Running head: BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES

Best Educational Practices: Creating a Poly-inclusive Classroom Climate Lorena Olvera Moreno Widener University

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES Introduction In recent years, the topic of polyamory and other forms of non-monogamy has caused controversy yet garnered little study. Polyamory has been described as the possibility to love

more than one person at the same time (Easton & Hardy, 2009; Taormino, 2008) but also as an internal attitude towards love without expectations (Anapol, 2010). For the purpose of this paper I will use the concept of relationship orientations which embrace polyamory, monogamy and all the variety of non-monogamous interactions, (Cannon Lesher, 2013) when referring to a diversity of types of love. With the emergence of new types of relationship orientations, monogamy has stopped being the only available possibility; therefore, many people have started choosing alternatives and embracing those that fit them better (Anapol, 2010). Consequently, there is a need in sexuality education that includes the diversity of relationship orientations such as monogamy, polygamy, polyamory, swinging, among others. This paper presents a framework of best practices for teaching human sexuality classes when working with polyamorous communities. Moreover, the paper offers strategies to include in the structure of the class on teaching about diverse ways of loving. Best practices motivate, engage and prompt students to learn and achieve (Public Schools of North Carolina, 2006). In this case, these best practices also help the students to understand, respect and value the diversity of relationship orientations. Best practices are applicable to all grade levels and provide the building blocks for instruction. Best Practices The following best practices focus on the main areas that can help an educator to have a class where different relationship orientations are present. These best practices were compiled to give school leaders and teachers the knowledge they need to generate a climate in which all their

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES students feel safe and valued. Through inclusive practices, teachers have the power to build an educational environment that is truly welcoming to all students. Do not Assume that Everybody is Monogamous

Marriage and monogamy are still part of the predominant discourse when talking about love (Emens, 2004). Thus, polyamorous individuals are possibly at risk for monogamist prejudice in many contexts (Keener, 2004). With the same-sex marriage discussions nowadays and the modifications to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (United States v. Windsor, 2013) in its Section 3, people have started to see relationship orientations as many possibilities that can co-exist. Consequently, it is essential that inside of a classroom, the students and the teacher use an inclusive vocabulary that references different types of relationship orientations. The objective is that people start discussions about monogamy and its alternatives, focusing not only on the gender of the people involved but also on the number of people involved (Emens, 2004). There are different models that show how the possibilities in relationship orientations or love are diverse (Fisher, 1992; Emens, 2004; Veaux, 2010). Fisher (1992) focused on the options that people have when selecting a mate or mates, ranging from a monogamous view to a polygamous view. Emens (2004) developed a scale of monogamous (mono) and polyamorous (poly) dispositions which contributes to the understanding of mono and poly options from an interpersonal perspective. Finally, Veaux (2010) created a chart of the various types of nonmonogamous sexual relationships that a person can have. These models portrayed the great diversity in relationship orientation that exists. Once educators become aware of others perspectives, they could acknowledge that they must stop having a bias towards monogamy, but accept that students in their class, or the students family can have a different relationship

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES

orientation as a way to express love to others. It is important that educators become aware of the existence of these models; thus, for a better understanding, I explain each model in depth below. One of the important models to analyze is Fishers (1992) which claims that human rituals concerning courtship, mating, and marriage are scripts humans use to replicate themselves. In general, Fisher (1992) analyzed the choices humans have to mate using three lenses of analysis: choices of a man, choices of a woman, and choices for one man and one woman together. She stated that a man has the option of monogyny (a man mates with a single woman at a time) and polygyny (a man with several women at a time), while the woman has the option of monoandry (a woman with one man) and polyandry (a woman with several men). Polygyny and polyandry together represented the option of polygamy; monogyny and monoandry represented the option of monogamy. All these options are completely natural (Fisher, 1992). Fisher (1992) analyzed how some of these options are more common than others in different cultures: while polygyny can be found in 16 percent of the cultures on record, polyandry is rarely found. The third lens of analysis is the choice for women and men together: polygynandry or group marriage. The scale of mono and poly dispositions created by Emens (2004) helps to understand how sexual desire and the desire for partnering can be mono or poly and the possible options can be numerous. This model has two components based on the desires of the participants rather than the behavior: sexual exclusivity and domestic/romantic numerosity. Sexual exclusivity is the number of sexual partners that a person desire to have while domestic/romantic numerosity represents the number of romantic partners that a person wants to have (Emens, 2004). Both components are analyzed for oneself and for ones partner; therefore, at the end, the model represents the sexual desire (mono or poly) for oneself and for the partner, and the partnering

