For the last decade or so, sexuality has been widely discussed in the media.

There is a wide range of

evidence, which will be discussed in this essay, to show that people who have power in society are
not using their agency effectively to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ students, whether at school or in
the wider community. In response to this, Australian schools have had to rise to the challenge of
providing equity in the classroom and access to services for students who identify as LGBTQ+. This
topic has been chosen as the focus of this essay as my own younger sister identifies as lesbian and
has had difficulty at school. It suits me to attempt to use the research behind this essay to
understand her school experience better. This essay is intended to discuss the following:

 What is equity and why education/schooling has a role in providing equity for these students
 why LGBTQ+ students are at a disadvantage in terms of sociological theory
 the changes that schools have made
 whether these have been significant in making education inclusive for LGBTQ+ students
 whether there are further changes necessary, and if so; what changes should be made?

In response to the first point above, the reason that education has a role in providing support for
LGBTQ+ students is that there is a strong emphasis in our education system on equity for all
students. This is reflected in the Australian Curriculum (ACARA, 2012) which states “ACARA is
committed to a curriculum which promotes excellence and equity in education…. that addresses
their individual learning needs.” This gives rise to another question; what is equity? (Keddie, 2011)
describes equity in terms of education by quoting Peppermint Grove High School principal, Anna;
who argues “students’ background and past life doesn't have to be a barrier, it is the job of the
school to remove all those barriers., so that those barriers do not prevent them being all they can
be”. In short, it is the work of schools to ensure that students can be the best they can be regardless
of their background.

So, if equity can be defined as the removal of barriers to achievement related to a student’s
background, what barriers do LGBTQ+ students face and why do these barriers exist? This brings us
to the second point above. If one considers the LGBTQ+ community to have or to be a distinct
‘culture’, these questions can be answered from a sociological perspective. While (Movement
Advancement Project, 2013)’s report on the barriers to schooling and employment for LGBTQ+
people focuses on LGBTQ+ people of colour, the themes are highly relevant to all LGBTQ+ people. It
is mentioned in the report, that these students have higher risk of harassment and bullying at school
and that “when students are unsafe and don’t receive the academic, social or developmental
support they need- students are not engaged academically and are at greater risk of acting out at
school.” (Movement Advancement Project, 2013)

This in turn, puts LGBTQ+ students more at risk of entering the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’ which
(Movement Advancement Project, 2013) defines as “when students are suspended, expelled,
removed from school and turned over to the juvenile justice/correctional systems.” (Movement
Advancement Project, 2013) states that 79% of LGBTQ+ people of colour surveyed had interactions
with law enforcement, in comparison to 69% of white LGBTQ+ people. These sentiments are echoed
in (Ullman & Ferfolja, 2015) which states that in a study of 3134 LGBTQ+ students, 61% had
experienced verbal violence, mostly of a homophobic nature. (Hillier, et al., 2010) shows graphical
evidence that verbal and physical abuse in the school setting related to homophobia strongly
correlate to drug use and risk of self-harm and suicide.
Now that we have identified some of the barriers LGBTQ+ students face at school, causing them to
be at a disadvantage; we must examine why these barriers are created and why they have such an
effect on students. I will attempt to do so through different sociological ‘lenses’. (Rawlings, 2016)
discusses subjectivity in a way that gives insights into the struggles LGBTQ+ students face by
describing it as: “one’s sense of self and understanding of one’s relation to the world”. Every day,
LGBTQ+ students are told by their peers that they are not ‘normal’, that they do not belong; or
worse, they are told by authority figures, including teachers to ‘tone down’ their sexuality to avoid
attention or their struggles are silenced completely. This is shown in anecdotes by students in
(Ullman & Ferfolja, 2015) and no more prominent than in (Saltmarsh, 2007) where a sexual assault
case at an elite private boy’s school was handled by authoritative and prominent members of society
without reference to the homosexual nature of the assault.

