Trans

The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Social Studies Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jssr
Considering perspectives on transgender inclusion

in Canadian Catholic elementary schools: Perspectives,
challenges, and opportunities
Cory Wright-Maley a,n, Trent Davis a, Eileen M. Gonzalez b, Ryan Colwell c
a
b
c
St. Mary's University College, Calgary, AB, Canada

University of St. Joseph, West Connecticut, CT, USA
Faireld University, Faireld, CT, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
abstract
Article history:
Accepted 30 December 2015
Available online 21 January 2016
There is a growing recognition in society that more needs to be done to support LGBTQ
youth in schools. In particular, school climate reports reveal that this need is particularly
pressing for transgender individuals who are little understood and often rendered invisible or made to conform to gender-normative social standards. This mixed methods study
surveyed and interviewed preservice teachers at three Catholic institutions. In particular,
we focus on the shifting landscape of Catholic education in Canada as it relates to the
support of transgender youth. The content of the study is framed by a common rst grade
social studies theme: family diversity, and takes its lead from the recent papal urging to
pursue topics of discomfort at the peripheries of Catholic thinking. We explore how
Catholic preservice teachers respond to the idea of teaching about transgender-parent
families. The ndings show there is dissonance between the personal and professional
beliefs of new Catholic teachers. This dissonance is reective of the beliefs held by North
American Catholics at large, thus further illuminating the challenges and opportunities
that are present in the emerging discussion about how to best support transgender students in Catholic school contexts.
Copyright & 2016, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier,
Inc.
Introduction
Social studies education has always been impacted by broad societal changes, and at key junctures in its history has even
been transformed by them. The election of Pope Francis to the papacy has been a genuine catalyst for discussion about the
societal role of the Catholic Church in the twenty-rst century. One prominent theme in Francis's papacy so far has been the
necessity for Catholics to change their customary ways of living their faith. In Evangelii Gaudium: The Joy of the Gospel,
Francis (2013) even asks Catholics to go forth from our own comfort zone in order to reach all the peripheries in need of
the light of the Gospel (p. 24), with peripheries here understood as any place where the love of Christ is currently absent.
It is revealing that this message has been taken up in diverse contexts. For example, in his management book on Pope
Francis entitled Lead with Humility: 12 Leadership Lessons from Pope Francis, Krames (2015) has one chapter called Make
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cory.wrightmaley@stmu.ca (C. Wright-Maley).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2015.12.001
0885-985X/Copyright & 2016, The International Society for the Social Studies. Published by Elsevier, Inc.
188
C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204
Inclusion a Top Priority, and another Live on the Frontier. He argued that we are encouraged by Pope Francis's example to
lead life with a positive and broad-minded attitude coupled with courage and audacity (p. 82).
Pope Francis is currently working through the synod on the family with the Cardinals at the Vatican. Clearly how the
Church regards the family is a topic of urgent discussion. In this paper we seek to contribute to an understanding of how
Catholic preservice teachers see their options in teaching about the family in today's diverse social world in a way that
explores the periphery or frontier of transgender families with all the courage and audacity that Pope Francis asks of
them. The purpose of this study is, therefore, twofold: to understand the knowledge and dispositions of elementary preservice teachers at a Catholic university on the topic of non-traditional families, and to identify their level of comfort in
teaching about these families in elementary classrooms, including which factors would encourage or discourage such
practices. The study attended to a wide variety of families, including those in which single, divorced, widowed, LGBT, and
families with grandparent guardians were considered. Here, we attend specically to how Catholic preservice teachers think
about the prospect of teaching about transgender students and families in their classrooms. By extension, we seek to reveal
how they attempt to reconcile religious and societal demands that can be at odds on this issue.
Diversity and elementary teaching

In pluralistic societies, it is incumbent upon educators to prepare their students for the diversity of people they will
encounter by helping them to understand both the kinds of diversity that exist, and how to ethically accept and include
those who are different. Too often, though, elementary teachers defer this responsibility to later years, assuming either that
children are not yet old enough for such content (e.g., Dedeoglu, Ulusoy, & Lamme, 2012), or that a generic treatment of
individual differences (e.g., everyone is equal, we're all the same in God's eyes, etc.) will sufce (e.g., Garrahy, 2001). These
two positions are complicit since they conspire to silence discussion of childhood identity and reinforce gender-normative
ideals (Sears, 1999; Gerouki, 2010), as well as leave children to develop their own ideas of in-/out-groupings, which have
been shown to be discriminatory in nature (Vittrup & Holden, 2011).
Researchers have pointed out that avoiding sensitive issues in elementary schools is more likely to spare adults the pain
of embarrassment or discomfort, while leading children to draw conclusions based upon information derived from peers
and the media that may be inaccurate or even discriminatory (Bickmore, 1999; Sears, 2005). This subjects all children to a
greater risk of bullying and other dehumanizing behaviors (Sears, 1999), particularly as they move from primary to secondary environments (Gerouki, 2010). This dynamic is especially problematic for transgender children since gender and
sexual identities begin to emerge in elementary years, and may be recognized even earlier by transgender students (Hellen,
2009; Owens, 1998). These students need adults who can competently and comfortably help them to safely navigate the
turbulent waters of K-12 schooling. Doing so requires that teachers intervene to stem gender policing of students who
transgress gender norms and foster a sense of inclusivity among their students in order to interrupt dynamics that lead
students to hide or repress their authentic gender identities (Mayo, 2011). Despite the need for this intervention, teachers
frequently lack knowledge about how to address transgender issues in age appropriate ways.
Despite the central role teachers might play in supporting transgender children or parents, teachers are not prepared to
meet this challenge (Clark, 2010). This lack of preparation is impeded by a relative lack of knowledge of the topic (Grifn &
Ouellett, 2003), teachers own discomfort with transgender identities (e.g., Turnbull & Hilton, 2010), and preservice teachers
resistance to learning about trans*1 concerns and curriculum (Jennings & Sherwin, 2008; Robinson & Ferfolja, 2002). The
limited preparation that preservice teachers receive on the topic is insufcient for supporting their efforts to address and
include gender diversity in an age appropriate manner (Bickmore, 1999; Steele, 2002). It was this problem that led to this
study. In order to better address this need, we believe it is necessary to recognize the challenges specic to Catholic teachers-in-training, and in particular for those who see themselves teaching in Catholic elementary schools.
In this paper we sought to answer two questions:
1. If preservice teachers indicate that they are supportive of transgender individuals as parents in committed relationships,
how likely are they to say that they would teach about this family structure in the context of a rst grade unit on family
diversity?
2. What issues do teachers identify that would encourage or discourage their teaching about transgender-parent families?
Transgender persons in the social studies

The context of this study centers on the content standards of the grade one social studies curriculum, in which students
are asked to link self, family, and community identities. This curricular goal is common in grade one in many jurisdictions in
North America. Although there have been a number of studies that have focused on LGBTQ content and practices, with few
1
The asterisk is a reminder of the complicated and multifaceted make-up of non-normative gender identities along the gender spectrum. See http://
itspronouncedmetrosexual.com/2012/05/what-does-the-asterisk-in-trans-stand-for/.
189
exceptions the T in this acronym is a silent partner across school disciplines (McCarthy, 2003; Asher, 2002). Although
transgender is included in the LGBTQ2 acronym, transgender topics and individuals are generally excluded even more than a
decade beyond Thornton's (2003) call to develop more inclusive curricula (Engebretson, 2014). Crocco (2002) asserted that
the lack of visible support for LGBTQ students in terms of curriculum, resources, and teacher actions in schools contributes
to a climate of intolerance (p. 221) that runs counter to robust claims teachers might make about the importance of
citizenship and pluralism. The work of other scholars corroborates Crocco's claim, noting that the absence of support for
trans* students undermines the qualities of tolerance, openness, and equityvalues that undergird democratic education in
a pluralistic society (Mayo, 2011; Schmidt, 2010)and implicitly condones continuation of the persecution (Thornton,
2003, p. 228). Failing to incorporate transgenderism in the curriculum such as the existence of two-spirited or gender nonconforming peoples (see Schmidt, 2010) constitutes what Engebretson (2014) calls a missed opportunity to help gender
normative students identify their trans* peers in a more human, humane, and even divine lightas is relevant to the context
of Catholic thoughtrather than as a group or category that can be easily objectied or rejected (Mayo, 2011, p. 258).
Emergence of transgender research in the social studies

