Running head: HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES 1

Heteronormativity and Educative Outcomes for Secondary Students:

Research Proposal
James Capps
EDUC Y520
IUPUI
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
2

Problem Statement

Quinlivan and Town (1999) state that [Heteronormativity] is with us from the day of our

birth, and evidenced through the division of the world into male, female, boy, girl and the belief

that normal sexuality is heterosexual (p.510). The concept of heterosexuality being the

normal marginalizes Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and other queer-

identifying (LGBTQ+) students. Heteronormativity can be perpetuated in schools in unintended

and overt ways like nominating a prom king and queen, or even operating under the assumption

that historical or literary characters are heterosexual.

Because students learn best when their identities are represented and cultivated in

schools, educators can no longer afford to silence the identities of LGBTQ students. Therefore,

the focus of this study is to examine the connection between combating heteronormativity in

secondary schools and increased academic performance on the part of students. By first,

examining the research that has already been completed in this field of study, I hope to identify

areas that require further inquiry and address those with this research proposal.

Literature Review

History

To begin to understand the ways in which schools perpetuate heteronormativity, we much first

realize that intentionally and transparently acknowledging heteronormativity in schools does not

sexualize the educational experience. Instead, it critically reflects on the inherent heterosexuality

that informs school practices. As DePalma and Atkinson state, sexuality doesnt only have to do
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
3

with the act of sex, but rather as a way of knowing and experiencing the world around us

(p.1675).

Because of the microcosmic relationship that exists between society and schools,

heteronormativity plays an essential role in perpetuating the systemic oppression that places men

above women (Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L., 2009, p. 441). Just as in mainstream society,

homophobia and misogynistic practices become internalized in schools in the way that school

monitor and support gender norms (Martino, W., 2000, p. 231).

Early research into the effects of heteronormativity and homophobia in schools dealt with

the most important, and obvious, effectstudent safety. The study conducted by Bontempo and

dAugelli (2002) reveals that LGBTQ+ youth who experienced high levels of at-school

victimization reported higher levels of suicidality, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual

behavior. Consequently, LGBTQ+ youth who experienced victimization levels similar to that of

their non-LGBTQ+ peers reported lower levels of suicidality, substance abuse, and high-risk

sexual behavior (p.364).

Current Literature

A great deal of the current research in combatting heteronormativity in school curricula is

focused on student safety and queer pedagogy. This is true in the work of Quinlivan and Town

(1999) whose research stimulated action by providing data-driven practices for combating

heteronormativity in schools. These suggestions include: creating spaces where sexuality and

gender can be explored by students, rethinking heterosexuality and gender binaries as being

normal, deconstructing gender binaries by removing boundaries that perpetuate gender

HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
4

stereotypes, and fostering alliances between students, students and faculty, and faculty and

administrators. (Quinlivan & Town, p. 513).

While these critical action steps were vividly described and supported by evidence from

the study, there was no evident action on the part of the researchers to establish these processes

in the schools in which they conducted their research.

Further research was conducted by Toomey, McGuire, and Russell (2012). In their study,

they examine the relationship between heteronormativity in schools and the perceived safety of

gender non-conforming students. One response pattern that was evident was the perception of

straight students regarding the safety of gender-nonconforming peers. Because oppression often

involves micro-aggressions, gender-nonconforming students may be experiencing

marginalization by their peers in ways that straight students, as outsiders, may not be aware of.

The sampling strategy involved researchers surveying students at 28 different schools, as

well as LGBTQ+ youth groups. This proved to be an effective sampling strategy, because

including responses from more LGBTQ+ students generated more accurate perceptions of safety,

as queer communities have a smaller representation in schools. Without intentionally pursuing

input from queer youth, the data yielded from the survey would have been biased due to the

variance in reported instances of bullying and the perceived safety of gender-nonconforming

peers by straight students, which the study suggests is due to the existence of heteronormative

dominant culture in schools (Toomey, McGuire, and Russell, 2012).

This claim is also supported by the fact that schools that reported an inclusion of safe-

school strategies reported lower perceived safety for gender-nonconforming students. The study

suggests that this is due to the fact that students at schools who visibly examine heteronormative
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
5

practices are more inclined to notice the mistreatment or marginalization of gender-

nonconforming peers (Toomey, McGuire, and Russell, 2012).