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES desire (mono or poly) for oneself and for the partner. Emens (2004) clarified that this model shows the extreme versions of monogamy and polygamy. However, other options can be

obtained from the model, such as a person who desires more than one sexual partner but expects to be the only desired person to his/her partner. Furthermore, Veaux (2010) has developed a model of non-monogamous relationships that portray the intersections between the different types of non-monogamy. With this model, Veaux (2010) revealed that there is not just one type of non-monogamy, and that polyamory and swinging are not the only two types of non-monogamy. He argued how a relationship can be non-monogamous without being open (polyfidelitous relationships or religious polygyny), open without being polyamorous (casual sex), or agreed to be monogamous and close but there is infidelity. Veaux (2010) also added BDSM, all those practices involving dominance and submission, role-playing, restraint, and other interpersonal dynamics, to the model because people involved in these practices can be non-monogamous too. Taking into consideration any of the models presented above, it is important not to assume that monogamy is the only selected option for students (Keener, 2004). It is imperative to use respectful language that includes the different types of relationship orientations. When teaching sexuality, it is recommended that teachers do not generalize the lesson to monogamous couples, and instead considering diversity as part of their approach. Furthermore, teachers should also not assume monogamy when working with parents or when using permission forms. These forms have to include the possibility of poly families and numerous parents. Create and Maintain a Safe Space Through Ground Rules Children who are from polyamorous families do not report problems because of their families but because of all the judgment, prejudice and negative attitudes from the people outside

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES of their families (Anapol, 2010). Children in polyamorous families are concerned about being

identified as different (Taormino, 2008). It is fundamental to create a safe space that welcomes students who belong to a variety of families. As part of creating a safe space and comfort among the participants, educators should create and maintain ground rules (Bruess & Meggers, 2009; Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996; Koch, 2007). Until students feel it is safe and comfortable to talk about sexuality, they are unlikely to fully engage in the experience (Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996, p. 40). There are some ground rules for the classroom that can be useful to create a safe space for polyamorous people or people related to a polyamorous person such as the child: confidentiality, avoiding generalizations of monogamy or assumptions, respecting and appreciating differences, inclusive language, and encouraging participation, and expression of feelings. Confidentiality means that everything that was shared in the session cannot be revealed outside (Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996). The student needs to know that if he/she shares information about the fact non-monogamy in their family, this student will not be judged or face social disapproval because it was shared outside of the group. Well-managed confidentiality that protects students will reduce anxiety and increase participation (Bruess & Meggers, 2009). The second important rule is avoiding generalizations or assumptions (Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996; Koch, 2007) which can be applied to monogamy in this paper. The teacher must explain that there are other possibilities and that it is always better to ask. The third rule is respecting and appreciating differences (Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996; Koch, 2007), so diversity of opinion must be value. The fourth rule is having inclusive language (Bruess & Meggers, 2009; Koch, 2007) such as using the word partner instead of husband or wife. Finally, the fifth rule is

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES encouraging participation and expression of feelings which is desirable for a sexuality class (Bruess & Meggers, 2009; Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996).

It is important to know the stages of the group process to understand the ideal moments to establish ground rules and the ideal moments to review them. Tuckman and Jensen (2010) developed a model of group processes divided in four stages: forming (routine establishment, getting to know each other), storming (intragroup conflict, emotional response to tasks), norming (resolution of conflicts, development of group cohesion, establishment of group norms), and performing (establishment of roles, closeness among members, ideal stage for learning). Therefore, ground rules should be created in the forming stage to prevent interpersonal conflicts (Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996) in the later storming stage. When a group is in the storming stage and a rule is violated, the teacher should remind the whole group about the previously established rule (Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996). A second useful model to understand this best practice is the social cognitive theory and the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Wood & Bandura, 1989). In social cognitive theory self-regulation of motivation is controlled by mechanisms that work together and that influence reciprocally (Bandura, 1977). The mechanism relevant to this topic is peoples beliefs in their personal efficacy (Wood & Bandura, 1989). According to Wood and Bandura (1989), these beliefs can be strengthened in four ways: mastery experiences, modeling, social persuasion, and enhanced physiological status. When working with ground rules creation and the subsequent implementation of them it is important to take the first three areas into consideration. It is better if the students generate the rules by themselves (Hedgepeth & Helmich, 1996; Koch, 2007), because they will choose the ones that they know, have mastered, or believe they can master in the future. Performance success increases the self-beliefs in capability (Wood & Bandura, 1989).