Although Franck (2002) made mention of two-spirited people in his article, Rethinking Homophobia, it was not until Mayo
and Sheppard elaborated upon this concept in signicant detail that the notion of transgenderism received any detailed
attention in social studies journals (Mayo, 2011; Mayo & Sheppard, 2012; Sheppard & Mayo, 2013). Their research helped
elucidate the ways in which some rst nations cultures traditionally respected LGBTQ individuals as important members of
their communities, the ways in which these cultural norms were colonized by homophobic and transphobic norms, and how
teachers might use these historical and contemporary examples both to trouble gender binaries and provide a model of
acceptance for transgender individuals.
Although these papers provide a rich body of work from which to draw, the paucity of conversation around transgender
persons in the social studies remains concerning. Building more inclusive schools poses a multifaceted challenge for teachers since there are limited supports specic to the social studies for teachers who are underprepared to address transgender issues in social studies classrooms (Maguth & Taylor, 2014). What is more, school climates may prevent teachers who
might take the initiative to develop age appropriate lessons from doing so for fear of drawing unwanted attention to
individual students (Maguth & Taylor, 2014) or to themselves (Mayo, 2007).
School climates
The data reporting on Canadian school climates for LGBTQ youth in general, and transgender individuals in particular,
suggest that schools are among the most formidable and hostile climates for transgender individuals (Luecke, 2011; Greytak,
Kosciw, & Diaz, 2009; Taylor et al., 2008). According to the Egale Canada Human Rights Trust climate survey of Canadian
schools, transgender students are signicantly more likely to view their schools as hostile environments95% of transgender students feel unsafe in their schools compared to 75% among LGBTQ in aggregate (Taylor et al., 2008). Many
transgender students skipped school because of a perceived lack of safetynearly 40% reported being victims of physical
harassment and more than half felt that they were not accepted at their schools. It is concerning that the students from
Catholic schools in this study were much more likely than students from non-Catholic schools to feel their school was
unsupportive of LGBTQ people (72% versus 46%), that teachers were ineffective in addressing homophobic harassment (87%
versus 64%), and that they could not talk to at least one adult in their school (43% versus 25%) (p. 60). Although these data
cannot be said to be representative, they do speak to concerns that there is much left to do in schools, generally, and Catholic
schools in particular.
Jauk (2013) points out that transgender rates of attempted suicide were far out of proportion to the general population
(41% compared to 1.6%), and was even higher for individuals who had experienced bullying or physical and sexual abuse or
assault. Notably, Robinson and Espelage (2012) reported that bullying only explains part of this tragic statistic, and that even
when victimization is accounted for, LGBTQ students are still signicantly more likely to think about (p o.0001) and attempt
suicide (p o.007). In the discussion of their ndings they argue that the disparities may be partially the result of stigmatizing, macro-level messages that youth receive about sexual minorities (e.g., they are unwanted, they are different) that
persist even in the absence of direct individual-level peer victimization (p. 316).
Callaghan (2012) noted in her study of LGBTQ teachers in Catholic schools in Ontario and Alberta that policies remained
in place in many districts that prohibited employees from disclosing their non-normative identities. As such the teachers in
this study felt that they and others like themteachers and studentsfeel that they must remain closeted in order to
maintain their positions. This palpable sense of concern teachers feel for their own security in schools is reinforced by such
policies, but remains the case even in secular public schools (see Mayo, 2007). This concern is legitimated by cases where
2
The acronym LGBTQ refers to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (or Questioning). Some sources also include Intersex (I) in the acronym.
The expansion of this grouping represents our growing understanding of the complexity of human gender and sexual identities.
190
teachers in Canada and the U.S. have been red as a result of the disclosure of their sexual identities or gender nonconformity (e.g., Brydum, 2013; Callaghan, 2012; Gerson, 2014). Such climates make it difcult for teachers who are perhaps
best qualied to understand the needs and concerns of LGBTQ youth from acting as effective supporting adults to these
children (Mayo, 2007). Such silence serves to perpetuate the devastating consequences for LGBTQ youth in our schools. This
poses a challenge for the teaching profession at large: we must push to the frontiers, to the peripheries, in order to nd ways
to create school environments that are richly inclusive, loving, and supportive of those students most vulnerable in contemporary schools. Doing so is likely to prove uncomfortable; our study reects such discomfort within the profession.
Nevertheless, it is urgent that we seek to nd ways to create safe environments that foster and uplift our students, a mission
that few educators would likely disagree with.
In school districts throughout Canadasecular and religious are not only aware that the status quo poses problems for
LGBTQ youth, but are actively seeking workable solutions to them. In the Catholic context, these efforts are complicated by
the tensions that exist among Catholics themselves that have resulted part from a demographic shift in which recent
generations demonstrate greater tolerance of sexual minority and gender non-normative identities. Districts are struggling
to nd solutions at the intersection of two competing views of Catholicism, one that holds traditional conceptualizations of
genderthat often view trans* in an unfavorable lightand the other which emphasizes inclusion and tolerance for diverse
lifestyles and identities at the heart of Catholic Social Teaching. The latter of these conceptions of Catholicism appears to be
strongest among younger Catholics, who tend to accept or tolerate LGBTQ identities, in ways that do not reect the traditional views of Catholics of previous generations (Saletan, 2014).
Contested spaces
Catholic schools, districts, and administration should not be viewed as monolithic when it comes to the issue of inclusion
of LGBTQ diversity. For example, in 2012, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association and its members declared their
public opposition to homophobia and transphobia in support of their LGBTQ students (Canada Newswire, 2012), and
marched in Toronto's Pride Parade while facing opposition from some church and school ofcials, Catholic organizations,
and members of the Catholic community (MacDonald, 2014). In addition, some Catholic school boards have drafted, or are in
the process of drafting, policies aimed at supporting and protecting gender-variant students. This process is a difcult one,
fraught with socio-political challenges, as well as personal politics (CBC News, 2015a).
Problematically, such contestationwhich is to be expectedwill likely make districts embroiled in public-facing tensions sites of insecurity for transgender youth, at least in the near term. Further, politically volatile statements made by
individual administrators (e.g., CBC News, 2015b) may also undermine the legitimate efforts of school boards and ofcials
earnestly seeking to create schools that are sanctuaries for all learners. Undermining these efforts could be seen to contravene the process of change that Pope Francis (2013) has stated is necessary. Such a process represents the evangelization
of today's world rather than one directed toward self-preservation. By dening effective policies and practices around
sexual and gender diversity, while also remaining faithful to Catholic values, these districts are attempting to follow this
new missionary option (p. 29), even while this process of reform remainsas it likely will for some timein ux. This
tension, therefore, presents both a challenge and an opportunity for Catholic schools in Canada.
Conceptual framework
Liminality
We have employed liminality to conceptualize the disorienting transitions of transgender as it is conceived betwixt
sexuality and gender categories, and for teachers as potential actors who may choose to work in solidarity with transidentied students, parents, colleagues, and community members, but are currently reticent to do so. Gibbons, Ross, and
Bevans (2014) dene liminality as a margin or threshold when an individual has lost one identity and is in the process of
reconstructing a new identity that is meaningful to them and to their community (p. 423). Liminality helps to illuminate
the tensions and ambiguities that exist and persist in the consideration of transgender and in the space between teachers
personal beliefs and their willingness to engage in LGBTQ topics.
Trans* in ux
Transgenderism has long been conated with LGB sexual orientations, rather than with gender, where it is more
legitimately positioned (Mayo, 2011). Trans* identities encapsulate anyone who transgresses gender norms and feels that
the [binary] categories of man and woman (or boy and girl) do not capture their identity (McCarthy, 2003). Instead the
predominant identity dilemma emphasized in discussions of transgender individuals is a misalignment between their
biological sex and mental constructs of their gender identity. However, this characterization of transgender fails to recognize
that the experiences of transgender persons are signicantly more diverse, ranging from the desires of individuals to pursue
a transsexual transformation, to those who engage in gender-bending, gender-blending, or seek altogether novel forms of
191
context-dependent gender identity and presentation (Diamond, Pardo, & Butterworth, 2011 p. 630; see also Hines 2006;
Rands, 2009).
Hines (2006) argues that the way in which conceptualizations of transgender have failed to emphasize the subjectivity of
identities under this umbrella has led to a homogenous theorization of transgender (p. 49). Conating transgender with
sexual orientation ignores the rich spectrum of trans* identities that in actuality cuts across existing sexualities much like
race or class (Stryker, 2004, p. 214). Diamond et al. (2011) seek to move away from efforts to homogenize transgender
persons as holding a particular sexuality and gender, and toward embracing more diverse conceptualizations of gender
diversity which are separate from a person's sexual orientation (see Valentine, 2007; Kuklin, 2014).
Teachers in a shifting culture
Perhaps the greatest challenge in creating safe sites for transgender students is the effort to reassure teachers and
students that their schools are in fact safe spaces (Callaghan, 2012). It is understandable that teachers would be reticent to
identify as LGBTQ in Catholic educational environs, or appear to support too strongly LGBTQ students, without the solidarity
of their entire organization behind them. Teachers who are supportive of, or who identify as LGBTQ, must straddle their
private and professional identities and commitments by either remaining silent or offering generic support for diversity. It is
a position that forces many teachers to live inauthentically, or to deny the primacy of their conscience in determining their
actions out of fear (see Freire, 1993). Duggan (2013) argued that the position of the key Catholic document, Gaudium et Spes
(Paul VI, 1965) from the second Vatican Council indicates that the primary vehicle for God's work in the world is the internal
spirit of individuals, free to act according to their individual conscience in the spirit of social justice. He claimed further that
it is when explicit ideology replaces the instinctive wisdom of sound consciences that issues will arise (p. 20).
Such tensions within Catholicism itself may lead individuals to commit their energies to covering their authentic
identities and values, which could otherwise be dedicated to other, more substantive ends. This leads students to believe
they must remain closeted (Kuklin, 2014), thus perpetuating a dynamic in which transgender individuals are threatened by
isolation and violencewhether verbal, physical, emotional, or existentialwithout feeling they have any adults they can
turn to at school (Taylor et al., 2008). Lloyd (2014) argued that such energy should be redirected, and that it is easier to
change a community, it is easier to change a society than to change your own identity; and it does much less damage that
way (8:37).
In these ways, our research helps us to recognize the challenges facing transgender individuals, particularly within
Catholic educational contexts inasmuch as society, writ large, does not fully understand what it means to be identied as
transgender, and teachersparticularly those in K-12 Catholic schoolsare not in a rm position to support students,
parents, or community members, regardless of their personal desires to do so.
Methods
Setting and participants
Context
In this paper we report on a subset of data from research conducted at three research sites that focuses on the Canadian
context. As previously discussed, this context is unique insofar as a large number of preservice teachers will teach in either
publically funded separate school (i.e., Catholic) districts, or publically funded secular (i.e., public) districts, and must,
therefore, consider the possibility of teaching within a system that may not align with their personal beliefs regarding
transgender issues.
Participants and setting
This research was conducted at three Catholic universities in Canada and the United States. Participants in this study
include preservice teachers who represent a variety of faiths, or no faith, who plan to work in either Catholic or secular
public schools, as well as independent (i.e., private) schools. All participants in this study had completed at least one student
teaching placement in either a Catholic or a public (i.e., secular) elementary school prior to participating in the study. This
practicum completion criterion was used to help ensure that students would be able to imagine themselves in a real context,
based on their experiences, rather than in the abstract.
Survey participants. This sample included 44 preservice teachers. Because of the sensitive and controversial nature of the
study's topic, limited demographic data were collected. The limited diversity of racial, socioeconomic, and sex of preservice
teachers, particularly in elementary classrooms, is well documented (e.g. Galman, 2006; Zumwalt & Craig, 2005). As such we
refrained from collecting data on participants' sex or ethnicity, as both of these characteristics would serve to identify
participants who were promised anonymity in their survey answers, and we have opted not to report the gender-identities
of our participants in order to help further protect their condentiality. We collected data on religious afliation, religiosity,
and target employment context to better understand the religious inuences on decision making. Of those participating in
192
the survey, 21 identied as Catholic, eight as non-Catholic Christian, nine as no religious afliation, ve were unsure about
the status of their religious afliation, and one identied as pagan.
Interview participants. Seven students were purposefully selected from the small pool of participants who were willing to
participate in the interviews. For the purposes of this paper, we chose to report the data from only the ve students who
identied as Catholic.3 We employed a maximum variation sampling strategy to provide a range of perspectives on our main
hypothesis regarding the relationship between religiosity and acceptance of non-traditional families (Creswell, 2007). We
used instructor knowledge of students religious convictions in order to help ensure that a representative set of perspectives
was included.
Data collection
Survey
The survey was conducted anonymously online. It contained both Likert scale and open-ended questions about participants perspectives on different kinds of non-traditional families, including divorced, single-parent, grandparent, samesex, and transgender parented families (see Appendix A). Likert scale questions were used to identify how participants
would rate the acceptability of different kinds of parent-structures on a scale from ideal to unacceptable. Some participants felt that the category of ideal was problematic. We believe that for our most conservative students this category
might be used only for traditional malefemale partnerships. Open ended questions asked students to comment on their
thoughts about different kinds of families, characteristics of families, and howif at allthey would include each of these
types of families into the rst grade curriculum on families and communities, as well as the factors that would encourage or
discourage their efforts.
Interview
In conducting interviews, a scholar from another institution was paired with interviewees to help ensure participants felt
free to express their true feelings and thoughts that they might not want to share with their previous or future instructors.
These interviews were conducted after the completion of the social studies methods course. The interview itself consisted of
two parts (see Appendix B). First, a think-aloud, in which participants looked at a series of children's books related to diverse
family groups, was used to capture their immediate reactions to the books and the content they communicated (see
