Teaching Education

ISSN: 1047-6210 (Print) 1470-1286 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cted20

Bureaucratic constructions of sexual diversity:

‘sensitive’, ‘controversial’ and silencing

Jacqueline Ullman & Tania Ferfolja

To cite this article: Jacqueline Ullman & Tania Ferfolja (2015) Bureaucratic constructions of
sexual diversity: ‘sensitive’, ‘controversial’ and silencing, Teaching Education, 26:2, 145-159, DOI:
10.1080/10476210.2014.959487

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.959487

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by

Routledge

Published online: 22 Sep 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 5449

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cted20
Teaching Education, 2015
Vol. 26, No. 2, 145–159, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.959487

Bureaucratic constructions of sexual diversity: ‘sensitive’,

‘controversial’ and silencing
Jacqueline Ullman* and Tania Ferfolja

School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, Australia

(Received 22 September 2013; accepted 25 July 2014)

National research illustrates the high degree of discrimination that prevails

against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) students resulting
in diminished educational outcomes, both academic and social. This phenome-
non is influenced by the prevalence of whole-school silences around LGBTQ
topics in many Australian schools. This paper presents an analysis of the New
South Wales (NSW) homophobia in schools policy, as well as both NSW state
and Australian federal curriculum and syllabus documents in the health and
physical education key learning area. This analysis illustrates how contradictory
framing and messages; silences and omission; and various discursive construc-
tions of the LGBTQ subject together produce silencing technologies that have
critical implications for the implementation of education, both in this key
learning area and across the schooling sector.
Keywords: homophobia; homosexuality; policy; curriculum; LGBTQ;
discrimination; school

Introduction
Although sexuality is omnipresent in pedagogical institutions, issues and education
pertaining to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) sexualities are
poorly addressed in school curriculum and policy. Despite national and international
agreements proclaiming the criticality of dealing with gendered and sexual diversity
(Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training, & Youth Affairs, 2008;
O’Flaherty & Fisher, 2008; UNESCO, 2009), and state-based legislation that renders
illegal discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of actual
or perceived sexual orientation (Evans & Ujvari, 2009), school education remains
largely impervious to the challenge, preserving heteronormativity through ongoing
heterosexist bias.
Recent international research illustrates the high degree of discrimination that
prevails against LGBTQ subjects at school in many countries, including the United
States (Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, & Greytak, 2013), the United Kingdom (Hunt &
Jensen, 2007), Canada (Schneider & Dimito, 2008; Taylor & Peter, 2011) and
Europe (Takács, 2006). Such studies link classroom discrimination to a variety of
negative academic and school-based social outcomes, including poor teacher–student
relationships and a sense of social disconnect from the school environment (Birkett,
Espelage & Koenig, 2009; Kosciw et al., 2013; Murdock & Bolsh, 2005). Looking

*Corresponding author. Email: j.ullman@uws.edu.au

© 2014 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.

This is an Open Access article. Non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly attributed, cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way, is permitted. The moral rights of
the named author(s) have been asserted.
146 J. Ullman and T. Ferfolja

specifically at the Australian context, recent national research examining the experi-
ences of 3134 same-sex-attracted and gender questioning youth between the ages of
14–21 found that 61% of participants had experienced verbal homophobic violence,
18% had experienced physical violence and 26% had experienced ‘other forms’ of
violence (Hillier et al. 2010, p. ix), with most abuse occurring at school. Moreover,
school-based homophobic abuse had escalated between 1998 and 2010 (Hillier
et al., 2010). Such discrimination has been shown to have a significant effect on
LGBTQ and gender non-conforming students resulting in negative social, emotional,
health, educational, occupational and/or physical ramifications (Dyson et al., 2003;
Hillier, Turner, & Mitchell, 2005). It is well reported that approximately 30% of all
youth suicides are linked to issues pertaining to sexuality and gender identity (Hillier
et al., 2010). These more dire experiences, although devastating, may diminish the
focus on the everyday discrimination encountered at school by LGBTQ individual
(or those perceived to be) and the lack of positive representation in education
generally.
Recent qualitative research with LGBTQ adolescents highlights the extent of
these omissions (Ullman & McGraw, 2014). Preliminary results from a 2013
national study of LGBTQ young people aged 14–18 indicate that nearly two-thirds
of participants attend secondary schools where they have not ‘learned about LGBTQ
people or discussed LGBTQ history or current events’ (Ullman, Unpublished raw
data). Similarly, Hillier et al. (2010) found that fewer than 20% of participants
reported that their school provided information on gay and lesbian safe sex and only
25% claimed that their school had policies that protected them from homophobia (p.
82). Another Australian study found that, of the 282 surveyed LGBTQ teenagers,
more than 220 had heard homophobic language used in front of school staff mem-
bers; of these, 54% reported that teachers ‘never’ or ‘hardly ever’ intervened. Like-
wise, of 78 young people who reported physical homophobic bullying occurring in
front of school staff members, only eight students (10%) said that the adults
‘always’ intervened to stop the behaviour (Mikulsky, 2007).
This apparent inaction appears to be the result of nested layers of complexity
around acknowledging LGBTQ individuals in schools. Scholars interested in the
sociology of sexuality education have argued that schools and sexuality have
been positioned as separate from one another and that teachers and students are
non-sexual beings (Epstein & Johnson, 1998). At the same time, through both
repeated quotidian subtleties and overt curricular inclusions, schools constitute stu-
dents as sexual subjects, albeit heterosexual, cis-gendered, ‘proto’ (but not actively)
sexual subjects (Youdell, 2006). This, coupled with the reductionist framing that
positions LGBTQ lives as both sexualised and dangerous (DePalma & Atkinson,
2009), partly explains teachers’ silences related to sexual and gender diversity.
Many teachers feel ill-equipped to broach issues pertaining to sexual diversity,
feel inadequately trained (Duffy, Fotinatos, Smith, & Burke, 2013; Milton, 2010;
Ollis, 2010), report inadequate understanding of the area and/or have limited access
to teaching resources (Smith et al., 2011). Others are located in ethical, moral and/or
religious discourses which position such topics as inappropriate (Goldstein, Collins,
& Halder, 2008). There is also a fear of association; if one educates about sexual
diversity one will be labelled sexually suspect (Holmes, 2001). LGBTQ issues are
constructed as ‘sensitive’ and/or ‘sexual’ making them unsuitable to broach with
‘children’. This is irrespective of the fact that children in the early years of schooling
express their curiosity about these topics in classes and in the playground through
 Teaching Education 147