This proves that homophobia is so rampant, that homosexuality cannot yet be discussed in terms of
intersections with power and privilege, (which it should be, considering bullying is a major factor in
LGBTQ+ mental health, as discussed earlier in this essay) but only in the broad cultural terms aimed
at increasing awareness and acceptance that we see in the everyday media. This silencing and
effective demeaning naturally has an impact on LGBTQ+ students’ subjective view of themselves and
the world around them. (Rawlings, 2016) also states that “subjectivities can be decided by a person,
or applied to them by others”. Following this line of thought, subjectivities are forced onto these
students through bullying which affects their self-worth. Bullies are able to do so due to a power
imbalance between them and their victims. (Rawlings, 2016) describes how this imbalance can
manifest itself in “This imbalance can be real or perceived; mental, physical or both, or through
sheer numbers”

Looking at the breakdown above of the contributing sociological ideas relating to subjectivity and
power in regards to LGBTQ+ students and their marginalisation in schools, we begin to see that
these issues fit within the schema of poststructuralism. Poststructuralism as discussed in () accepts
that meaning is subjective, and dominant discourses are ‘steered’ by the beliefs and meanings held
by those in positions of power within society, such as politicians and teachers (see the point in the
above paragraph regarding (Saltmarsh, 2007)). Poststructuralism holds that these dominant
meanings and discourses must be analysed, tested and changed when required. Critical theory
defined in () aims to emancipate us from rigid meanings and discourse, and as such, intersects with
poststructuralism. Using a combination of these two theories, we can begin to change our thinking
on LGBTQ+ students and work towards building a better school environment for them.

Reflecting on my personal assumptions relating to this discourse around the experience of LGBTQ+
students, I have had to change my own thinking as although I was aware of the issues these students
face, I was not aware that it had such a profound effect on their wellbeing. My sister often told me
that she felt ‘othered’ sometimes by her own friends who once told her that “I forget that you’re not
normal; I mean, not straight” and although they meant no harm, that it had hurt her and that she
was also sick of hearing “that’s gay” said among her friends to mean that something was considered
distasteful or embarrassing.

I told my sister in response that she must accept that her friends did not understand that this upset
her and that because of this, she must not take these things to heart. After writing this essay, I ask
myself why I chose to respond to my sister’s distress in this way. I believe it is due to the
heteronormativity and downplay of these issues perpetuated in the classroom by students and
teachers (for examples, see the case of my sister mentioned above, (Ullman & Ferfolja, 2015) and
(Hillier, et al., 2010)), by the media, by the powerful figures in my life and in our greater society. I
myself did not understand why these comments upset my sister. I am now able to take a
poststructuralist viewpoint and understand that while these comments did not seem of significance
to me, subjectively, they were profound from her standpoint. I then considered how this will affect
my practice as a teacher. This experience has taught me that as teaching is a position of power, with
a large amount of influence behind it. Therefore, I must consider my use of language and subjectivity
when I speak to students; when assessing whether a matter needs to be addressed or not, and that I
must work to show a higher level of empathy with students who may confide in me as my sister did.

Next, we must ask: How have the government and schools used these sociological theories to work
to make schools more inclusive for LGBTQ+ students? The answer is in policy and its integration into
schools. The NSW government has clear anti-discrimination policy (NSW Department of School
Education, 1997) which states that “no person will be discriminated against in enrolment on the
grounds of their sex, age, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, sexual preference or marital status.” and
that Department of Education employees are not to discriminate against fellow colleagues or
students. (NSW Department of Education, 2007) However, the NSW government’s multiculturalism
education policy statement (NSW Department of Education, 2016) says that schools are to “foster
student wellbeing and community harmony through the provision of programs and practices
which counter racism and discrimination”, but does not include reference to LGBTQ+ people
anywhere in the document. This confirms the fact that the LGBTQ+ community is not seen to have or
to be its own culture. It is my firm belief that viewing the LGBTQ+ community as a culture would give
policy makers a stronger understanding of what is needed to make these students feel safer at
school. On the other hand, NSW government has introduced the ‘National Safe Schools Framework’
alongside the Australian curriculum to promote safe and inclusive schools.