One strategy that has been suggested to combat heteronormativity in schools is the

presence of a Gay Straight Alliance (GSA). Heck, Flentje and Cochran suggest that LGBTQ+

students who attended a school that had a GSA reported greater feelings of school inclusiveness

and therefore experience decreased alcohol usage, depression, and psychological distress than

students who do not attend GSAs. (Pp.167-169).

Further benefits of GSAs are supported by Lee (2002) who postulates that students

perceived their academic performance as improving once they were involved in a GSA. While,

the data did not support this, the students attendance had improved and the students increased

sense of self-efficacy suggests that their academic success cannot be measured by grades alone

(p. 8). Lee also suggests that another benefit of GSAs is that LGBTQ+ students often struggle

with developing close relationships with family, peers, and educators because their identities are

invisible. Students involved in GSAs reported feeling more validated because their identities

were visible and represented in school (p. 11). His research also shows participating in a GSA

helped students identify ways in which heterosexism was presented as the norm in their schools

through teachers talking about their heterosexual wives, husbands, or boyfriends. The students

reported that the GSA allowed their identities to be visible in the school (p. 16).

L.S. Johnson (2009) also conducted quantitative research on the visibility of LGBTQ+

culture in secondary schools through a comparison of a traditional secondary school and a non-

traditional school that focuses on belongingness and connectedness. The findings revealed

that the non-traditional school combatted heteronormativity through a number of school

practices. One staff member at the non-traditional school reported that, because connectedness
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
6

between educators and school administrators was also a focus, he felt comfortable bringing his

same-sex partner to school functions. This, in turn, caused LGBTQ+ students to see positive

non-heterosexual couples represented by their educators (p. 112).

Collectively, this suggests that schools that seek to increase the perceived safety for

students, and consequently increase academic performance should create a critical culture within

schools that addresses issues of oppression and violence toward all minority students.

Research Problem

Despite the work of researchers in addressing heteronormativity in schools, it is still very

much present and negatively affects LGBTQ+ students in a number of ways. The work of

Blackburn and McCready reveals that despite the efforts of schools in urban centers, LGBTQ+

students still experience homophobia in the form of verbal and physical abuse from peers as well

as overt homophobia by school employees. According to the 2008 GLSEN study 86.2% of

LGBTQ+ students experience verbal abuse in schools and 22.1% reported being physically

assaulted (Blackburn & McCready, 2009, p. 223).

The safety of LGBTQ+ students is not only threatened by physical harassment from

others but can also take the form of self-harm on the part of LGBTQ+ students. A study

conducted by Robinson and Espelege (2012) reveals that lesbian and gay youth were reported as

being 3.8 times more likely to consider suicide than their heterosexual identifying peers, students

who identified as bisexual were found to be 6 times more likely to consider suicide than their

heterosexual identifying peers (p. 313).

One reason that this problem persists is that teachers are entering the field ill-equipped to

meet the needs of LGBTQ+ students. McCabe and Rubinson (2008) conducted a quantitative
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
7

study of students involved in an education graduate program. In this study, they collected data on

the ways in which universities prepare students to advocate for LGBTQ+ students. What they

found was that it is unlikely that that teacher candidates will receive the necessary training to

successfully advocate for LGBTQ+ students and many will remain silent in the face of LGBTQ+

harassment (p. 471). In a study of 300 school psychologist it was found that most possess low-to-

moderate levels of knowledge related to LGBTQ+ issues. Additionally, all 12 focus groups in the

study neglected to identify LGBTQ+ harassment as an example of social injustice in school

(pp.477-478). Furthermore, many graduate students that participated in the study stated that

LGBTQ+ issues should not be discussed in the classroom because they saw the term as being

synonymous with sexual promiscuity (p. 479).

The dire effects of this lack of educator preparedness is further highlighted by the work of

DAugelli, Grossman, Salter, Vasey, Starks, and Sinclair (2005) whose study revealed the mean

age that youth first noted same-sex attraction is 10 years of age. The mean age for first

identifying as LGBTQ+ is 14 years of age, and that males became aware of their same-sex

sexual attractions earlier than females. (p. 651). This reveals that students are becoming aware of

their identities at an early age, which suggests that schools are, or should be, fostering the

identity development of these students.

The presence of heteronormativity in schools fosters a homophobic environments, and, as

Blackburn and McCready (2009) also find, homophobic school environments reported that the

grade point average of students who are frequently harassed because of their LGBTQ+ status

were lower than those of students who did not experience harassment (p. 225). It is because of

this that I am proposing the following research into the impact of heteronormativity on

educational outcomes.
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
8

Methodology

Research Question and Hypothesis

In response to the literature cited above, I am proposing the research question, Does

school acknowledgement of heteronormativity within the curriculum positively impact student

learning outcomes?