homophobic taunting (Milton, 2010) and young people independently access mis/
information about a range of sexual topics through friends, popular culture and
social media (Albury, Crawford, & Byron, 2013).
Additionally, many teachers fear parental complaint if they broach these issues
with students (Duffy et al., 2013; Milton, 2010); although, Atkinson (2002) points
out that this fear of parental disapproval is generally imagined. Indeed, in Australia,
parents trust their children’s schools to provide suitable content in sexual education
classes (Berne et al., 2000). Recent research conducted with 177 parents from the
Sydney region revealed that fewer than 1% did not support sexual health education
in schools (Macbeth, Weerakoon, & Sitharthan, 2009). Additionally, 97% of the
sample felt that homosexuality should be included in sexual health education, with
the majority of parents suggesting the late primary and secondary school years as
the appropriate time for such content (Macbeth et al., 2009). Thus, contrary to teach-
ers’ trepidation, there is no Australian research that demonstrates large-scale parental
resistance to education about sexual diversity.
The teachers’ fears outlined above may well be reinforced by policy and curricu-
lum. This paper examines how documentation developed and published by the New
South Wales (NSW) Department of Education and Communities (DEC), the NSW
Board of Studies (BOS) and the Australian Curriculum Assessment Reporting
Authority (ACARA) for teacher/classroom use comprise various silencing technolo-
gies in relation to LGBTQ issues and subjectivities in schools. Particular language
usage and framings, coupled with silencing of the LGBTQ subject within these doc-
uments, provide avenues for teacher avoidance and/or rejection of this equity area
that, as demonstrated above, critically requires focus. Furthermore, conflicting mes-
sages not only reinscribe teachers’ fears and insecurities about addressing LGBTQ
diversity in classrooms, but also potentially stop those who are motivated to include
LGBTQ content from doing so.

Theoretical and conceptual framework

This discussion draws on the work of Foucault with particular reference to concepts
of discourse, knowledge/power and silence. Foucault defines discourse as ‘the group
of statements that belong to a single system of formation’ (Foucault, 1969, p. 121);
within this, silence is as equally productive and constitutive of discourse as that
which is articulated. Discourse is intimately connected to bodies of knowledge asso-
ciated with ‘power structures that privilege certain speakers, and particular discur-
sive contexts and institutional sites’ (Wickens & Sandlin, 2010, p. 655). Thus,
dominant discourses about sexuality in western society normalise heterosexuality,
bestowing upon it privilege and celebration, yet affording its subjects private space
(Epstein & Johnson, 1998). On the other hand, LGBTQ subjectivities have been
marginalised; constructed as ‘Other’; and positioned as diseased, abnormal,
perverted, predatory, evil, immoral and sexually suspect. This renders them as
objects for public surveillance and scrutiny, and their non-conformity as deserving
of punishment (Foucault, 1978). This punishment is often meted out through
discriminatory practices and social exclusion. Such discursive positioning has been
supported by dominant social institutions, including schools that reinforce the con-
structed normality of heterosexuality (Epstein & Johnson, 1998). As Weedon (1997,
pp. 117–118) points out;
148 J. Ullman and T. Ferfolja

These institutions discipline the body, mind and emotions, constituting them according
to the needs of hierarchical forms of power … [and] endowing individuals with spe-
cific perceptions of their identity and potential, which appear natural … rather than as
the product of diffuse forms of power’.
Knowledge, constituted in discourse, is related to power where the invisibility of the
latter makes it more tolerable (Weedon, 1997); hence, particular discourses and their
associated knowledges are more powerful than others in various contexts. In prac-
tice, in schools, knowledge about LGBTQ subjects is generally positioned as adult-
only knowledge where LGBTQ identities are marked, subjugated to heterosexual
knowledges, made simultaneously in/visible (Foucault, 1978), and are by definition
sexualised (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009). In essence, LGBTQ knowledges are dan-
gerous, perceived to be inappropriate for children who are socially constructed in
binary opposition to adults, positioned as innocent, vulnerable, immature, irrational,
and requiring protection from the ‘adult’ world (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2006).
Broaching sexual diversities with children, thus, has historically bordered on the
unthinkable. That is, although the LGBTQ subject is increasingly socially ‘accepted’,
the discursive intersections of childhood, (hetero)sexuality/heteronormativity and
teaching, coupled with morality discourses, position LGBTQ knowledge as incon-
gruous with school education. Thus, LGBTQ silence permeates school curriculum,
policy and practice and contributes to the pervasive heterosexist discourse that is lar-
gely ensconced in these institutions. Any formal address of LGBTQ sexualities is
generally left to a ‘developmentally’ appropriate stage, usually adolescence, by
which time homophobic prejudices are well entrenched (Flood & Hamilton, 2005). It
is only recently that LGBTQ issues and subjectivities have become at all visible in
education documentation, and as shall be seen, the manner of this inclusion is largely
problematic.