Appendix B). These were not revealed to them prior to the interview. Charters (2003) argues that this collection technique is
appropriate for capturing immediate and higher-level thinking mediated by one's working memory on a topic that may not
be captured if delayed. Using her suggestions, the researcher informed participants that he would not interrupt their
thought process, but would provide a hand-signal to remind them that they should be speaking aloud.
We chose to use children's literature because of its functionality as a multimodal source of information and as a medium
that is encouraged in teaching about LGBTQ individuals, families, and issues in K-12 settings (e.g., Clark & Blackburn, 2009;
Smolkin & Young, 2011; Swartz, 2003). These books were used not because they are part of the Alberta curriculum, but
because they were useful for eliciting participants' thoughts about the topic. We were unable at rst to acquire a children's
book that represented a transgender parent in a positive light. As such participants were asked initially to comment on their
thoughts about our omission. We later were able to acquire a self-published children's book entitled My Mommy is a Boy
(Martinez & Winchester, 2008), and followed up with participants to comment on it. The story depicts the transition of a
mother from female to male, and is narrated from the point of view of his daughter, who is well informed and supportive of
hir.4 At the close of the book, it becomes clear to the reader that the girl's parents remained committed to each other
throughout her transgender parent's transition.
The second half of the interview consisted of questions that asked participants to reect upon their reactions. This
retrospective task served as a necessary element of triangulation that helped to add depth to the think-aloud and provided
additional context and subjective, explanatory information to help researchers validate the interpretations of perspectives
captured by the think-aloud (Charters, 2003). Questions asked students to provide summary thoughts on the set of books,
and to examine more specically how the content of the books supported or contradicted their beliefs, and how they felt
about using these books in the classroom. Questions also asked about what conicts, if any, they would anticipate arising as
a result of using these texts in their classrooms, and how they would seek to resolve them.
Analysis
We used a mixed-methods approach to analyze the survey data. Descriptive and cross-tabulation analyses were used to
draw inferences from the data (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002), while we employed a multi-stage analysis of our qualitative data (Saldaa, 2012). Using analytical statistical procedures, we examined the data resulting from the surveys. Using
3
Participants are identied only by number so as not to reveal any demographic data. As such, we have consciously avoided the use of pronouns,
which does, unfortunately lead to some unfortunate uses of they and their.
4
hir, a portmanteau that blends the words his and her, is an accepted pronoun for referring to transgender individuals (Carroll, Gilroy, & Ryan, 2002).
193
SPSS, we calculated descriptive statistics (frequencies), and used cross-tabulations to analyze categorical survey data
associated with the frequency of responses in relation to the variables of faith tradition, religiosity, and perceptions of the
acceptability of transgender individuals in committed relationships (George & Mallerey, 2013).
After quantitative data revealedunexpectedlythat participants at all levels of religiosity did not yield noticeably
different results from their secular peers, we believed it would be inappropriate to pursue an inductive analysis using
constant comparison of the data. Instead, we sought to reconcile the conicting ndings of our study and the results of the
Canadian climate survey on homophobia. If Catholic preservice teachers were, on the whole, no less likely to recognize the
validity of transgender parents, why would Catholic schools be seen by LGBTQ students as more hostile environments than
non-Catholic schools?5 To address this question, we analyzed the qualitative data in three parts. First, we utilized values
coding to differentiate between participants values (what is held to be important), attitudes (how we think and feel about a
phenomenon), and beliefs (knowledge, experiences, opinions, and interpretations of the world).
Although these three constructs are connected, it is useful as a tool of analysis to differentiate between what participants
know (or do not) and how they feel about a topic, as well as what underlying concepts help to explain their beliefs and
attitudes (Saldaa, 2012). Using these three categories, we allowed for the emergence of in vivo codes such as acceptance,
tolerance, characteristics of good families, authenticity (values); valid [family structure], anyone can love their
family, unnatural, bizarre, (attitudes); not age appropriate, students lack relevant knowledge, children are more
accepting (beliefs). Using these initial codes, we developed domains for a secondary analysis that incorporated Spradley's
(1979) semantic relationships (in Saldaa, 2012, p. 134) to tease apart how participants underlying values, beliefs, and
attitudes impacted their intention to address transgender-parent families.
After developing domains and codes that represented the semantic relations such that they could be explained taxonomically (e.g., will or would not teach about transgender-parent families, this topic is not age appropriate, students would
not understand). We represented these domains visually (see Image 1) in order to identify how participants were using
ideas to justify their decisions whether to include transgender content from how they envisioned teaching about diverse
families in grade one classrooms.
Finally, we utilized structural coding to illuminate the inuences that would encourage teachers to teach about nontraditional families and those that would discourage them from doing so. Structural coding was chosen both for its usefulness in supporting our ability to nuance our ndings with responses related to multiple different domains (Guest &
McLellan, 2003) and in the creation of question-based codes (MacQueen, McLellan-Lemal, Bartholow, & Milstein, 2008).
These questions were: in the context in which you imagine yourself teaching in the future, what factors would encourage
you to address non-traditional family structures?, and in the context in which you imagine yourself teaching in the future,
what factors would discourage you from addressing non-traditional family structures? These codes were developed in
relation to the teaching context participants saw themselves teaching in, and were then used as the basis to interrogate
participants responses represented in the semantic relations taxonomies.
Limitations
We recognize that it would be ideal to have a greater number of interviewees, but because of the limited number of
participants agreeing to be interviewed, we would have risked skewing our data toward the more available secular students.
We accepted this limitation, and decided instead to focus on providing a smaller sample that depicted a proportional range
of student perspectives based on religious afliation and religiosity. Because of the extensive nature of our survey data
which included both quantitative and qualitative measures, we are satised that we effectively triangulated our data, and
reached data saturation, with similar codes emerging across multiple questions (Creswell, 2007). Nevertheless, because of
this limitation, we caution our readers to recognize that the interviewees perspectives may not represent the full diversity
of the cohort, even while they are useful for providing texture to the survey data across a spectrum of religious convictions
from very conservative to very liberal. These data help to illustrate the range of perspectives that future teachers may hold
that are related to the inclusion of transgender topics in elementary classrooms.
Findings
Values, attitudes, and beliefs
Our use of cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics revealed that taken as a whole Catholic participants were slightly
more likely than secular students to view transgender-parent families (committed relationships) as ideal, acceptable, or
tolerable (90% versus 87%). This study's participants identied two salient value categories that may help explain the general
acceptance of transgender individuals from a personal viewpoint. First, pluralism was the predominant value category
expressed by participants, which incorporated specic values that afrmed the importanceand the realityof diversity
5
To investigate this question with sufcient depth we have opted to focus on Catholic religious identity. The differences between Catholics and Secular
participants' views are referred to as a point of reference, but will be elaborated upon in a subsequent publication.
194
Fig. 1. Catholic preservice teachers' willingness to address trans-parent families.
in society, acceptance, mutual respect, tolerance, inclusivity, and the fostering of understanding. The second was the
qualities of a family, such as love, commitment to the family, care for and support of children.
Unlike participants' values, their attitudes tended to be much more particularistic. Positive attitudes toward transgender
families aligned very closely to the two predominant values described above, and were more prevalent than negative
attitudes, which reected some participants views that transgender identities (particularly of a transsexual variety) were
unnatural, bizarre and unhealthy. More common than negative attitudes were those that reected nervousness on the
part of participants, who articulated that they were uncomfortable with the topic, that it was extremely non-traditional,
a sensitive subject, and would be difcult to handle. Several of these participants worried that discussing this topic
would open up an entirely new can of worms.
In contrast to the particularity of attitudes, two predominant beliefs emerged from the data. First, that this topic would
not be age appropriate for rst grade students, and second, that they themselves lacked the knowledge they needed to teach
this topic. Interestingly, both salient belief sets were used to justify why participants would choose not to teach this topic.
One striking nding is the relative absence of specic references to God or religion in participants' expressed attitudes and
beliefs.
To teach or not to teach
Despite the high number of Catholic participants who reported that their view of transgender-parent families in committed relationships was ideal, acceptable, or tolerable, participants were reticent to teach about this family structure within
a grade one unit on family diversity; only 27.6% answered that they would consider doing so.
To better understand this discrepancy we used the ndings from our domain and taxonomic analyses depicted below.
The taxonomy depicted in Image 1 represents the semantic relationships articulated by Catholic participants for why they
would or would not consider teaching about transgender-parent families.
Encouraging and discouraging inuences
Encouraging inuences
Participants identied the presence of students' family diversity in their classrooms as the most important reason for
teaching about non-traditional families, followed by the general aim of promoting social tolerance. Participants also
identied student-initiated discussion on the topic, living in a pluralist society, and concerns for students' wellbeing as
compelling reasons to do so. Interestingly, four participants reported that their religious views of compassion, respect, and
human dignity were encouraging inuences as well.
Discouraging inuences
Participants were most likely to identify school and board policies, positions, and restrictions on what teachers can and
cannot teach as their primary concern. This source of discouragement was identied by eleven participants. Six participants
195
felt discouraged by the prospect of contravening church doctrine, while six pointed to a lack of support within the school
community (including both staff and administration). Interestingly, it is here that ve preservice teachers identied a lack of
knowledge as one of the factors keeping them from teaching about non-traditional families. Two participants mentioned
that a perceived lack of family diversity in the classroom would keep them from addressing the topic. It is noteworthy that
only one Catholic preservice teacher said that nothing could discourage them from teaching about all forms of family
diversity.
Perspectives on My Mommy is a Boy to address transgender parents
During the interviews with our students, participants revealed a textured view of their perspectives and concerns around
teaching specically about transgender parent-families. Participant A (PA) described their Catholicity in this way: on a scale
of 110 [of religiosity], I would consider myself a 7.5. As a practicing Roman Catholic, PA sees themself teaching in a
Catholic school. This participant articulated that [I] loved the sensitivity of the book, but would worry about their lack of
training to justify teaching this topic to parents or administrators. In the interview PA stated:
I mean, introducing it to the students, again, you're going to get some initial questions that may be a little uncomfortable, or I might not be prepared to answer without the perfect training. But they're still children, they're still going
to be more accepting because if you, if it all comes down ultimately to love and support, and show them the universal
truths of family, the children will get it. They will understand it, and they will just, they will support it. The parents
and the administration though, I think would be a much harder conversation to have than these ones.
PA insinuated that there is a certain degree of permission (implicit or explicit) that may be necessary for teachers in
religious contexts to be able to address this issue. While some may feel that they need an external form of permission,
others have found ways to be granted or to grant themselves this permission.
Participant B (PB) afrmed PA's position that one of the biggest stumbling blocks will come from adults who do not
know how to react or react poorly, but that this was not a reason to avoid the topic. PB explained, I attend mass 13 times
a week, so I would say I'm quite devout, and in this vein PB explained that they would gladly use the book. Using [their]
faith as a justication, PB elaborated that:
As a [Catholic] Christian, I believe that all people are part of this world experience and I for one, am not here to judge.
As our world expands and becomes more interwoven, we need to embrace the differences of people. All life should be
treated with dignity and respect whether we understand it or choose differently.
Participant C (PC), who identied as Catholic, but not religious, indicated that a teacher needed to be there to support
students so that [they] know no matter what, they are loved, and everyone has the right to feel comfortable with themselves, even if it requires a few changes or [a] few adjustments to make themselves feel better and feel more condent and
good about themselves, and there's nothing wrong with that. This view is at once consistent with the articulation of
compassion and the ethic of care and consideration for all children, while also running contrary to the prohibitive stance
on gender reassignment outlined in a Canadian Catholic health document (Catholic Health Alliance of Canada, 2012). For PC
the former Catholic value on love supersedes this position.
Two of our more devout participants, Participants D (PD) and E (PE), articulated positions that were much more in line
with Catholic teaching on transgender and transsexual topics. Both argued that there was an articial aspect to the book
that they felt undermined the teachings of the Church. Specically, they took exception with the depiction of the parent's
transsexual transition in the story. PD argued:
I think God made each of us for a reason, and He made each of us beautiful for a reason. I wouldn't go and get plastic
[surgery] either [laughing] because it's just not what I was made to be, right.So no, I'm sorry, I would have a
problem with that one.
Likewise, PE felt that it is not natural to change who you are, and that the devaluation of the person's sex/gender in
favor of a message that the only thing that matters is love was problematic. In this way, PE's comments reect the Church's
teachings that a person ought to accept their physical sex as their gender identity (Catholic Church, 2012; Catholic Health
Alliance of Canada, 2012).
Interestingly, neither of these participants viewed the book's character in an overtly negative way; instead, both argued
that they respected the person's sense of identity, and PD elaborated by explaining that our society needed more variation
in what is accepted as appropriate behavior for women and men. The problem they had was not with the person's identity,
but the physical alteration of the character's body, which they identied as being inconsistent with Catholic beliefs. This
recognition of difference in the face of disagreement about the character's decision may be suggestive of two facets of
Catholic teachers thinking on this matter. First, it may be that a person can be loyal to more than one ideal, even when these
are in opposition to one another (Gray, 2015); the second is the apparent respect they have for individuals and their choices
even while they do not agree with the choices these individuals make. Both of these notions may provide an opening for
engagement with even conservative Catholic teachers in addressing a broader tolerance forif not acceptance offorms of
transgenderism in children and adults.
196
Discussion and conclusion

