simply sharing practices and resources in the university context is not enough, as those same misconceptions, biases, and fears are likely to prevent teachers from applying what they have learned about. Perhaps nothing reinforces this point more strongly than research on the reluctance of non-LGBT+ educators who are fearful about showing support to colleagues out of a fear that others will think they are LGBT+ as well [2]. (i.e, "I can't do more to support you, because someone might think I am like you"). This destructive pattern slows progress for all

**284**

*Challenges within traditional preparation models and potential field-based solutions.*

In field-based EC teacher education, pre-service teachers and EC faculty work together within the shared spaces of EC programs, emphasizing direct experiences over coursework and thus creating and requiring new roles for practicing teachers in collaborating with faculty and apprentice students [25]. Coursework is designed to support these experiences rather than the reverse, and course schedules are designed around the schedules and learning activities of partner schools. In addition, administrators who have traditionally been viewed as gatekeepers for students collaborate with faculty to open conversations about shared aims relative to equity.


**Table 4.** *Practices supporting LGBT+ social justice within field-based teacher education models.*

**287**

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

Within field-based teacher education models practices for supporting LGBT+-

Supporting families and family-centered programming/intervention are central

While the content of this chapter was designed to further discussion about how EC education and the rights of LGBT+ people might be jointly addressed via teacher education, it is inevitable that the assumptions of the author and the limitations of the literature on these topics leave certain individuals and groups behind. This chapter's author is a white, cisgender gay male living in the United States where same-sex marriage is currently legal, residing in a state with progressive educational policies regarding the teaching of LGBT+ content, history, and issues. This scholarly work has been developed at a university with an inclusive nondiscrimination policy and explicit social justice mission. The information in this chapter inevitably reflects these contextual and cultural dimensions, and privileges and biases associated with them. The work here stems from a desire to understand and identify opportunities in early childhood education and teacher education; as a result, the ideas therein reflect and mirror the structures of these professions when those

structures should indeed be further interrogated and challenged.

to the professional identity of EC educators. As a field, however, EC education (including teacher education) has failed to thoroughly acknowledge, identify, or address the needs of LGBT+ families and gender-diverse children. The field continues to hold a position of implied acceptance toward bias and prejudice while simultaneously acknowledging that these cause harm. Injustice also continues toward LGBT+ educators, who have not been sufficiently supported or protected from ongoing discrimination and the persistence of misconceptions about their identities. Every EC educator carries the professional responsibility to advance equity and a unique opportunity to do so. A need exists for a vision of full LGBT+ social justice in EC teacher education. The dimensions of practice and resources shared here reflect attempts by educators around the world to increase inclusivity, improve knowledge and skills, reduce hesitancy or fear, and build community and support. These themes are critical to addressing serious gaps in educator preparation that undermine social justice for LGBT+ people. Comprehensive examination and redesign of EC teacher education activities is a critical step toward maximize opportunity and mitigating harm to LGBT+ teachers, gender diverse children and LGBT-led families so that equity is both envisioned and achieved in the remaining

led families, young children, and EC educators themselves may be organized around five priority areas. These are presented and described in **Table 4** above. Within each of these types of experiences, EC teacher educators should aim to accomplish four interrelated goals: 1) challenge preconceptions, biases, complacency, and the myth of "neutrality" in teaching; 2) build knowledge; 3) deepen empathy and a commitment to change, and 4) practice applying emerging skills in settings where children and families are served. Teacher education faculty can also revisit the six questions regarding anti-bias practices within each area and at critical

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

points across the preparation continuum.

**7. Conclusions**

decades of this century.

**8. Positionality and bias**

**6.2 LGBT-affirming practices within authentic models**

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

#### **6.2 LGBT-affirming practices within authentic models**

Within field-based teacher education models practices for supporting LGBT+ led families, young children, and EC educators themselves may be organized around five priority areas. These are presented and described in **Table 4** above.

Within each of these types of experiences, EC teacher educators should aim to accomplish four interrelated goals: 1) challenge preconceptions, biases, complacency, and the myth of "neutrality" in teaching; 2) build knowledge; 3) deepen empathy and a commitment to change, and 4) practice applying emerging skills in settings where children and families are served. Teacher education faculty can also revisit the six questions regarding anti-bias practices within each area and at critical points across the preparation continuum.

#### **7. Conclusions**

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

and faculty

issues

students

and teachers in EC

strict gender binary

produce change

experiences

exclusionary practices

of welcoming practices

foundations/curricula

preparation

*Practices supporting LGBT+ social justice within field-based teacher education models.*

determination, and community

• Collaborate with sites to plan events

materials, displays, literature, and activities

justice issues can be normalized

**Area Strategies**

Building community and

Developing a social justice orientation to LGBT issues

Setting up meaningful interaction with LGBT

Instilling the dispositions of reflection and continual

Learning and application of inclusive teaching practices

families

growth

relationships

In field-based EC teacher education, pre-service teachers and EC faculty work together within the shared spaces of EC programs, emphasizing direct experiences over coursework and thus creating and requiring new roles for practicing teachers in collaborating with faculty and apprentice students [25]. Coursework is designed to support these experiences rather than the reverse, and course schedules are designed around the schedules and learning activities of partner schools. In addition, administrators who have traditionally been viewed as gatekeepers for students collaborate with faculty to open conversations about shared aims relative to equity.

• Provide safe spaces and community-building events for LGBT+ students

• Form mentoring relationships and professional networking opportunities

• Meaningfully incorporate LGBT history and current local/national/global

• Utilize professional resources on equity and supporting LGBT families

• Assist students in understanding the limitations and potential harm of a

• Support students' efforts at teaching social justice concepts and acting to

• Engage in collaborative action research to address social justice issues

• Share research on family experiences with early childhood professionals • Host panel discussions and other events during which students can meet LGBT parents/caregivers and learn about their journeys to parenting and

• Action research in field sites designed to identify and address biased or

• Ensure that students understand both the advantages and the limitations

• Support candidates in assessing and enhancing inclusiveness of classroom

• Teach and support competencies that build social competence, self-

• Support the application of inclusive practices across the continuum of

• Demonstrate and support the implementation of social justice

• Ensure that activity/lesson planning tools and curricula

• Empower teacher candidates to explain practices using evidence • Utilize continual supervision, progress monitoring, peer and partner feedback to expand equitable and supportive practices and challenge bias

affecting preservice teachers, families, and children

• Host and provide professional development events inclusive of all

• Build community partnerships within which discussion about social

between students and practicing LGBT teachers/faculty

**286**

**Table 4.**

Supporting families and family-centered programming/intervention are central to the professional identity of EC educators. As a field, however, EC education (including teacher education) has failed to thoroughly acknowledge, identify, or address the needs of LGBT+ families and gender-diverse children. The field continues to hold a position of implied acceptance toward bias and prejudice while simultaneously acknowledging that these cause harm. Injustice also continues toward LGBT+ educators, who have not been sufficiently supported or protected from ongoing discrimination and the persistence of misconceptions about their identities. Every EC educator carries the professional responsibility to advance equity and a unique opportunity to do so. A need exists for a vision of full LGBT+ social justice in EC teacher education. The dimensions of practice and resources shared here reflect attempts by educators around the world to increase inclusivity, improve knowledge and skills, reduce hesitancy or fear, and build community and support. These themes are critical to addressing serious gaps in educator preparation that undermine social justice for LGBT+ people. Comprehensive examination and redesign of EC teacher education activities is a critical step toward maximize opportunity and mitigating harm to LGBT+ teachers, gender diverse children and LGBT-led families so that equity is both envisioned and achieved in the remaining decades of this century.