Reading the texts: data and analysis

This paper is based on an analysis of state government documentation pertaining to
education related to LGBTQ subjects. These texts include the NSW DEC policy on
‘homosexuality’; the NSW DEC web-based curriculum support materials; and NSW
BOS-developed syllabi. The latter relates to the key learning area of Personal Devel-
opment, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE). The BOS is responsible for the
creation of syllabus documents to which teachers in all NSW public, private and
independent schools are directly accountable. The DEC supports syllabus implemen-
tation by providing curricular materials for public school education and also gener-
ates organisational policy. It should be noted, however, that at the time of writing,
Australia is transitioning to a national curriculum which will supersede the current
state-based documentation critiqued herein; thus, this analysis briefly examines the
new Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum produced by the national
body, ACARA (2014). Critically, as this curriculum is taken up at the state level, the
final HPE national curriculum document will form the basis of the new, NSW state-
developed syllabus documents.
This array of documentation is targeted as it ‘speaks’ on behalf of the state gov-
ernment that administers public school education and thus, communicates the state-
approved framing of LGBTQ topics in NSW schools. In viewing these documents
as the ‘speech acts’ of these institutional authorities, we draw on the analysis taken
by Sauntson (2013), who applied elements of critical discourse analysis (Fairclough,
 Teaching Education 149

2001) and speech act theory (Austin, 1962) to a reading of English curriculum
documents in the United Kingdom. Given her focus on the ways in which particular
discourses are conveyed through both what is present and absent in the text,
Sauntson concentrated on the ‘kinds of knowledge and beliefs that are subsequently
presented as an effect of a text’s (selective) content’, known as the ‘experiential
value’ of the text in functional linguistics (Fairclough, 2001, as cited in Sauntson,
2013, p. 398, emphasis added). Further, her examination of the curriculum texts was
framed by the concept of ‘illocutionary silencing’ in speech act theory (Langton,
1993), or the action performed when something is not said. Applied here, the notion
of illocutionary silencing explains how it is possible that while a text might not be
homophobic in and of itself, the resulting action performed by the text may be expe-
rienced as homophobic. Sauntson (2013) posits that while school-based ideologies
of LGBTQ sexualities are created by what is linguistically present within the textual
content of the curriculum materials, they are shaped as well by the illocutionary
silences offered within that text. We take up this technique here in our analysis and
focus on what is said and what is absent. It is to this analysis that this paper now
turns.

A review of policy, curriculum support and syllabus documents

DEC policy: homophobia in schools
The policy on ‘Homosexuality’ (NSW Department of School Education, 1997. See
Ferfolja, 2013b for a more detailed discussion) is located under the ‘Access and
Equity’ policies on the DEC website. The policy is a one-page memorandum to
principals of central and secondary schools sent out in 1997 by the then director-
general for education. Its title, ‘Homophobia in Schools’, immediately discursively
constructs ‘homosexual’ issues and subjectivities adversely; as a problem requiring
attention. This negative tenor resonates throughout the six short paragraphs of the
policy, beginning with the organisation’s obligation to abide by the NSW anti-dis-
crimination legislation, continuing with an imperative that schools ‘must implement
the Procedures for Resolving Complaints about Discrimination Against Students’,
then stipulating that secondary schools must address homophobia within their stu-
dent welfare structures and curriculum. The document then points out the support
that can be provided by the state police service whose ‘gay and lesbian liaison offi-
cers … are able to assist in conducting anti-violence initiatives’, further reinscribing
‘homosexuals’ as victims who are likely to require special assistance. The discourses
of risk and victimisation constituted in the language undermine any positive con-
struction or reading of LGBTQ subjectivities; moreover, the document mostly sup-
ports ‘band-aid’ approaches aimed at discrete student-level intervention. This marks
the ‘homosexual’ subjectivity, positioning them as problematically visible and in
need of surveillance (Foucault, 1978) rather than addressing such discrimination as a
whole-school issue.
Additionally, the policy is outdated on numerous levels, not only in its patholog-
ising construction of ‘homosexuals’, but also through its lack of inclusion of a range
of sexual and gendered diversities. Its obsolescence is further highlighted by a long
outdated contact point within the organisation. Furthermore, the policy provides
teaching resources that reinforce homosexual lives as problematic, linking them to
diseases such as HIV/AIDS, emotional disturbance and violence; these may have
150 J. Ullman and T. Ferfolja

been useful in their time but are now unequivocally outmoded. It also omits any ref-
erence to primary or infants’ schools, compounding the silences prevalent in these
schools. In short, it does not engender any sense of understanding of contemporary
LGBTQ lives and in reality, provides little support and no contemporary guidance
for teachers or school communities.
Thus, DEC policy related to ‘homosexual’ discrimination exists and is freely
available on its website; however, the message it conveys is negative and its lack of
currency and development over time suggests institutional disinterest that discur-
sively reinforces LGBTQ subjugation and insignificance. When compared to other
comparable education system approaches like the ‘Equity Foundation Statement and
Commitments to Equity Policy’ (2000) mandated by the Toronto District School
Board in Ontario, Canada (Ferfolja, 2013a), the DEC policy is extremely limited
and perpetuates discourses of the subaltern LGBTQ subject. This is disappointing;
meaningful policy has the potential to buttress a whole-school response (Duffy
et al., 2013) and is critical to support progressive educative initiatives.

DEC curriculum support

The DEC-based curriculum support website for the years 7–10 PDHPE content area
(‘Teaching Sexual Health’) explicitly hosts a subsection on ‘Inclusive Education’,
wherein ‘Sexual Diversity’ is provided its own webpage (NSW Department of Edu-
cation and Communities, 2011a). Here, the DEC makes visible sexual diversity,
using precise language to identify lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender young peo-
ple as members of every school community. Teachers are encouraged to reflect upon
their position in relation to LGBTQ topics, and to attend to heterosexist bias in
teaching resources and pedagogical practices. Explicit instruction is provided to
engage with topics related to sexual diversity and to support LGBTQ young people
including a ‘checklist’ (Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society
[ARCHS], 2008), to help determine whether one’s school caters for sexual diversity.
Three DEC-’branded’ lesson plans address the fluid nature of sexuality, sexual iden-
tity and homophobia.
This site, clearly developed with attention to the landmark work of ARCHS
around heteronormativity and school climate in Australian schools, does not leave
room for ambiguity or position these pedagogical approaches as optional. Neverthe-
less, as curricula support, these directives are not mandated for delivery. Further-
more, this content is limited to a PDHPE framing; searches on the DEC website for
other curricular areas which highlight LGBTQ topics reveal little. The discourse
conveyed by the silences (Foucault, 1978) is that LGBTQ issues are irrelevant to
other key learning areas and are, at best, reliant on the PDHPE teacher. This is prob-
lematic as it depends on the PDHPE teacher’s willingness and ability to teach the
topic (effectively) and undermines potential inclusion of LGBTQ perspectives in
other subjects.
Primary teachers are provided a similarly themed site by the DEC under ‘Growth
and Development’ on the Kindergarten – Year-6 PDHPE webpage (NSW Depart-
ment of Education and Communities, 2011b). The site’s inclusive language and con-
tent, including pedagogical advice around ‘destigmatising’ same-sex-attracted
individuals and families, appears to be a commitment to the normalisation and class-
room visibility of LGBTQ sexualities. Clear examples are provided for how and
when a K-6 educator can deploy these techniques, both in regards to specific
 Teaching Education 151