This paper set forth the questions we sought to answer regarding Catholic preservice teachers' perceptions of transgender individuals, how willing they were to teach about trans* parent families in a rst grade social studies context, and
the nature of the inuences that could encourage or discourage them from incorporating trans* topics in their teaching
about diverse families.
Although Catholic participants were much more willing to suggest that the content was not age appropriate than their
secular counterparts, we are left without further data to speculate about why this might be so. One likely conclusion is that
Catholic teachers may share the sense that Catholic education ought to preserve and nurture the spirit of childhood that
will maintain childhood purity (Caldecott, 2012). As others have pointed out, however, this is not a uniquely Catholic
justication. In fact, James (2008) indicated that preservice teachers were likely to use this justication as a reason to avoid
controversial issues in elementary contexts. We do not have sufcient data to suggest which of these are likeliest in the
current study.
As we have pointed out previously, shielding children from discussions of diversity may actually leadin an unintended
wayto accentuated discrimination and social isolation of trans* youth. Another possible interpretation, given the responses
we have available through interviews and the survey, is that the mantra not age appropriate may conceal the discomfort
or dissonance preservice teachers who are seeking employment in Catholic districts may be feeling. This conjecture is
supported by other research related to preservice and practicing teachers' reticence to address the issue because they fear
backlash from students or parents, or from colleagues and administrators (Rayside, 2014; Schneider & Dimito, 2008; Maher
& Sever, 2007). This justication also appears to be a more prevalent concern for Catholic preservice teachers in our study
and to a lesser extent, their own discomfort with transgender individuals (Kitchen & Bellini, 2012a; Maher & Sever, 2007;
Payne & Smith, 2014). This is of particular interest given that participants in our studyand preservice teachers represented
in other research from across North Americaindicate, on the whole, an open attitude toward LGBTQ concerns and a
willingness to learn about them (Kitchen & Bellini, 2012a, 2012b). The dissonance between personal openness and professional reticence speaks to the ecological nature of the problem. That is to say, Catholic schools may already hold the keys
to solutions for the problem of trans* victimization in schools, but have not as yet come upon ways to enact them.
An ecological problem
Bronfenbrenner's (1979,1993) ecological framework may be useful in helping educators and administrators to think
about the larger system of LGBTQ oppression within all schoolswhether Catholic or secular. Bronfenbrenner (1993)
described social ecological environs as a series of overlapping zones of inuence surrounding individuals: microsystems (the
level of personal interactions between the child and others); mesosystems (the connections between environments that
directly affect the child, e.g., home and school, school and church); exosystems (areas of inuence that impact the lives of
children, but which inuence the child only indirectly, e.g. family networks, parental workplaces, etc.); macrosystems (the
beliefs, customs, culture, notions of acceptable ways of being and knowing); and chronosystems (reective of the continuity
and change within the environment over time). These systems interact and permeate one another, and must be considered
as a whole. In thinking about the ecological systems surrounding transgender youth, we can begin to recognize the scope of
the challenge facing all schools today.
Bullying and harassment of transgender youth