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES The second way to increase those beliefs is through modeling (Wood & Bandura, 1989). The role of the teacher is to show the students how to follow those ground rules by following them himself or herself because proficient models build self-beliefs of capability by conveying to observers effective strategies for managing different situations (Wood & Bandura, 1989, p.

364). Social persuasion is a third way to increase students beliefs that they will be able to create a safe space with with working ground rules. According to Wood and Bandura (1989) if the person receives realistic encouragements, he or she will be more likely to succeed. Thus, the sexuality educator must encourage the students to follow these rules by telling them that ground rules can foster cohesiveness, effective communication and trust among the students (Koch, 2007). Create Awareness About Poly-Discrimination Poly-discrimination is the type of discrimination that polyamorous individuals or close relatives mainly their children face (Anapol, 2010; Easton & Hardy, 2009; Pallota-Chiarolli (2010); Peabody, 1982 as cited in Weitzman, Davidson & Phillips, 2010). Therefore, two ideal practices for sexuality educators to use to prevent poly-discrimination are to create awareness about discrimination and to intervene when it occurs. Discrimination appears in different ways. Some people may react hostilely or unsympathetically (Easton & Hardy, 2009); others may use negative labels (Klesse, 2006) or labels that are grounded in false arguments or myths (Easton & Hardy, 2009; Emens, 2004). Through the ecological system model (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) this practice acquires meaning. This theory maintains that it is important to take into consideration the whole ecological system in order to understand human development. Bronfenbrenner (1994) mentioned

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES

that a system is integrated by five subsystems that help to guide human grow: the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem. The first subsystem, the microsystem, contains the direct contact structures of the child (family, school, neighborhood, church, etc.). Bronfenbrenner (1994) suggests that the relationship between the child and the different structures is face-to-face or bi-directional influences (p. 39). Therefore, if discrimination is analyzed under this perspective, it is easy to find that children of poly parents face discrimination in the school and with their neighbors (Anapol, 2010; Pallota-Chiarolli, 2010; Tweedy, 2010). They can directly or indirectly face judgment, prejudice and negative attitudes from the teachers or classmates directly (Anapol, 2010). The second subsystem is the mesosystem which provides the connection among the structures of the childs microsystems. In the case of the classroom, the connection can be between the family and the school. A child with poly parents can face harassment in the school due to his or her parents type of relationship (Pallota-Chiarolli, 2010; Tweedy, 2010). The exosystem is a social system not directly connected to the child; the influence of this system is indirect via the microsystems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). According to Pallota-Chiarolli (2010), the discrimination that children with poly parents face proceeds from both the wider heteronormative society and from the gay and lesbian community. The fourth system, the macrosystem, is the outermost layer in the childs development. It comprises traditions, cultural values, lifestyles, belief systems, and laws (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Monogamy represents the dominant discourse and the only approved way to express love (Emens, 2004). Consequently, teachers are usually at risk for internalized monogamist prejudice;

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES

10

thus, they need to confront all these ideas when working with monogamous students and students from monogamous families (Keener, 2004). The last system is the chronosystem which encompasses the dimension of time either external (characteristics of the environment) or internal (characteristics of the person) to the child (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Polyamorists may have to engage in significant risks to pursue their lifestyle and may need to keep it hidden from outsiders (Tweedy, 2010); sometimes they even need to find another job or move to another place in order to feel accepted or avoid employment discrimination (Anapol, 2010; Emens, 2004). A sexuality educator should prevent any type of poly-discrimination. Easton and Hardy (2009) suggest the term slut-positive (p. 49) to name the individuals who respect and protect polyamorists from discrimination. In this case, an ideal environment of sexuality education must promote that all the students and teachers are slut-positive. In addition, there are three measures that have to be taken into account: the creation and implementation of anti-bullying policies, the formation and support to student clubs that promote sexual diversity, and training in bullying prevention (Teaching Tolerance, 2013; Kosciw et al., 2012). A model that can help to analyze anti-bullying policies is the worldview belief model (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). According to Koltko-Rivera (2004), there are three types of worldview beliefs: existential, evaluative and prescriptive. Therefore, if sexuality educators want to implement bullying policies to prevent discrimination, they must analyze the beliefs that students have in relationship with poly discrimination. First, the existential beliefs worldview encompasses beliefs that are true and false (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). It is important to give all students statistics that indicate the number of students being discriminated against because of a

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES difference in their sexual orientation, sexual identity or relationship orientation (Kosciw et al., 2012).