curricular content as well as within the everyday social interaction and conversation
of a K-6 classroom. Nevertheless, the linguistic framing of the document, referring
to ‘opportunities’ for inclusivity (which, subjectively, may or may not present them-
selves), serves to position the offered points as teaching recommendations rather
than state-supported directives. Problematically, this material is titled, ‘Managing
Homophobia’, articulating the presence of homophobia in the K-6 classroom as
inevitable and as that which will not be eliminated – only managed. Again, sexual
diversity is positioned as what we describe as discourse problematique. There is no
celebration or positivity proffered by what this heading portends.
Perhaps, most noteworthy about this page is its title: What do I need to be aware
of when teaching about sexuality?. Readers are immediately alerted to necessary
precautions and a required heightened awareness when addressing LGBTQ topics in
the K-6 classroom. This discursive framing positions the content therein as taboo,
amplified through the inclusion of three different ‘gatekeepers’ to whom the teacher
is directed: (1) Child Protection NSW; (2) the general ‘imagined parent’; and (3) the
DEC’s ‘Controversial Issues Policy’ (Department of Education and Training, 2009),
which advises that schools send a letter home before discussing ‘controversial’ top-
ics. The linking of classroom-mention-of LGBTQ issues to controversy and legal
ramification, through proximity of visual content as well as actual URL hyperlinks,
highlights teachers’ work as subject to surveillance and explicitly frames such con-
versations as risky. The burden of risk appears placed on the individual teacher who
has not been mandated to but, rather, has personally chosen to discuss diverse sexu-
alities/families. Thus, the institution recommends that teachers ‘manage’ homopho-
bia in the K-6 classroom by addressing the negative behaviours that arise as a result
of gender and sexual surveillance (Foucault, 1978), while simultaneously suggesting
that teachers do so in the least controversial and, ostensibly, the most oblique man-
ner in order to protect themselves. Teachers are thus placed in a difficult balancing
act; half-encouraged to create LGBTQ-inclusive spaces while being warned that this
work is risky. In effect, the lack of institutional imperative suggests that they will
shoulder this risk at the classroom/school level.

BOS syllabi
In NSW, the BOS is the provider of K-12 syllabus documents. Syllabus outcomes,
specific to each key learning area at every stage are officially mandated and, while
every classroom teacher should work from their relevant BOS syllabus when
developing lessons, only personally motivated teachers are likely to explore the
above-described DEC curriculum support sites. Furthermore, as pointed out, only
PDHPE support materials explicitly contain LGBTQ content and it is unlikely that
teachers of other subjects would access this information.
The analogue to the DEC’s ‘Teaching Sexual Health’ site is the BOS’s Years
7–10 PDHPE syllabus document (Board of Studies New South Wales, 2003). Where
the DEC site is characterised by an articulation of sexual diversity, LGBTQ topics
within the BOS syllabus document are mired in ambiguity and their explicit framing
is near-absent. Despite years 7–10 (Stages 4 & 5) being positioned as the develop-
mentally appropriate time to teach students about sexual health and sexual practices,
sexual orientation is never overtly mentioned. Terms associated with sexual diversity
(e.g. gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, homosexuality, LGBTQ) do not appear in
the syllabus. It is thus unsurprising that even teachers of sexual education and
152 J. Ullman and T. Ferfolja

PDHPE are unsure about where, how or even if they should discuss LGBTQ topics
and associated safe-sexual practices (Smith et al., 2011). Such silences discursively
highlight the inappropriateness of this content to students’ education and reinforce
the normalisation and supremacy of heterosexuality (Foucault, 1978). This is the dis-
cursive silence to which Foucault refers and which speaks volumes about the accept-
able and unacceptable. As Foucault (1978, p. 27) states:
Silence itself – the things one declines to say, or is forbidden to name, the discretion
that is required between different speakers – is less the absolute limit of discourse, the
other side from which it is separated by a strict boundary, than an element that
functions alongside the things said, with them and in relation to them within over-all
strategies.
Irrespective of the BOS’s required agenda to create a syllabus document with broad
appeal across both religious and secular contexts, the failure to articulate ‘gay’ or
‘lesbian’, for example, cements these subjectivities as unspeakable.
Where diverse sexualities are alluded to, they are positioned as marginal and
problematic. ‘Difference and Diversity’ is presented as a cross-curricular content
area addressed through the PDHPE syllabus by its coverage of the societal impact
of discrimination. Here, sexuality is mentioned as an area of diversity, albeit framed
by its ‘difference’ to the assumed, heterosexual norm. However, as the document
does not follow through by articulating LGBTQ sexualities, the phrase ‘diversity in
relation to sexuality’ allows for a multiplicity of interpretations; a prerogative of the
reader. ‘Diversity’ is used as an umbrella term and the ambiguity of the statement,
including the associated syllabus outcomes which contain the same language sprin-
kled throughout, allows for a teacher positioned in discourse of ‘compulsory hetero-
sexuality’ (Rich, 1980/1993) to operationalise this as diversity only within the
spectrum of heterosexuality. Ostensibly, by addressing topics such as (heterosexual)
abstinence, (heterosexual) celibacy or non-consensual (hetero)-sexual activity, one
could satisfy the syllabus outcome briefs without ever mentioning LGBTQ topics.
It is true that same-sex couples do receive a single mention as a ‘different form
of family structure’ that stage-4 students (years 7 and 8) might explore. However, it
is noteworthy that not only is this content located within the syllabus as optional
‘Additional Content’, but same-sex couples are presented as an option within an
option, as part of a list of other (or othered) ‘different’ families. Furthermore, while
the term ‘homosexuality’ is never explicitly used, the term ‘homophobia’ is. This is
problematic on at least two fronts. First, rather than learn about the diversity, fluidity
and acceptability of sexual subjectivities, stage-4 PDHPE students are explicitly
required to learn about how non-heterosexual sexualities are marginalised and bul-
lied (Outcome 4.3). Second, there is a parallel message manifested in this learning;
a warning that homophobia is what is experienced by those who deviate from the
heterosexual norm. Hence, the BOS syllabus is complicit in the continued ‘othering’
of the LGBTQ subject: through the framing and positioning of LGBTQ content;
through the non-articulation/silencing of LGBTQ content; and via the implicit mes-
sages contained in much of that which is articulated.
In the BOS K-6 syllabus (Board of Studies New South Wales, 2007), warnings
appearing on the DEC primary PDHPE site are similarly applied. From the outset,
the syllabus document frames sexuality education as difficult through their advice to
teachers for ‘dealing with sensitive issues’ and specifically naming sexuality as a
‘sensitive issue’. Because LGBTQ sexualities are constituted within a discourse
 Teaching Education 153