Transgender students regularly report a microsystematic dynamic of violence or harassment in schools. Hong and
Garbarino (2012), who employ this framework with LGBTQ youth, describe the extent to which these interactions take place
both between the student and their peers, as well as their teachers. This is corroborated by Canadian climate surveys (Taylor,
et al., 2008) and transgender youth themselves (Kuklin, 2014; McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010). At this level,
students nd themselves in situations that are neither safe, nor educative, putting them at risk for victimization, degradation of mental health, isolation, and suicide (Grossman & D'Augelli, 2007; Loutzenheiser, 2015; Jauk, 2013; Robinson &
Espelage, 2012). This bullying sometimes begins in the early elementary years (e.g., Kuklin, 2014), which only intensies as
students progress into secondary settings, thus necessitating the presence of adults able and willing to address the issue in
these formative years. This speaks further to the need to address transgender topics specically, such as transgender parents
in early elementary social studies curricula, where it can be most readily coordinated with curricular outcomes.
Teacher (non)intervention in supporting transgender youth

This microsystem is reinforced in a mesosystem of schools and communities that is dominated by a gender-normative
culture (Carrera, DePalma, & Lameiras, 2012), and is reinforced by teachers' general unwillingness to support transgender
youth in intervening to stem harassment and bullying (McGuire, et al., 2010). As we described previously, teachers themselves are subject to their own fears of demonstrating public support for their transgender youth worryingand not without
reasonthat doing so may imperil their careers.
197
Transphobic policies and practices

The exosystematic controversies and mixed messaging from Catholic school districts in Canada in recent years serves as
perhaps the single greatest obstacle to the creation of supportive environments for transgender youth. The perception that
those in charge of these environments are disingenuous in their claim of acceptance of transgender students has been
particularly corrosive. School and board level decisions have punished or forbidden students' public shows of affection for
same-sex partners (Callaghan, 2009; Kuklin, 2014; Love & Tosolt, 2013) or non-normative expressions of gender (Kuklin,
2014). Some individual administrators have suggested that should GSAs be mandated they would be required to inform
parents of their child's participation because of board policies of parental notication of school-based discussions of human
sexuality. This may be technically true of the policies, but they also serve to undermine other sincere efforts on the part of
Catholic school boards to make their schools safe environments for transgender youth, and have chilling effects upon youth
who may learn to distrust the institution and closet themselves in an effort to avoid scrutiny (Bellefontaine, 2015). This
closeting further isolates and imperils these students because they feel that they are alone in having to advocate for
themselves (Kuklin, 2014; Love & Tosolt, 2013). Furthermore, sympathetic students may sense that they are at risk themselves should they intervene in bullying or perceived injustices (Newman and Fantus, 2015), isolating their transgender
peers even further.
The contradictory messages help to explain why the majority of our own participants seemed unwilling to engage in
transgender topics in their classrooms, even while they were open to the idea of transgender individuals and families. From
macrosystematic and chronosystematic dimensions, the perspectives of young people are moving away from traditional
doctrinal views of transgender individuals toward a more pluralistic understanding of their identities. But because the
tension exists more visibly at the level of the exosystem, teachers believe themselves unable to act in inclusive or counterhegemonic ways without risking their livelihoods. They exist in a liminal space between their personal values as Catholics
and what they perceive to be a professional ecology that would not support them in acting upon those values.
Deliminalization toward true inclusion of LGBTQ youth in Catholic schools
It is clear from the data in our study that preservice teachers are open to transgender people in general, but changes need
to be made within districts if Catholic schools are to achieve their vision of inclusion with an emphasis on the primacy of
human life, human dignity and solidarity. To do so, schools and administrators face a more complicated problem than just
enacting anti-transphobic policies or establishing GSAs or diversity clubs. These efforts may be of limited value in contexts
that do not address issues of hetero- and gender-normativity, which serve as the roots of homophobic and transphobic
behaviors (Thompson, 2012). Even scholars who have been openly critical of Catholic Schools' handling of LGBTQ inclusion
see opportunities for engagement within the curriculum (Callaghan, 2014).
We are more condent that Catholic schools can nd ways to address curricular and physical spaces with a multipronged approach that addresses multiple ecological system levels. These approaches include the incorporation of counterspaces for LGBTQ youth, developing needs assessments, tackling hetero- and gender-normativity through community
and teacher education, as well as support for non-normative expressions of students, and empowering teachers and LGBTQ
students and allies to engage in learning about sexual and gender diversity in order to promote an ethic of tolerance and
support. Although this paper is focused on the Catholic context, public (i.e., secular) schools are in need of many of these
changes as well.
Counterspaces
Cerezo and Bergfeld (2013) argue that the spaces that afrm LGBTQ concerns and perspectives help to shift school
climate by facilitating conversations that disrupt hetero- and gender-normative assumptions that have traditionally dened
the school context. Teachers and administrators in Ontario Catholic schools that have instituted GSAs and other LGBTQafrming clubs have reported remarkable improvements in the affect and attitudes of LGBTQ students (Liboro, Travers, & St.
John, 2015, p. 167; Schneider, Travers, St. John, Munro, & Klein, 2013). Resistance to the establishment of GSAs may prove to
be too great for many Catholic school boards to undertake. Yet, Positive Space Groups (PSGs) that focus on LGBTQ issues and
identities may provide a possible alternative that is less politically charged (e.g., Pike, 2012). Nevertheless, the research on
the impact of counter-spaces on the lives of LGBTQ youth is difcult to dispute.
Developing needs assessments
Several researchers have described the importance of incorporating and empowering LGBTQ youth in conducting needs
assessments of schools in order to develop a clearer picture of their strengths and areas for growth in creating safe
environments for these students (Halpin, 2004; Kates, 2013; Meyers, Meyers, Graybill, Proctor, & Huddleston, 2012). Such
assessments need to be conducted systematically such that progress can be appropriately implemented and assessed
(Meyers, et al., 2012; see also Moe, Perera-Diltz, Sepulveda, & Finnerty, 2014 for one such framework). To be effective and
thorough, this process must include students impacted by this climate; when left up to the principals alone, they may be
unable to conduct a full assessment, given that the hostility LGBTQ youth often face can be hidden from adults. Further,
school principals may be subject to the same fears as their teachers, particularly as they relate to community backlash
(Payne & Smith, 2014); principals may be reticent, therefore, to act alone. In fact, Liboro and his associates (2015) found that
198
Catholic schools that addressed LGBTQ youth issues successfully did so because of the successful and progressive thinking
of the principals and vice-principals who acted in both catalytic and supporting capacities for such initiatives (p. 170).
Elementary social studies and counter-normativity. As Schmidt (2010) argues, our failure to approach diversity and citizenship in critical ways, especially in the elementary years, leaves students vulnerable to adopting normative views rather than
to come to conclusionsor adopt identitiesindependent of these norms. In order to do so, teachers themselves must be
willing and able to help challenge the normalization of constructs such as gender (Schmidt, 2010). This has broader
implications for our society. In failing to address gender identity in the early grades we miss an important opportunity to
prepare students to reject unhealthy or inauthentic expressions of masculinity and femininity prescribed to them by society,
and learn to appreciate and tolerate differences that they are aware of, but may not yet fully understand (Lloyd, 2014). In
turn, in failing to address gender identity, thereby allowing children's prejudicial proclivities to develop without stewardship, we may in fact prevent students from learning to acknowledge the divinity within everyone, which is central to
Christianity and is perhaps best expressed in the gospel line to love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than this (Mark 12:31). Embracing one's neighbor is not simply a Christian dictate, but also a central
tenet of Canadian pluralism.
If teachers are to have the courage to move out of their comfort zones and to reach the peripheries with love and
understanding, they must also be authorized to act as mediators of explorations of gender identity, pluralism, tolerance,
family diversity and authenticity, which can successfully begin at even very young ages. If teachers are able to communicate
this representation of gender to students, they may be more likely to develop a more robust understanding of gender, such
that one's expression of one's authentic self does not need to be chained to a single dichotomy in which one is seen as
conforming or transgressing what is expected of them.
There are several approaches to challenging children's notions of gender normativity. These include the use of literature
(Clark & Blackburn, 2009; Smolkin & Young, 2011), providing students with dissonant gender representationssuch as
pregnant men or princess boyswhich can be used to start fruitful questioning of norms (Martino, & Cumming-Potvin,
2014; Ryan, Patraw, & Bednar, 2013), and providing the resources and safe adult spaces to discuss these issues together
before they enter into the classroom (Allan, Atkinson, Brace, DePalma, & Hemingway, 2008). Allan and associates indicate
that these ideas will begin to permeate into the classroom if teachers are supported in these endeavors, thereby helping to
break the silence in social studies classrooms (Thornton, 2003).
There are numerous resources from which teachers can draw to develop curricula that address gender representation,
transgender issues, and the incorporation of diversity as part of teachers' pedagogical repertoire. Some of these resources
are general in nature (e.g. Gurung & Prieto, 2009), while others provide more specic resources and suggestions for
addressing LGBT issues in elementary classrooms and schools (e.g., Anti-Defamation League, 2014; G.L.S.E.N, 2015; Sears,
2005; New Day Films et al., 1997). In addition to these publications, there are several organizations that seek to be helpful in
supporting K-12 teachers to address trans* issues and family structures in age appropriate ways. Teaching Tolerance (teachingtolerance.org), Gender Diversity (genderdiversity.org), Trans Student Education Resources (transstudent.org), The
Bilerico Project (bilerico.com), Gender Spectrum (genderspectrum.org), and many others can prove helpful to teachers as
they seek to address transgender issues in their classrooms.
A gender inclusive vision of Catholic education

