Breaking out of the (anti)bullying ‘box’: NYC educators discuss trans/gender diversity-inclusive policies and curriculum

Abstract

New York City (NYC) is considered to be one of the world’s most progressive cities and gender and sexuality diversity (GSD)-inclusive education departmental policies appear to reflect these values. However, even within such a context, NYC educators report challenges in their work to meet the needs of trans/gender-diverse students and the visibility of trans/gender diversity more generally within their pre-K – 12 school communities. This paper reports on interview data from 31 school staff members from nine public and independent schools located in the NYC metro region, with a specific focus on their framing of inclusivity and bullying, and reported support of trans/gender-diverse students. Based on educators’ representations of their schools, the nine schooling environments fell into two broad clusters: (1) those framing trans/gender inclusivity as an anti-bullying initiative and working at the minimum policy requirements, and (2) those working beyond bullying discourses and policy frameworks to conceptualise trans/gender inclusivity as integral to the school’s mission and as offering clear whole-community benefit. Findings support the constraints of bullying discourse on even supportive educators’ curricular ‘translation’ of GSD-inclusive policies, reinforcing the need for relevant policy reframing and targeted of professional development opportunities, particularly for school leaders.

Keywords:

• Gender diversity
• transgender
• school policy
• inclusion
• bullying
• New York City

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the dedicated educators who generously gave their time to talk about their school environments and who strove to support and affirm GSD students as part of their commitment to teaching as social justice work. This manuscript has aimed to communicate the constraints and freedoms apparent in educators’ schooling environments, rather than any individual professional or personal shortcomings. I wish to acknowledge Kyja Noack-Lundberg who served as a research assistant on this project.

Notes

1. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex. Other quoted documentation used in this paper employs the acronym LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer), which fails to acknowledge intersex bodies and identities.

2. State of New York Senate Bill 4843. ‘Requires the board of education and the trustees or sole trustee of every school district to establish policies and procedures regarding the treatment of transgender or gender nonconforming students’. 2017–2018 Legislative Session.

3. New York State Education Law §12[1].

4. New York City Department of Education Chancellor’s Regulation A-832.

5. ‘Guidance to School Districts for Creating a Safe and Supportive School Environment For Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students’ (NYSED, July 2015).

6. ‘Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Student Guidelines’ (NYCDOE, March 2017). While this documentation represents a significant shift in framing, it is notable this document was not available to educators at the time of data collection (2015/2016).