problematique, they are positioned as more ‘sensitive’ than normalised heterosexual-

ity, and thus, constructed as having greater potential for controversy. Teachers are
advised that the selection of specific PDHPE programme content occurs at the
school level and reminded that, ‘The syllabus is designed to give all schools the
flexibility to treat sensitive and controversial issues in a manner reflective of their
own ethos’ (Board of Studies New South Wales, 2007, p. 5). Within the associated
syllabus modules documentation (Board of Studies New South Wales, 1999a), teach-
ers are required to provide parents with information about content related to any sen-
sitive issues. ‘Policies that deal with sensitive issues’ (ostensibly the DEC’s
‘Controversial Issues Policy’) are referenced (Board of Studies New South Wales,
1999a, p. 42). Discursive warning signs pertaining to ‘sensitive issues’ (such as
instruction to speak ‘impartially’) are dotted throughout these two documents as well
as the associated principal’s guide (Board of Studies New South Wales, 1999b) and
reminders that such discussion is ‘acceptable only when it clearly serves the purpose
of the school community’. This statement raises a number of questions with the most
obvious being, is sexuality education not relevant to everyone? The implementation
procedures for the ‘Controversial Issues in Schools Policy’ adds an additional layer
of warning, stating that ‘discussion of controversial issues is only acceptable when it
clearly serves the educative purpose and is consistent with curriculum objectives’
(Department of Education and Training, 2009, p. 2).
If syllabus documents fail to articulate LGBTQ education as an objective, where
does this leave educators? As with the secondary syllabus document, where homo-
sexuality is articulated, it is marked by difficulty, marginalisation and risk. For
teachers, speaking about and normalising LGBTQ subjects as positive, functioning
members of society is not consistent with current syllabus objectives; yet, learning
about homophobia as a form of discrimination is. Thus, both the illocutionary
silences and the articulations present in the text, reinforce a deficit framing of
LGBTQ lives.

National health curriculum: a way forward for LGBTQ topics in Australian

schools or more of the same?
The NSW state curriculum is in transition as Australia moves from a state-based cur-
riculum and associated syllabus documents to a single national curriculum. While
the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Reporting Authority (henceforth,
ACARA) has developed a national Foundations (Kindergarten) – Year-10 HPE
Curriculum, publically available on the Australian Curriculum website (http://www.
australiancurriculum.edu.au/), this curriculum has yet to be operationalised by the
NSW BOS in the form of revised PDHPE syllabus documents. Accordingly, it
remains to be seen how the BOS intends to move from the curriculum points
highlighted below to mandated student outcomes.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that, in keeping with the documents that precede
it, the ACARA (2014) HPE curriculum, at the time of writing, offered up as the final
draft, provides sufficient conditional language and ambiguity to enable state boards
to ignore or gloss over such content to reflect the political climate and stakeholder
views (for a detailed analysis, see Ferfolja & Ullman, 2014). For example, through-
out the new document, the term ‘diversity’ is used as an umbrella term for all areas
of diverse life experience or identities that might feature in relationship to this key
learning area, including diversity of learning needs or ability as well as diversity
154 J. Ullman and T. Ferfolja

related to concepts of selfhood or identity. The term is liberally sprinkled throughout