The framework (National Safe Schools Framework: The Nine Elements, 2017) has 9 key areas of
importance; these are:

1. Commitment to strong leadership in schools

2. Developing a school culture that is supportive and connected
3. Policies and procedures to ensure schools adhere to the framework
4. Professional learning for teachers so that they are equipped to provide strong leadership
and support to students
5. Develop behaviour management techniques that are focused on positive behaviour
6. Engage and develop the skills of students while following the national curriculum
7. Focus on student wellbeing and leadership
8. Tailored support for students
9. Communicate well with parents and the community

This program, also known as the Safe Schools Program (SSP) however, has been under review since
the 2016 change in government (Louden & William., 2016) and as such its implementation has been
patchy at best.

We must then consider the effectiveness of this program. Although schools may have this program
implemented, when students report issues are they handled in an appropriate and timely manner,
or are students concerns still dismissed and normalised as discussed earlier in this essay? The
anecdotes shown in (Ullman & Ferfolja, 2015) would suggest the latter, as students are told to ‘tone
it down’ by teachers, or told they aren’t normal. (Louden & William., 2016) points out that in the
SSP, membership to the program does not require the school to implement the program, and Safe
School related resources for parents are not available. This suggests that several member schools
are not implementing the program, but simply making the resources available to students
exclusively. The question then becomes: how many students and parents are aware that Safe
Schools resources exist? (Taddeo, et al., 2015) which analysed the usefulness of the SSP website
argues that exposure is highly limited and underutilised.

If this is the case, what can be done to improve the experience of LGBTQ+ students at school? As
mentioned earlier, if we can view LGBTQ+ as a ‘culture’ we can expand on the anti-discrimination
part of existing multiculturalism policy to implement compulsory programs to build understanding
and tolerance for the LGBTQ+ community in schools and in wider society. Until this type of policy
change occurs, LGBTQ+ students will continue to be marginalised by their peers, parents and
community in the ways showcased by the students themselves in (Hillier, et al., 2010) and (Ullman &
Ferfolja, 2015)
Works Cited
ACARA. (2012, Dec 16). Student Diversity. Retrieved from Australian Curriculum:
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/studentdiversity/student-diversity-advice

Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing
Themselves In 3: The third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex
attracted and gender questioning young people. (pp. 49-50) Melbourne: Australian Research
Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University.

Keddie, A. (2011). Educating for Diversity and Social Justice. In A. Keddie, Educating for Diversity and
Social Justice (pp. 27-30). Griffith: Routledge.

Louden, & William. (2016). Review of Appropriateness and Efficacy of the Safe Schools Coalition
Australia Program Resources. (pp Canberra: Government of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Movement Advancement Project. (2013). A broken Bargain for LGBT workers of colour. Denver:
Centre for American Progress.

National Safe Schools Framework: The Nine Elements. (2017, March 10). Retrieved from Student
Wellbeing Hub: https://www.studentwellbeinghub.edu.au/educators/national-safe-schools-
framework#/

NSW Department of Education. (2007). Professional Conduct: Respect for People. Sydney: NSW
Department of Education.

NSW Department of Education. (2016). Multicultural Education Policy. Sydney: NSW Department of
Education.

NSW Department of School Education. (1997). Enrolment of Students in Government Schools: A

summary and consolidation of policy. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education
Executive Services Directorate.

Rawlings, V. (2016). Gender Regulation, Violence and Social Heirarchies in Schools- 'Sluts, 'Gays' and
'Scrubs'. Glasgow: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp 53

Saltmarsh, S. (2007). Cultural Complicities: Elitism, Heteronormativity and Violence in the Education
Marketplace. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 335-354.

Taddeo, C., Spears, B., Ey, L., Green, D., Price, D., Carslake, T., & Cox, G. (2015). A Report on the
Evaluation of the Safe Schools Hub. (pp 2-22) Adelaide: University of South Australia.

Ullman, J., & Ferfolja, T. (2015). Bureaucratic constructions of sexual diversity: 'sensitive,
'controversial' and silencing. Teaching Education, 145-159.