Enabling teachers to teach about transgender topics and family structures not only helps to challenge malefemale
identities and stereotypes, but also supports students' freedom to express themselves authentically within the supportive
context of a school that embraces, or at least openly tolerates, transgender and gender-variant children. Second, it helps to
reveal to students safe spaces and visible allies in schools (Ratts et al., 2013) which will help to end the disturbingly high
number of transgender youth who feel there are no adults they can talk to in their schools (Taylor et al., 2008), and the tragic
statistics on transgender youth suicide. Doing so attends to core Catholic values of inclusion, the sanctity of human life and
human dignity, authenticity, solidarity and education that attends to the whole person. At the same time, doing so also sets
in motion civic attitudes of tolerance, respect, and understanding that are so central to the aims of schooling generally, and
the social studies specically.
This is not to say that the process of education, inclusion, and support of transgender youth into the mainstream of
Catholic schools will be an easy process. Nor will it be one that is free from controversy. The evidence lays bare that schools
all schoolsand our society more generally, have failed to support transgender youth effectively, with rare exceptions of
success (e.g., Luecke, 2011). But as Bayly (2013) points out, making spaces for diverse experiences and identities helps to
reveal an aspect of divine revelation that is part of an ongoing pattern of development that is reective of the need for
Catholic belief and Canadian pluralism to become mutually complimentary, a need that Ong (1990) described so eloquently
in his Parable of the Yeast. It is a process that will take time and one that is fraught with challenges, but not one that Catholic
schools in Canada should fear nor shy away from.
199
Fig. 2. Likert scale survey table regarding participants feelings about diverse family structures.
Appendix A. Anonymous survey

This survey will ask you questions related to your thinking/views about non-traditional families as well as your thinking/
views about whether and how the topic of non-traditional family structures should be addressed in schools. As a participant,
you have the right to discontinue this survey at any time before you submit your nal responses without penalty. Your
participation helps us to better understand preservice teachers' perspectives about non-traditional families and the extent
to which you believe these families should be addressed in schools. This survey is anonymous, meaning that your identity
will not be known to the researchers or anyone else. The ndings of this survey research may be used in the publication of
articles that further scholarship on this topic.
1. Do you agree to participate in this research by taking this survey and to answer each question openly and honestly?
Yes
No
2. How do you think society as a whole would depict a typical family? In other words, what is the image most people
would think of when they talk about a family?
3. To what extent do you think the societys depiction of the family is a good reection of the reality of family life today?
Please explain your answer, using specic examples to back up your response.
4. Please indicate your thoughts on the following family situations as it relates to whether this is a good parenting structure
for raising children. Your answers are meant to reect your own personal beliefs. You are encouraged to comment on any
of the answers to better communicate your thoughts to us (Fig. 2).
5. Are there any non-traditional family structures you would add to this list that were not included in this survey?
6. How would you dene a family?
7. What qualities make a family a good family?
8. To what extent can non-traditional (Divorced Parents, Single Parents, Same-Sex Parents, Grandparents) families provide
the qualities you described as criteria for a good family?
9. Among our nation's schools, many curriculums have a focus on family, home, school, and community. In our context
Grade One (First Grade) uses family as a primary theme. To what extent do you think it is important to teach students
about non-traditional family structures? Explain your answer.
10. If you were asked to design a small unit on non-traditional families in Grade One (First Grade), how would you choose to
address it? How would you approach the topic with your students?
11. Are there any non-traditional family structures you would choose to leave out? Please explain why or why not.
200
12. How, if at all, would you address the issue of divorced parent families in your classroom? Please provide your rationale
for doing so. If you would not address this issue please provide your rationale for not doing so.
13. Have your ideas about divorced parent families changed over time? What, if anything, has led you to revise your thinking
about these relationships?
14. How, if at all, would you address the issue of single-parent families in your classroom? Please provide your rationale for
doing so. If you would not address this issue please provide your rationale for not doing so.
15. Have your ideas about single-parent families changed over time? What, if anything, has led you to revise your thinking
16. Of these non-traditional family structures, perhaps the most debated in the Catholic community is same-sex parent
families. Currently, the Catholic Church (at least in North America) does not consider homosexuality a sin, but does
consider homosexuality an undesirable, intrinsically disordered condition. As a result, the church does not sanction gay
marriage, and advocates for voluntary abstinence for homosexuals. At the same time the Church maintains
homosexuality is a condition and that gays and lesbians should be treated with compassion. To what extent do you
agree or disagree with this assessment of homosexuality?
17. What beliefs or experiences have led you to this conclusion?
18. To what extent, if at all, do you think the Church should change its position on the issue of homosexuality and/or gay
marriage? Explain.
19. Have your ideas about same-sex relationships changed over time? What, if anything, has led you to revise your thinking
20. How, if at all, would you address the issue of same-sex parent families in your classroom? Please provide your rationale
for doing so. If you would not address this issue please provide your rationale for not doing so.
21. In what context do you imagine yourself teaching when you graduate?
Public (i.e., government funded) Schooling
Secular
(NonReligious)
Private Schooling
Catholic
Non-School Based Education

Other Faith-Based Schooling
Other
If Other, please explain:

22. In the context in which you imagine yourself teaching in the future, what factors would encourage you to address nontraditional family structures?
23. In the context in which you imagine yourself teaching in the future, what factors would discourage you from addressing
non-traditional family structures?
24. Is there anything else you would like to say that would help us to better understand your thoughts about this issue?
25. What is the current faith tradition you ascribe to?
Catholic
Non-Catholic Christian
Other
Unsure
None
26. How would you describe the degree of your religious convictions?
Very religious
Moderately religious
Slightly religious
Spiritual but not religious
Agnostic
Atheistic
Appendix B. Interview protocol