the document, in both the primary and secondary years of study; however, without
explicit framing or elaborations, just how ‘diversity’ is interpreted again becomes
the classroom teacher’s brief.
This notion of schools’ ability to address this content at their discretion is
emphasised in several of the content descriptors provided in the document. For
example, the years 7/8 curriculum under the ‘Personal, social and community health’
strand includes content where students will examine ‘values and beliefs about cul-
tural and social issues’ (ACARA, 2014, p. 43). While gender and sexuality are
included as potential areas of inquiry for these cultural and social issues, the list of
options provided is headed by the proviso, ‘such as’ implying these are options for
study and that, teachers again may delineate the boundaries of the choice. Further-
more, without clarity of meaning, there is no guarantee that ‘gender’ will be inter-
preted as gender diversity or the experience of transgender individuals, for example,
or even that ‘sexuality’ should include non-heterosexual sexualities. This vague,
open-ended framing of possibilities continues throughout the document, leaving it to
the personally motivated teacher to pursue an LGBTQ interpretation of the curricu-
lum document in lieu of its unambiguous articulation of support. However, should
the state’s ‘Controversial Issues Policy’ still stand, these ‘personally-motivated’
teachers may find themselves in an untenable position whereby LGBTQ topics are
to be discussed ‘objectively’, ‘impartially’ and without their own ‘personal view’
(Department of Education and Training, 2009, p. 2).
The document begins by outlining 12 ‘Focus Areas’ in the HPE curriculum with
‘Relationships and Sexuality’ as one of these areas, presented as an overarching
structural element meant to guide content development (ACARA, 2014, p. 9). The
earlier draft of this document (ACARA, 2013) expands on each of these 12 areas,
proposing associated content and suggested outcomes as further guidance for teach-
ers, and offering that the future online draft will include ‘hyperlinked pop-up win-
dows’ for each of the 12 areas (p. 7). At the time of writing (May 2014), this had
yet to be operationalised in the 2014 online document. While a suggested outcome
of the ‘Relationships and Sexuality’ focus area is students’ celebration and respect
for ‘difference and diversity in communities’ (ACARA, 2013, p. 9), it is noteworthy
that, once again, LGBTQ sexualities are not explicitly articulated. These outcomes
continue with, ‘students will understand the factors that influence gender and sexual
identities’ (ACARA, 2013, p. 9); however, in lieu of any explicit unpacking of how
these ‘identities’, ‘differences’ or ‘diversities’ might take shape or manifest in indi-
viduals’ lives (e.g. same-sex attraction, gender non-conformity), the lack of specific-
ity leaves interpretation open, therefore risking a heterosexist interpretation by
teachers. Despite the limitations of this explanation within the 2013 draft, this is,
arguably, preferable to its absence in the 2014 version. This exclusion is further rein-
forced by what ACARA refers to as ‘local needs’ which they suggest should be con-
sidered by teachers when planning and selecting content from the 12 ‘Focus Areas’,
including ‘Relationships and Sexuality’ (ACARA, 2014, p. 18). In the context of
sexuality education, this seems to be code for an imagined unsupportive parent con-
text or unsupportive school ethos ensuring schools are easily able to ‘opt-out’ of
LGBTQ education.
In a deeply problematic ‘representation’ of LGBTQ content, the document
relegates the explicit acknowledgement of same-sex-attracted and gender diverse
individuals as outside the curriculum material itself, in both an introductory
 Teaching Education 155

section on student diversity (ACARA, 2014, p. 12) and within the ‘Glossary’
(p. 54), placed in the concluding section of the document. As these inclusions
are the only time the terms ‘transgender’, ‘gender-diverse’ and ‘same-sex
attracted’ appear within the document (there is no mention of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, queer or any other non-heterosexual sexual identities at any point
throughout the document), in effect, the glossary provides definitions of these
terms for little practical purpose. This is particularly misleading, in light of the
opening position statements regarding LGBTQ subjects which read, ‘… it is
crucial to acknowledge and affirm diversity in relation to sexuality and gender
in HPE’ (ACARA, 2014, p. 12).

Implications
The implications of these documents are considerable. The incorporation of LGBTQ
content into curriculum, syllabi and policy requires explicit articulation and should
be mandated to endorse action. Failure to do so encourages misinterpretations, inac-
tion and avoidance, and renders the implementation of LGBTQ content and
approaches in classrooms a ‘choice’ of individual teachers, thereby laying responsi-
bility for any potential or imagined negative ramifications on the individual and their
school. An institutional mandate that stipulates the importance of this work would
provide support for teachers and schools undertaking it and would shift responsibil-
ity from the individual to the broader institution. It would also send an important
message to the community that LGBTQ equity work echoes a legal imperative; that
it is an issue of social justice; that it reflects basic human rights; and that this work
is sanctioned. The Toronto District School Board provides a precedent for such an
approach which has been active for well over a decade (Ferfolja, 2013a; Goldstein
et al., 2008; McCaskell, 2005). Although policy generally does not tell people what
to do (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012), it does construct particular discursive under-
standings and can be educative.
It is true that professional bodies have complex obligations; their publically
available materials addressing LGBTQ topics must satisfy multiple, diverse stake-
holders, including politicians, parents, principals, media and academics and in the
case of the BOS documentation, the ethos of particular schools, such as those with
religious affiliations. In NSW, religious schools are still able to legally discriminate
on the grounds of ‘homosexuality’ (Evans & Ujvari, 2009). As religious schools lar-
gely receive the majority of their funding from public taxes, it borders on inconceiv-
able that discrimination outlawed in state legislation should be condoned.
Additionally, as almost 40% of school students attend religious schools,1 it is critical
that they are fully educated to become productive members of a socially and cultur-
ally diverse society. They too need opportunities to learn about sexual diversities to
meet all students’ needs through representations that normalise sexual diversity. As
it stands, BOS documentation does not provide a specific mandate to address
LGBTQ topics presumably to accommodate the opt-out clause for religious schools.
Problematic in itself, by doing so, it additionally leaves open for public schools the
‘choice’ to act (or not).
Furthermore, the current documentation that discursively constructs sexual diver-
sities as subjugated knowledges frames the future work perceived possible by pre-
service teachers. As pre-service teacher educators, we have found anecdotally that
these documents engender ambivalence and insecurity about broaching LGBTQ
156 J. Ullman and T. Ferfolja

issues, creating obstacles to action and foreclosing future teachers’ pedagogical

imaginings. Even enthusiastic pre-service teachers who desire to undertake LGBTQ
equity work express trepidation and question the rationality of broaching LGBTQ
issues in their future primary or secondary classrooms; thus, despite their commit-
ment to LGBTQ justice, they are in effect, silenced. Additionally, these documents
situate us as pre-service teacher-educators in an ethical dilemma; we rely on them to
champion undertaking LGBTQ equity work in schools, but our professional obliga-
tions in terms of duty of care to our pre-service teachers simultaneously require us
to point to the conflicting messages of the documents, and thereby implicate us in
the perpetuation of inaction and silence.
We acknowledge that the curriculum in itself is not a fait accompli, that any text
may be read in ways un/intended by the author and that teacher subjectivities inter-
pret official documentation and make the translation into classroom implementation.
Thus, a definitive position of support is required to stimulate action and encourage
this equity work to be done in schools, in line with both Australian national and
international guidelines which point to the importance of affirming gender and
sexual diversities in an effort to increase understanding and reduce discrimination
(Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2008;
UNESCO, 2009). The new HPE syllabus does not appear to achieve this; while the
curriculum is framed as encouraging a ‘critical inquiry approach’ to ‘explore inclu-
siveness, power inequalities, taken-for-granted assumptions, diversity and social
justice’ (ACARA, 2014, p. 5), in practice, the curriculum reinscribes the limitations
of earlier documents and does not provide a way forward on these issues. As a
national point of reference for LGBTQ equity work in the future, this important doc-
ument requires reconsideration and revision. Careful consideration must be paid to
its content so that it justly serves the needs of all students and educates for a
twenty-first-century society.