11

Second, the evaluative beliefs analyze the differences between morally right and wrong (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Students should understand the consequences of using ideas of what is wrong against others by analyzing the indicators of negative school climate: hearing biased remarks in school, feeling unsafe in school because of personal characteristics, missing classes or days of school for safety reasons; and experiencing harassment and assault in school. Third, prescriptive beliefs center their attention on means and ends (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Students should face the reality of discrimination and the ways that it affects the life of other students. It is important that students acknowledge that social (school, neighborhood), cultural (lack of support from others in their group), and other stressors (financial problems as a result of employment discrimination) often interfere with polyamorous peoples ability to achieve their goals (Tweedy, 2010). Moreover, students should recognize the possible negative effects of a hostile school climate on students' academic achievement, educational aspirations, and psychological well-being (Kosciw et al., 2012). Become Aware of the Role Played as Sexuality Educators In general, professionals are not educated on the topic of polyamory (Weitzman, 2006; Weitzman et al., 2010). There is a tendency of assuming monogamy as the general choice for relationships; therefore, professionals tend to pathologize individuals involved in polyamory (Weitzman, 2006). Weitzman et al. (2010), in their guide for professionals working with poly people focused in part on creating guidelines for therapists. They discussed how the professional should analyze his or her own biases (sexism, heterosexism polynegativity) and prejudices before working with poly individuals. Until now, there has been no guidelines for educators

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES working with poly students or working with children of poly parents. However, it is important

12

that sexuality educators become trained in polyamory topics; professionals must be aware of the needs of poly people and their own biases against this community (Weitzman et al., 2010). Social constructivist theory can be helpful to understand how the social reality of polyamorous individuals is socially constructed, and how educators play an important role in this construction. According to Berger and Luckmann (1966) persons and groups interacting in a social system form mental representations or concepts of each others actions. These
representations in time become habituated into reciprocal roles played by the actors in relation to each other. The issue is when these roles become institutionalized when they are available to any member of the society. Sexuality educators must be aware that people's conceptions and beliefs are transformed into institutional social knowledge (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Therefore, they can

start effecting change by learning about the community, questioning their biases, and getting training on the topic of polyamory. Kosciw et al. (2012) suggested that having training in sexuality education and LGBT topics improve rates of intervention and increase the number of supportive teachers. Bennett (1986, 1993) created the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS) as a framework to explain the reactions of people to cultural difference. However, it can also be used to explain reactions of people to sexual differences such as sexual identity, sexual orientations, and relationship orientation. Bennett (1993) assumed that peoples experience of cultural difference becomes more complex when their competence in intercultural relations increases. This idea, translated to educators working with poly people, means that the professionals need to interact with the community (in person, on the internet, or by learning about them through books or journals) in order to have a better attitude and behavior related to

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES sexual differences. Bennett (1986) developed a continuum that ranges from monocultural to intercultural mindsets. This continuum shows that individuals who have a more intercultural

13

mindset have a greater ability to respond effectively to cultural differences, and a greater ability to recognize and build upon true commonalities. Sexuality educators with an intercultural mindset are able to more deeply understand differences and to recognize commonalities between themselves and others. Additionally, Bennett (1993) suggested developmental tasks, specific content and processes that can help to move from one stage to the next one to finally develop integration when they construct their multicultural identity. By following these tasks, sexuality educators would be able to create opportunities for marginal peer group interaction, provide options for them to serve as resource persons, and serve as mediators among different groups. Conclusion Teaching in a relationship-inclusive way is something relatively new. In the past, other authors (Weitzman, 2006; Weitzman et al., 2010) have discussed how to work with polyamorous individuals from a clinical perspective; however, there is a need to determine best practices when working with these individuals in an educational setting. Sexuality educators work hard in trying to create welcoming classrooms and make the students feel included and safe. But despite these efforts, there is a lack of education about non-monogamous relationships, such as polyamory, so students who are poly or who are related to a poly person continue to face a difficulty. The practices outlined in this paper allow the educators to be aware of the current biases against the poly community and help them to create safe spaces for the students. These best practices were created to give sexuality educators or teachers in general the knowledge they need to create a climate in which vulnerable students can feel safe and valued.