My hypothesis is that schools that effectively address heteronormativity within their

curriculum and school practices will positively impact student academic performance.

Research Design

My general design is Transformative Sequential Mixed Methods Design. To accurately

gauge student learning outcomes, I believe examining GPAs from multiple schools, both those

that address heteronormativity in their curriculum and those that don't, as a quantitative measure

will benefit my study. Schools that either openly address heteronormativity in their mission or

schools that has a GSA will be considered schools that are attempting to address

heteronormativity. I also think, to get a measure of what students know, semi-structured

interviews will aid in my research.

Sample

The entirety of each schools GPA will be used in quantitative measures. Then, GPAs will be

grouped into high, medium, and low categories. Students will be selected from each category to

participate in structured interviews.

Measures
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
9

GPAs from each school will be used to as quantitative measures. The GPAs will then be

grouped into high, medium, and low categories. Students will be selected based on percentages

that reflect the cultural dynamic of the school. Categories that will be considered are students

who identify as Black, White, Latinx, LGBTQ+, and non-LGBTQ+.

Semi-structured interviews that ask students about current events and historical events

will then take place. The feedback will then be used to compare the data between schools that do

and do not address heteronormativity in their curriculum.

Data Collection Procedures

GPAs and data from student interviews will be generated through the research process.

After it is determined which schools have effectively addressed heteronormativity in their

curriculum and increased student learning outcomes, interviews will be conducted with educators

in the building to determine their methods of approach. These methods will then will shared with

schools who have not effectively addressed heteronormativity in their curriculum and increased

learning outcomes.

Data Analysis Procedures

Because sequential mixed methods practices will be employed, quantitative data will be

generated through correlational data analysis of schools that address heteronormativity and those

that do not. Quantitative data yielded from standardized test scores and students GPAs will be

used to compare schools that do and do not address heteronormativity in their schools. Then,

schools who address heteronormativity and show increased student GPA and test scores will

participate in semi-structured interviews with both students and educators.

Limitations of the Study

HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
10

Limitations include the use of standardized test scores and GPAs as quantitative

measures. While these are a standardized measure, it is common knowledge the high-stakes

testing and formal assessment do not always accurately express what students can do or what

they know.

Additionally, because combatting heteronormativity is a never-ending process, even

though a school has been identified as addressing heteronormativity, it may still be problematic

in other areas.

Finally, the use of semi-structured interviews with students could result in subjects

discussing interview topics and questions with each other.

HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
11

References

Blackburn, M. V., & McCready, L. T. (2009). Voices of queer youth in urban schools:
Possibilities and limitations. Theory Into Practice, 48(3), 222-230.
Bontempo, D. E., & dAugelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual
orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths health risk behavior. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 30(5), 364-374.
DAugelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., Salter, N. P., Vasey, J. J., Starks, M. T., & Sinclair, K. O.
(2005). Predicting the suicide attempts of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 35(6), 646-660.
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2010). The nature of institutional heteronormativity in primary
schools and practice-based responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1669-
1676.
Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B. N. (2011). Offsetting risks: High school gay-straight
alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. School Psychology
Quarterly, 26(2), 161.
Johnson, L. S. (2009). School contexts and student belonging: A mixed methods study of an
innovative high school. School Community Journal, 19(1), 99.
Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High School
Journal, 85(3), 13-26.
Martino, W. (2000). Policing masculinities: Investigating the role of homophobia and
heteronormativity in the lives of adolescent school boys. The Journal of Men's
Studies, 8(2), 213-236.
McCabe, P. C., & Rubinson, F. (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of
school psychology and education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered youth. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 469.
Quinlivan, K., & Town, S. (1999). Queer pedagogy, educational practice and lesbian and gay
youth. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 12(5), 509-524.
Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying explains only part of LGBTQheterosexual
risk disparities: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(8), 309-
319.
Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: Gender
Normals, Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance of Heterosexuality. Gender
& Society, 23(4), 440-464.
Toomey, R. B., McGuire, J. K., & Russell, S. T. (2012). Heteronormativity, school climates, and
perceived safety for gender nonconforming peers. Journal of adolescence, 35(1), 187-
196.
HETERONORMATIVITY AND EDUCATIVE OUTCOMES
12