Conclusion
This paper examines the inclusion of LGBTQ content in education policy, cur-
riculum support documentation and syllabi developed by the NSW DEC and
BOS as well as ACARA. It demonstrates how contradictory framing and mes-
sages; links to PDHPE documentation; silences and omission; optional imple-
mentation generated by choice; and various discursive constructions of the
LGBTQ subject together produce silencing technologies that render these issues
difficult to broach in schools and potentially hazardous for teachers to address.
Critically, the documentation discussed herein, in relation to LGBTQ subjects
produces invisibility in the visibility and silences within oblique articulations.
Despite seemingly espousing inclusion, we posit that these documents create an
uncertain and unsupported context that feeds rather than quells teacher insecuri-
ties about broaching LGBTQ equity; enable marginalisation and/or avoidance of
LGBTQ issues; and reinforce pedagogical and curriculum silences. An approach
that meets the needs of all students and that creates provision for LGBTQ
equity work to be undertaken in schools without fear or undermining LGBTQ
subjectivities is absolutely critical. Immediately reviewing the ACARA documen-
tation may be the place to start. Only in this way will education be meeting
the needs of Australia’s contemporary and future society.
 Teaching Education 157

Note
1. Just over 22% of secondary school enrolments are in the Catholic school sector and
almost 18% of enrolments are in the Independent school sector (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2012). Of this latter group, nearly 85% of all Independent schools are
religiously affiliated, with Anglican schools comprising more than a quarter of these
(Independent Schooling Australia – Snapshot 2013).

References
Albury, K., Crawford, K., & Byron, P. (2013). Young people and sexting in Australia. Ethics,
representation and the law. Final Report (Research Report). Sydney: The University of
New South Wales.
Atkinson, E. (2002). Education for diversity in a multisexual society: Negotiating the con-
tradictions of contemporary discourse. Sex Education, 2, 119–132. doi:10.1080/
14681810220144873
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Schools, Australia, 2012: Commentary on schools
(4221.0). Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4221.
0Main+Features202012?OpenDocument
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2013). Revised Aus-
tralian curriculum: Health and physical education: Foundation to year 10. Retrieved
from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Revised_HPE_curriculum_for_publication_
on_ACARA_website_-_FINAL.pdf
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). (2014). The Austra-
lian curriculum. Health and physical education, foundation to year 10. Retrieved from
http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/healthandphysicaleducation/Curriculum/F-10
Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS). (2008). Sexual diversity
checklist. Retrieved from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/downloads/arcshs-research-pub
lications/SexualDiversityChecklist.pdf
Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy. Policy enactments in sec-
ondary schools. London: Routledge.
Berne, L., Patton, W., Milton, J., Hunt, L., Wright, S., Peppard, J., & Dodd, J. (2000). A
qualitative assessment of Australian parents’ perceptions of sexuality education and com-
munication. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 161–168.
Birkett, M., Espelage, D., & Koenig, B. (2009). LGB and questioning students in schools:
The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative out-
comes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989–1000.
Board of Studies, New South Wales. (1999a). Personal development, health and physical
education, K-6 modules. Retrieved from http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/pdhpe/
pdhpek6_modules.pdf
Board of Studies, New South Wales. (1999b). Personal development, health and physical
education, K-6 principal’s package. Retrieved from http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/
files/pdhpe/pdhpek6_principal.pdf
Board of Studies, New South Wales. (2003). Personal development, health and physical
education, years 7–10 syllabus. Retrieved from http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syl
labus_sc/pdf_doc/pdhpe-7-10-syllabus.pdf
Board of Studies, New South Wales. (2007). Personal development, health and physical
education, K-6 Syllabus. Retrieved from http://k6.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/files/pdhpe/
k6_pdhpe_syl.pdf
DePalma, R., & Atkinson, E. (2009). ‘No Outsiders’: Moving beyond a discourse of toler-
ance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools. British Educational Research
Journal, 35, 837–855.
Department of Education and Training, Office of Schools. (2009). Controversial issues in
schools policy implementation procedures (Policy number: PD20020045). Sydney: NSW.
Duffy, B., Fotinatos, N., Smith, A., & Burke, J. (2013). Puberty, health and sexual education
in Australian regional primary schools: Year 5 and 6 teacher perceptions. Sex Education,
13, 186–213. doi:10.1080/14681811.2012.678324
158 J. Ullman and T. Ferfolja