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES References Anapol, D. (2010). Polyamory in the 21st century: Love and intimacy with multiple partners. UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bennett, M. J. (1986). A developmental approach to training for intercultural sensitivity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10(2), 179-196. doi:10.1016/01471767(86)90005-2 Bennett, M. J. (1993). Towards a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. In Paige, R.M. (Ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press. Retrieved from http://www.library.wisc.edu/EDVRC/docs/public/pdfs/SEEDReadings/intCulSens.pdf

14

Berger, P. L. & T. Luckmann. (1966). Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. International Encyclopedia of Education, 3 (2), 37-43. New York, NY: Freeman. Bruess, C. E., & Meggers, H. J. (2009). Teaching the college human sexuality course. In E. Schroeder, J. Kuriansky (Eds.), Sexuality education: Past, present, and future, Vol 3: Principles and practices (pp. 269-293). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group. Cannon Lesher E. (2013). Protecting poly: Applying the fourteen amendment to the nonmonogamous. Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Legal Issues, 22, 127-145

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES Easton, D., & Hardy, J. W. (2009). The ethical slut: A practical guide to polyamory, open relationships and other adventures. (2nd ed.) [Adobe Digital Editions version]. New York, NY: Celestial Arts. Emens, E. F. (2004). Monogamys law: Compulsory monogamy and polyamorous existence. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 29, 277-377. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=506242 Fisher, H. (1992). Anatomy of love. New York, NY: Fawcett Books

15

Hedgepeth, E. & Helmich, J. (1996). Teaching about sexuality and HIV. New York, NY: NYU Press. Keener, M.C. (2004). A phenomenology of polyamorous persons (Unpublished masters thesis). University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved from http://user.xmission.com/~mkeener/thesis.pdf Klesse, C. (2006). Polyamory and its others: Contesting the terms of non-monogamy. Sexualities, 9(5), 565-583. doi: 10.1177/1363460706069986 Koch, P. (2007). The what, why, and how of group learning in sexuality education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 2(2), 51-71. Doi: 10.1300/J455v02n02_04 Koltko-Rivera, M. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 3-58. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.8.1.3 Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., Palmer, N. A., & Gay, L. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our Nation's Schools. Gay, Lesbian And Straight Education Network (GLSEN)

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES

16

Pallota-Chiarolli, M. (2010). Polyparents, having children, raising children, schooling children. In Barker, M. & Langdridge, D. (Eds.), Understanding non-mongamies. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Public Schools of North Carolina, Department of Public Instruction: Elementary Division. (2006). Best practices: A Resource for Teachers Retrieved from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/curriculum/bpractices2.pdf Taormino, T. (2008). Opening up: A guide to creating and sustaining open relationships [Adobe Digital Editions version]. San Francisco, CA: Cleis Press Inc. Teaching Tolerance. (2013). Best Practices: Creating an LGBT-inclusive School Climate. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/general/LGBT%20Best%20Practices_0.pdf Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. C. (2010). Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group Facilitation: A Research & Applications Journal, 10 43-48. Retrieved from http://0search.proquest.com.libcat.widener.edu//docview/747969212 Tweedy, A. E. (2010). Polyamory as a sexual orientation. University of Cincinnati Law Review,79(4), 1461-1515. Retrieved from http://works.bepress.com/ann_tweedy/1/ United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) Veaux, F. (2010). The map of non-monogamy. Unpublished model. Retrieved from http://www.xeromag.com/sexualinformatics/nonmonogamy2.5.2.gif Weitzman, G. (2006). Therapy with clients who are bisexual and polyamorous. Journal of Bisexuality, 6(1), 137-164.

BEST EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES

17

Weitzman, G., Davidson, J., & Phillips, R. (2010). What psychology professionals should know about polyamory. Retrieved from https://ncsfreedom.org/key-programs/kink-awareprofessionals/kap-program-page/item/495-poly-paper-a-professional-guide.html Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Academy Of Management Review, 14(3), 361-384. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067