This interview will have two parts to it. First I will have you look through a set of books. Each of them addresses a nontraditional family structure. As you are looking through them, I would like you to articulate what you are doing (are you
reading, are you looking at illustrations, are you considering the wording?, etc.) and what you are thinking and feeling as the
thoughts or feelings occur to you. It is okay if you havent fully formulated your thoughts when you start speaking, that is part
of the process. This is called a think-aloud.
The purpose of the think-aloud is so that I can better understand your thoughts about these books, and the topics that
they cover, right at the very moment the thought occurs to you. During this process I will not interrupt you, but I may give
you a signal to remind you that you should be talking. This signal will look like this [demonstrate signal].
201
During the talk-aloud, I will sit beside you so that I can see what you are seeing when you are talking about it. I will also
take some notes as reminders to me about your thoughts, and questions I might like to ask you during the second part of the
interview. I will also be recording this interview so that I can more accurately represent your thoughts.
During the second part of the interview, I will ask you some reective questions about the think-aloud activity as well as
some general questions related to non-traditional families. Do you have any questions before we get started?
Think-aloud
Take your time and ip through the books in front of you. Again, please articulate what you are doing and what you are
thinking and feeling as the thoughts or feelings occur to you.
Follow-up interview
1. Thinking back to the books you just examined, what summary thoughts or feelings do you have about them?
a. Why do you think that (theme, idea, issue) stood out to you?
b. Can you tell me more about the feelings that came up for you when you looked through these books?
2. Please tell me about what a family should be?
3. To what extent does the content of these books support or contradict your own beliefs about how a family should be?
4. How would you feel about using these books in an elementary classroom?
a. Why do you feel [excited, good, anxious, etc.] about using them in the classroom?
b. What would make you hesitate about using them to teach about the family?
c. Why do you have mixed feelings about using them to teach about the family?
d. Why do you feel condent about using them to teach about the family?
e. If their answer is contrary to their beliefs ask: I notice that your believe X, but you would [hesitate to; still be inclined
to] teach with these books. Can you tell me more about why?
5. Are there some books you would use, but others you would avoid? Why?
6. How do you think your students might feel if you used these books to talk about different kinds of families?
7. How do you think your students might feel if you did not talk about non-traditional families?
8. What concerns do you have about using (or not using) texts in the context in which you imagine yourself teaching?
9. Given that youve said you [would/would not] use these texts, I want you to imagine I am a parent of one of your students
and that I am angry with you:
a. [If not teaching with these texts] My child has the idea we are not a family because we dont t the normal image of
the family. Hes really upset, and so am I! What makes you think its okay to teach this way?
b. [If teaching with these texts] How could you teach my child that divorce and gay marriage are okay? What youre
teaching them goes against everything I believe in! What makes you think its okay to teach this way?
10. You mentioned previously that the content of these books [aligned/contradicted] your personal beliefs about the family.
If it was clear to you that your principal had a different set of beliefs, would it make you any less likely to [teach/ avoid
teaching] with these books?
a. How would you justify your decision to contradict the principal's beliefs?
b. How would you justify your decision to go against your own personal beliefs?
11. You may have noticed that we didn't have any books representing families with transgender parents. What thoughts
come to your mind in thinking about that about the fact that there's no book in the sample representing transgender
parents?6
12. Can you talk about what inuences in your life have shaped your thinking about the family?
a. Can you tell me about a time when your beliefs about the family were challenged by an experience you had?
b. Can you tell me about a time when your beliefs about the family were reinforced by an experience you had?
13. Is there a question you would have liked me to ask you, but didnt?
a. How would you answer that question?
14. Is there anything else you would like to say about the books, or the topics we have covered today?
References
Allan, A., Atkinson, E., Brace, E., DePalma, R., & Hemingway, J. (2008). Speaking the unspeakable in forbidden places: addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender equality in the primary school. Sex Education, 8(3), 315328.
Anti-Defamation League (2014). Discussing transgender and gender non-conforming identity and issues: Suggestions and resources for K-12 teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/education-outreach/discussing-transgender-and-gender-non-conforming-identity-and-issues.pdf.
Asher, N. A. (2002). Straight talk in the classroom: discussing Lesbian and Gay issues in school. Theory Research in Social Education, 30(2), 313319.
Bayly, M. (2013). Creating safe environments for LGBTQ students: a Catholic schools perspective. Routledge, New York, NY Stratford.
Note, we subsequently found a book to use, and asked participants to return to answer same questions above in relation to that text.
202
Bellefontaine, M. (2015). Parental consent not required for gay-straight alliances, says minister. CBC News. Retrieved from, http://www.cbc.ca/news/
canada/edmonton/parental-consent-not-required-for-gay-straight-alliances-says-minister-1.2993145.
Bickmore K., Why discuss sexuality in elementary school, In: Letts IV W.J. and Sears J.T., (Eds.), Queering elementary education: Advancing the dialogue
about sexualities and schooling, 1999, Rowman & Littleeld Publishers; Oxford, UK.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). Contexts of child rearing: problems and prospects. American Psychologist, 34(10), 844850.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1993). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain, & M. Cole. (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (2nd ed.).
New york, NY: Freeman.
Brydum, S. (2013, December 18). Meet the people red for being LGBTQ in 2013. Retrieved from http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/18/meetpeople-red-being-LGBTQ-2013?pagefull.
Caldecott. (2012). Child, person, teacher: at the heart of a Catholic school. Chapter 1 from Beauty in the Word: Rethinking the Foundations of Education. Tacoma,
WA: Angelico Press, 1735.
Callaghan, T. D. (2009). The policy polka and the curriculum cotillion: how Catholic schools dance away from their obligations regarding sexual diversity.
CJNSE/RCJC, 2(1).
Callaghan, T. D. (2012). Holy homophobia: doctrinal disciplining of non-heterosexuals in Canadian Catholic schools (Doctoral dissertation). Canada: University of
Toronto. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/32675.
Callaghan, T. D. (2014). My real gay agenda: exposing the holy homophobia of Catholic schools. In G. Walton (Ed.), The gay agenda: claiming space, identity,
and justice (pp. 223238). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Canada Newswire. (2012). Catholic teachers stand against homophobia and transphobia. Canada Newswire.
Carrera, M. V., DePalma, R., & Lameiras, M. (2012). Sex/gender identity: moving beyond xed and'natural' categories. Sexualities, 15(8), 9951016, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1177/1363460712459158.
Carroll, L., Gilroy, P. J., & Ryan, J. (2002). Counseling transgendered, transsexual, and gender-variant clients. Journal of Counseling Development, 80(2),
131139.
Catholic Health Alliance of Canada. (2012). Health ethics guide, third edition. Ottawa, ON: Catholic Health Alliance of Canada.
Catholic Church. (2012). Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday. CBC News. (2015, May 16). Patricia Grell, trustee who supports transgender
girl, may face sanctions http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/patricia-grell-trustee-who-supports-transgender-girl-may-face-sanctions-1.
3076865.
CBC News (2015a). Patricia Grell, trustee who supports transgender girl, may face sanctions. May 16, 2015. Accessed from http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/
edmonton/patricia-grell-trustee-who-supports-transgender-girl-may-face-sanctions-1.3076865.
CBC News (2015b). Transgender students have'mental disorder,' Edmonton Catholic school trustee says. September 15, 2015. Accessed from http://www.
cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/transgender-students-have-mental-disorder-edmonton-catholic-school-trustee-says-1.3229811.
Cerezo, A., & Bergfeld, J. (2013). Meaningful LGBTQ inclusion in schools: the importance of diversity representation and counterspaces. Journal Of LGBTQ
Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 355371, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839341.
Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education Journal, 12(2), 6882.
Clark, C. T. (2010). Preparing LGBTQ-allies and combating homophobia in a U.S. teacher education program. Teaching Teacher Education, 26(3), 704713,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.006.
Clark, C. T., & Blackburn, M. V. (2009). Reading LGBTQ-themed literature with young people: what's possible? English Journal, 98(4), 2532.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among ve approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crocco, M. S. (2002). Homophobic hallways: is anyone listening? Theory Research in Social Education, 30(2), 217232.
Dedeoglu, H., Ulusoy, M., & Lamme, L. L. (2012). Turkish preservice teachers' perceptions of children's picture books reecting LGBTQ-related issues. The
Journal of Educational Research, 105(4), 256263.
Diamond, L. M., Pardo, S. T., & Butterworth, M. R. (2011). Transgender experience and identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook
of identity theory and research (pp. 629647). New York, NY: Springer.
Duggan, M.W. (2013). Conscience, freedom, and humanism: New foundations for Catholic social teaching at Vatican II. Paper presented at the Turning to
the World: Social Justice and the Common Good since Vatican II meeting, Saskatoon, SK.
Engebretson, K. E. (2014). Another missed opportunity: gender in the national curriculum standards for social studies. Journal of Social Studies Research and
Practice, 9(3), 2134.
Francis, I. (2013). Evangelli Gaudium: the joy of the gospel. Frederick, MD: The Word Among Us Press.
Franck, K. C. (2002). Rethinking homophobia: interrogating heteronormativity in an urban school. Theory Research in Social Education, 30(2), 313319.
Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed 1970. New York, NY: Continuum.
Galman, S. (2006). Rich white girls. International Journal of Learning, 13(3), 4755.
Garrahy, D. A. (2001). Three third-grade teachers' gender-related beliefs and behaviour. The Elementary School Journal, 202(1), 8191.
George, D., Mallerey, P. (2013). IBM SPSS statistics 21 step by step: a simple guide and reference (13th ed.).
Gerouki, M. (2010). The boy who was drawing princesses: primary teachers' accounts of children's non-conforming behaviours. Sex Education, 10(4),
335348, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2010.515092.
Gerson, J. (2014). Discrimination case pits transgender rights against those of a religious school after teacher red for changing gender. National Post. http://
news.nationalpost.com/2014/05/11/discrimination-case-pits-transgender-rights-against-those-of-a-religious-school-after-teacher-red-for-changinggender/.
Gibbons, S. W., Ross, A., & Bevans, M. (2014). Liminality as a conceptual frame for understanding the family caregiving rite of passage: an integrative review.
Research In Nursing Health, 37(5), 423436, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.21622.
G.L.S.E.N. (2015). Educators! Support trans and GNC students! Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. Retrieved from http://www.glsen.org/article/
educators-support-trans-and-gnc-students.
Gray, C. (2015). Star wars: lost stars. Glendale, CA: Disney Lucaslm Press.
Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Harsh realities: the experiences of transgender youth in our nation's schools. 121 West 27th Street Suite 804,
New York, NY 10001: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Grifn, P., & Ouellett, M. (2003). From silence to safety and beyond: historical trends in addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues in K-12 Schools.
Equity Excellence In Education, 36(2), 106114.
Grossman, A. H., & D'Augelli, A. R. (2007). Transgender youth and lifethreatening behaviors. Suicide and life-threatening behavior, 37(5), 527537.
Guest, G., & McLellan, E. (2003). Distinguishing the trees from the forest: applying cluster analysis to thematic qualitative data. Field Methods, 15(2),
186201.