Dyson, S., Mitchell, A., Smith, A., Dowsett, G., Pitts, M., & Hillier, L. (2003). Don’t ask,
don’t tell. Hidden in the crowd: The need for documenting links between sexuality and
suicidal behaviours among young people, monograph series no 45. Melbourne: The
Australian research centre in sex, health and society, La Trobe University.
Epstein, D., & Johnson, R. (1998). Schooling sexualities. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Evans, C., & Ujvari, L. (2009). Non-discrimination laws and religious schools in Australia.
Adelaide Law Review, 30, 31–56. Retrieved from http://www.researchgate.net/publica
tion/228192617_Non-Discrimination_Laws_and_Religious_Schools_in_Australia
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). London: Longman.
Ferfolja, T. (2013a, November). Students as policy actors: The TDSB equity foundation
statement and commitments to equity policy. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy (CJEAP), 149, 1–24. Retrieved from http://www.umanitoba.
ca/publications/cjeap/currentissues.html#2013
Ferfolja, T. (2013b). Sexual diversity, discrimination and ‘homosexuality policy’ in New
South Wales’ government schools. Sex Education, 13, 159–171. doi:10.1080/
14681811.2012.697858
Ferfolja, T., & Ullman, J. (2014). Opportunity Lost or (Re) Written Out: LGBTI content in
Australia’s new national Health and Physical Education curriculum. In S. Gannon & W.
Sawyer (Eds.), Contemporary issues of equity in education (pp. 69–87). Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Flood, M., & Hamilton, C. (2005). Mapping homophobia in Australia. The Australia
institute. Retrieved from http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP79.pdf
Foucault, M. (1969). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality. Volume 1: An introduction. (R. Hurley, Trans.).
New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Goldstein, T., Collins, A., & Halder, M. (2008). Anti-Homophobia education in public
schooling: A canadian case study of policy implementation. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 19, 47–66. doi:10.1080/10538720802161540
Hillier, L., Jones, T. Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., & Mitchell, A.
(2010). Writing themselves in 3: The third national report on the sexuality, health and
well-being of same sex attracted young people. Victoria: Australian Research Centre in
Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University.
Hillier, L., Turner, A., & Mitchell, A. (2005). Writing Themselves In Again – 6 years on: The
2nd national report on the sexual health and wellbeing of same-sex attracted young
people in Australia. Victoria: Australian Research Centre In Sex, Health And Society, La
Trobe University.
Holmes, J. (2001). ‘If there was any hint’: An analysis of the perceptions that lesbian and
gay educators have of teacher sexuality and education. Leading & Managing, 7, 61–75.
Hunt, R., & Jensen, J. (2007). The school report. The experiences of young gay people in
Britain’s schools. Stonewall.
Independent Schools Council of Australia. (2013). Independent schooling in Australia – How
governments fund independent schools: Snapshot 2013. Retrieved from http://isca.edu.au/
wp-content/uploads/2011/07/ISCA-Snapshot-2013.pdf
Kosciw, J., Palmer, N., Kull, R., & Greytak, E. (2013). The effect of negative school climate
on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of
School Violence, 12, 45–63. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22,
293–330.
Macbeth, A., Weerakoon, P., & Sitharthan, G. (2009). Pilot study of Australian school-based
sexual health education: Parents’ views. Sexual Health, 6, 328–333. doi:10.1071/SH09040
McCaskell, T. (2005). Race to equity: Disrupting educational inequality. Ontario: Between
the Lines.
Mikulsky, J. (2007). ‘In or ‘Out?’’: An examination of the effects of school climate on same-
sex attracted students in Australia (Doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney.
Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1969
Milton, J. (2010). Primary school sex education programs: Views and experiences of teachers
in four primary schools in Sydney, Australia. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and
Learning, 3, 241–256. doi:10.1080/1468181032000119122
 Teaching Education 159

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training & Youth Affairs. (2008).

Melbourne declaration for educational goals for young Australians. Melbourne: Author.
Murdock, T., & Bolch, M. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjustment in
lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-centered
analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 159–172.
New South Wales Department of School Education. (1997). Homophobia in schools.
Retrieved from https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/policies/student_serv/student_welfare/homoph_
sch/homophobia_sch.pdf
NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2011a). Sexual diversity. Retrieved from
http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/sexual_health/inclusive/diversity.htm
NSW Department of Education and Communities. (2011b). What do I need to be aware of
when teaching about sexuality? Retrieved from http://www.curriculumsupport.education.
nsw.gov.au/primary/pdhpe/growth/sexed005.htm
O’Flaherty, M., & Fisher, J. (2008). Sexual orientation, gender identity and international
human rights law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta principles. Human rights law review,
8, 207–248. doi:10.1093/hrlr/ngn009
Ollis, D. (2010). ‘I haven’t changed bigots but …’: Reflections on the impact of teacher pro-
fessional learning in sexuality education. Sex Education, 10, 217–230. doi:10.1080/
14681811003666523
Rich, A. (1980/1993). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. In H. Abelove, M.
Barale, & D. Halperin (Eds.), Lesbian and gay studies reader (pp. 227–254). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Robinson, K. H., & Jones Diaz, C. (2006). Diversity and difference in early childhood
education: Issues for theory and practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Sauntson, H. (2013). Sexual diversity and illocutionary silencing in the English national cur-
riculum. Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning, 13, 395–408. doi:10.1080/
14681811.2012.745809
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
LGBT Youth, 5, 49–71. doi:10.1080/19361650802223003
Smith, A., Schlichthorst, M., Mitchell, A., Walsh, J., Lyons, A., Blackman, P., & Pitts, M.
(2011). Sexuality education in Australian secondary schools 2010 [Monograph Series
No. 80]. Melbourne: La Trobe University, the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health
& Society.
Takács, J. (2006). Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
people in Europe. Belgium: ILGA-Europe.
Taylor, C., & Peter, T. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey
on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools – Final report. Toronto:
Egale Canada Human Rights Trust.
Toronto District School Board. (2000). Equity foundation statement & commitments to equity
policy implementation. Retrieved from http://www.tdsb.on.ca/_site/ViewItem.asp?siteid=
15&menuid=682&pageid=546
Ullman, J. [Free2Be?: Australian national survey of gender-climate and school belonging for
LGBTQ students.] Unpublished raw data.
Ullman, J., & McGraw, K. (2014). Troubling silences and taboo texts: Constructing safer and
more positive school climates for same-sex attracted high school students in Australia. In D.
Carlson & E. Meyer (Eds.), Gender and sexualities in education: A reader (pp. 298–312).
New York, NY: Peter Lang.
UNESCO. (2009). International technical guidance on sexuality education. An evidence-
informed approach for schools, teachers and health educators. Paris: Author.
Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist Practice & poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing.
Wickens, C. M., & Sandlin, J. A. (2010). Homophobia and heterosexism in a college of
education: a culture of fear, a culture of silence. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 23, 651–670. doi:10.1080/09518390903551035
Youdell, D. (2006). Impossible Bodies, Impossible Selves: Exclusions and student subjectivi-
ties. Dordrecht: Springer.