Gurung, R. A. R., & Prieto, L. R. (2009). Getting culture. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Halpin, M. (2004). It's your worldif you don't like it, change it: activism for teenagers. New York, NY: Simon Pulse.
Hellen, M. (2009). Transgender children in schools. Liminalis: Journal for Sex/Gender Emancipation and Resistance, 3, 8199.
Hines, S. (2006). What's the difference? Bringing particularity to queer studies of transgender. Journal of Gender Studies, 15(1), 4966, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/09589230500486918.
Hong, J. S., & Garbarino, J. (2012). Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: an application of the social-ecological framework.
Educational Psychology Review, 24(2), 271285.
James, J. H. (2008). Teachers as protectors: making sense of preservice teachers' resistance to interpretation in elementary history teaching. Theory and
Research in Social Education, 36(3), 172205.
Jauk, D. (2013). Gender violence revisited: lessons from violent victimization of transgender identied individuals. Sexualities, 16(7), 807825.
203
Jennings, T., & Sherwin, G. (2008). Sexual orientation topics in elementary teacher preparation programs in the USA. Teaching Education, 19(4), 261278.
Krames, J. A. (2015). Lead with humility: 12 leadership lessons from Pope Francis. New York: American Management Association.
Kates, C. A. (2013). What's in a name? Exploring discourse around Gay Straight Alliances. Critical Intersections in Education: An OISE/UT Students' Journal, 1
(2), 7184.
Kitchen, J., & Bellini, C. (2012a). Addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues in teacher education: teacher candidates' perceptions. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58(3), 444460.
Kitchen, J., & Bellini, C. (2012b). Making it better for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students through teacher education: a collaborative self-study.
Studying Teacher Education, 8(3), 209225.
Kuklin, S. (2014). Beyond magenta: transgender teens speak out. Somerville, MA: Candlewick Press.
Liboro, R. M., Travers, R., & St. John, A. (2015). Beyond the dialectics and polemics: Canadian Catholic schools addressing LGBTQ youth issues. The High
School Journal, 98(2), 158180.
Lloyd, T. (2014, November 19). Why am I so gay? [Video le]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v _U1foLW8h54&feature youtu.be.
Loutzenheiser, L. W. (2015). Who are you calling a problem?: addressing transphobia and homophobia through school policy. Critical Studies in Education,
56(1), 99115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2015.990473.
Love, B. L., & Tosolt, B. (2013). Go underground or in your face: queer students' negotiation of all-girls catholic schools. Journal of LGBTQ Youth, 10(3),
186207, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2013.799901.
Luecke, J. C. (2011). Working with transgender children and their classmates in pre-adolescence: just be supportive. Journal of LGBTQ Youth, 8(2), 116156.
MacDonald, M. (2014). What are you thinking?: Ontario Catholic teachers draw heat from clergy over planned Pride march. National Post. http://news.
nationalpost.com/toronto/what-are-you-thinking-ontario-catholic-teachers-draw-heat-from-clergy-over-planned-pride-march.
MacQueen, K. M., McLellan-Lemal, E., Bartholow, K., & Milstein, B. (2008). Team-based codebook development: Structure, process, and agreement. In
G. Guest, & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 119135). Lanham, MD: Altamira.
Maguth, B. M., & Taylor, N. (2014). Bringing LGBTQ topics into the social studies classroom. The Social Studies, 105(1), 2328, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00377996.2013.788471.
Maher, M. J., & Sever, L. M. (2007). What educators in Catholic schools might expect when addressing gay and lesbian issues: a study of needs and barriers.
Journal of Gay Lesbian Issues in Education, 4(3), 79111.
Martinez, J., & Winchester, K. (2008). My mommy is a boy. Author, Raleigh, NC.
Martino, W., & Cumming-Potvin, W. (2014). Teaching about sexual minorities and princess boys: a queer and trans-infused approach to investigating
LGBTQ-themed texts in the elementary school classroom. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 121 (ahead-of-print).
Mayo, J. B. (2007). Negotiating sexual orientation and classroom practice(s) at school. Theory and Research in Social Education, 35(3), 447464.
Mayo, J. B. (2011). GLBT issues in the social studies. In W. B. Russell (Ed.), Contemporary issues in social studies: An essential reader (pp. 243260). Charlotte,
NC: Information Age Press.
Mayo, J. B., & Sheppard, M. G. (2012). New social learning from two spirit Native Americans. Journal Of Social Studies Research, 36(3), 263282.
McCarthy, L. (2003). What about the T? Is multicultural education ready to address transgender issues? Multicultural Perspectives, 5(4), 4648.
McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for transgender youth: a mixed method investigation of student
experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 39(10), 11751188, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9540-7.
Meyers, A. B., Meyers, J., Graybill, E. C., Proctor, S. L., & Huddleston, L. (2012). Ecological approaches to organizational consultation and systems change in
educational settings. Journal of Educational Psychological Consultation, 22(12), 106124.
Moe, J. L., Perera-Diltz, D., Sepulveda, V., & Finnerty, P. (2014). Salience, valence, context, and integration: conceptualizing the needs of sexually and gender
diverse youth in P12 schools. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(3), 435451.
New Day Films, Chasnoff, D., Cohen, H. S., Bowman, B., Lyman, K., Coates, K., & Women's Educational Media. (1997). It's elementary: talking about gay issues
in school (Educational training version). San Francisco, Calif.: Women's Educational Media.
Newman, P. A., & Fantus, S. (2015). A social ecology of bias-based bullying of sexual and gender minority youth: toward a conceptualization of conversion
bullying. Journal of Gay Lesbian Social Services: The Quarterly Journal of Community Clinical Practice, 27(1), 4663, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
10538720.2015.988315.
Ong, W. (1990). Yeast: a parable for Catholic higher education. America, 162(13), 347349 362-363.
Owens, R. E. (1998). Queer kids: the challenges and promise for lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Paul VI. Vatican II. Pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world Gaudium et Spes. 7 Dec. 1965. 16 Mar. 2011. http://www.vatican.va/archive/
hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html.
Payne, E., & Smith, M. (2014). The big freak out: educator fear in response to the presence of transgender elementary school students. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(3), 399418, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.842430.
Pike, D. (2012). The gift of positive space groups: a transformation for LGBTQ students. Education Canada, 52(3). n3.
Rands, K. E. (2009). Considering transgender people in education: a gender-complex approach. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 419431.
Ratts, M. J., Kaloper, M., McReady, C., Tighe, L., Butler, S. K., Dempsey, K., & McCullough, J. (2013). Safe space programs in k-12 schools: creating a visible
presence of LGBTQ Allies. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 387404, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839344.
Rayside, D. (2014). The inadequate recognition of sexual diversity by Canadian schools: LGBTQ advocacy and its impact. Journal of Canadian Studies/Revue
d'tudes canadiennes, 48(1), 190225.
Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). Bullying explains only part of LGBTQheterosexual risk disparities implications for policy and practice. Educational
Researcher, 41(8), 309319.
Robinson, K. H., & Ferfolja, T. (2002). A reection of resistance. Discourses of heterosexism and homophobia in teacher training classrooms. Journal Of Gay
Lesbian Social Services, 14(2), 5564.
Ryan, C. L., Patraw, J. M., & Bednar, M. (2013). Discussing princess boys and pregnant men: teaching about gender diversity and transgender experiences
within an elementary school curriculum. Journal of LGBTQ Youth, 10(12), 83105.
Saldaa, J. (2012). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Saletan, W. (2014, February 11). The Pope's Catholic problem. Slate. Retrieved from, http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/11/catholic_poll_on_
abortion_gay_marriage_and_birth_control_europe_and_the.html.
Schmidt, S. J. (2010). Queering social studies: the role of social studies in normalizing citizens and sexuality in the common good. Theory Research in Social
Education, 38(3), 314335.
Schneider, M., & Dimito, A. (2008). Educators' beliefs about raising lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in the schools: the experience in Ontario,
Canada. Journal of LGBTQ Youth, 5(4), 4971.
Schneider, M., Travers, R., St. John, A., Munro, L., & Klein, K. (2013). The role of gaystraight alliances in addressing bullying in schools. High School Journal,
98(2), 158180, http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2015.0000.
Sears, J. T. (1999). Teaching queerly: Some elementary propositions. In W. J. Letts IV, & J. T. Sears (Eds.), Queering elementary education: advancing the
dialogue about sexualities and schooling. Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littleeld Publishers.
Sears, J. T. (2005). Gay, lesbian, and transgender issues in education: programs, policies, and practices. New York, NY: Harrington Park Press.
Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifin Company.
Sheppard, M. G., & Mayo, J. B. (2013). The social construction of gender and sexuality: learning from two spirit traditions. The Social Studies, 104(6), 259270.
Smolkin, L. B., & Young, C. A. (2011). Missing mirrors, missing windows: children's literature textbooks and LGBTQ topics. Language Arts, 88(3), 217225.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview (pp. 5568)New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston5568.
204
Steele, J. (2002). Acknowledging diversity in the classroom. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. French, & S. P. Garcia-Lopez (Eds.), Learning to teach for social justice.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stryker, S. (2004). Transgender studies: queer theory's evil twin. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 10(2), 212215.
Swartz, P. C. (2003). Bringing sexual orientation into the children's and young adult literature classrooms. Radical Teacher(66), 11.
Taylor, C., Peter, T., Schachter, K., Paquin, S., Beldom, S., Gross, Z., & McMinn, T. L. (2008). Youth speak up about homophobia and transphobia: the rst national
climate survey on homophobia in Canadian schools. Toronto ON: Egale Canada Human Rights Trust.
Thompson, N. (2012). Queer, Christian, and no place to go: the limitations of the gay-straight alliance. Antistasis, 2(1), 4951.
Thornton, S. J. (2003). Silence on gays and lesbians in social studies curriculum. Social Education, 67(4), 226230.
Turnbull, M., & Hilton, T. (2010). Infusing some queer into teacher education. Education Canada, 50(5). http://www.cea-ace.ca/education-canada/article/
infusing-some-queer-teacher-education.
Valentine, D. (2007). Imagining transgender: an ethnography of a category. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Vittrup, B., & Holden, G. W. (2011). Exploring the impact of educational television and parentchild discussions on children's racial attitudes. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy, 11(1), 82104.
Zumwalt, K., Craig, E. (2005). Teachers' characteristics: research on the demographic prole. In: Studying teacher education: the report of the AERA panel on
research and teacher education ( pp. 111156).
Copyright of Journal of Social Studies Research is the property of International Society for
the Social Studies and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

Trans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Trans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Social Studies Research

Considering perspectives on transgender inclusion

St. Mary's University College, Calgary, AB, Canada

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Diversity and elementary teaching

Transgender persons in the social studies

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Emergence of transgender research in the social studies

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Fig. 1. Catholic preservice teachers' willingness to address trans-parent families.

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Discussion and conclusion

Bullying and harassment of transgender youth

Teacher (non)intervention in supporting transgender youth

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Transphobic policies and practices

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

A gender inclusive vision of Catholic education

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Appendix A. Anonymous survey

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

Non-School Based Education

If Other, please explain:

Appendix B. Interview protocol

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

C. Wright-Maley et al. / The Journal of Social Studies Research 40 (2016) 187204

You might also like