Homophobia in our school?

Transcription

Homophobia
in our school?
Report
Written by : Jasna Magić
Društvo informacijski center Legebitra
Statistical analysis by
Jasna Magič and Marko Koprivnikar
Statistical analysis verification by
Marko Koprivnikar, B.A. in Organisational
Management
Translation: Sabina Avsec
The report is supported by the European Commission, Justice,
Freedom and Security Directorate within the Daphne III
programme (Prevent and combat violence against children,
young people and women and to protect victims and groups at
risk)
The views expressed in the report are those of the author and do
not necessarily reflect those of the European Commission
Student Organisation of University of Ljubljana
Ljubljana, January, 2012
Homophobia in our School?
Research report, Legebitra
Contents
1. Introduction: Discussion about homosexuality as a method of
overcoming prejudice, or promotion of "radical homosexual
ideology"?
3
2. The Research: Homophobia in our School?
6
2.1 Methodology
8
2.2 The sample
9
2.3 Awareness of school policies against
discrimination and violence
11
2.4 A discourse on homosexuality in a class
15
2.5 Lack of the discourse
16
2.6 The topic of homosexuality in the curriculum
17
2.7 Identification, perception and tackling of
homophobic violence
20
2.8 Competence for addressing and challenging homophobia
25
2.9 The needs of school staff when introducing discourse
on homosexuality and when challenging homophobia
31
3. Summary
36
4. Recommendations
40
5. About the Organization Association informational centre
Legebitra
41
6. Appendix 1 - Online questionnaire
43
7. Appendix 2 – Bibliography
53
2
1. Introduction:
Discussion on homosexuality as a method of
overcoming prejudice, or promotion of "radical homosexual
ideology"?
In November 2010 the Organisation Društvo informacijski center Legebitra for
the first time faced strong opposition against of one of its basic projects − the
implementation of human rights education workshops. Supported also by
political parties, Zavod kul.si − Zavod za družino in kulturo življenja (Institute
for Family and Culture of Life) and Civilna iniciativa za družino in pravice otrok
(Civil Initiative for Family and the Rights of Children), accused organisations
Društvo informacijski center Legebitra and Amnesty International Slovenia that
their workshops on human rights education in secondary schools are promoting
radical homosexual ideology, recruiting the youth for their own organisations,
and are encouraging them to question their own sexual orientation and gender.
The unfounded accusations, primarily intended to cause moral panic at the time
of the public debate about the new Family Code1, came to a head in December,
2010. Zavod kul.si and Civilna iniciativa demanded from the Ministry of
Education and Sport they forbid the aforementioned workshops in secondary and
primary schools. Since the opposition to the workshops was clearly politically
motivated, the national parliament also discussed a question, which addressed
the legitimacy of the obvious politicisation of the school environment and
obvious abuse of the educational field for political ends.
In short, at the end of 2010, the Slovene social and political arenas were
debating, whether the discussion about homosexuality and homophobia in
schools is even acceptable, and who may (possibly) debate about
homosexuality, and in what manner.
In the process of public (media) discourse about the subject, the indecisiveness
and lack of strong will from the main actors in the educational system were more
than obvious. One year later they are still blind to homophobia in the
educational system, and do not own enough awareness and motivation to
1
On September 21, 2009, the Slovene government presented a draft of the new Family Code,
which would allow same-sex couples to marry and adopt children. On January 24, 2011, the
Government announced its intention to change the bill before its final version is passed by the
National Assembly. The amendments would be made due to the difficulty of passing the bill.
Marriage would be defined as a union between a man and a woman, but same-sex registered
partnerships would have all rights of marriage except joint adoption (step-child adoption would be
allowed). On June 16, 2011, a new Family Code was passed which gave registered same-sex
partners all the rights of married couples, except with regards to joint adoption. The new law was
challenged on 1 September 2011 by a conservative popular movement 'The Civil Initiative for the Family and
Rights of Children', which called for a national referendum on the issue, and started gathering the requisite
[32]
popular support.
In response, the Government asked the Constitutional Court to judge whether such a
referendum would be constitutional. On 26 December 2011, the Constitutional Court ruled that holding
referendum on this issue is constitutional. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_samesex_unions_in_Slovenia, 22.01.2012
3
implement the necessary changes. Part of expert field, however took a stand,
firmly and loudly. Among many, the authors of articles in the special edition of
the "Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies: Homosexuality and School"
(2009), pointed out, without hesitation, that the educational system in Slovenia
is heteronormative and not in accordance with the European Convention on
Human Rights. They also pointed out that in accordance with the approved
policies, explicit objectives and standards of knowledge about homosexuality
should have already been included in the curriculum of primary schools, the
university programmes for teachers-to-be should train undergraduates on how
to address these issues, while those who are already teaching should undergo
additional training about the subject (Komidar, Mandeljc in the Journal of
Contemporary Educational Studies, 2009:178).
As Marta Pirnar points out: "The Slovene youth should not be an exception to
the issue of homosexuality. The young should not be deprived of the literature
that can present homosexuality not only as a taboo, secret and menace, but as
one of the forms of love that should not be surrounded by prejudice and fear."
(Pirnar in the Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 2009:178)
In the efforts aimed at improving the connection between topic of homosexuality
and school different aspects must be included and studied: the education system
as an institution that creates the conditions for educational processes,
(co)dependency of individual institutions (schools) from the system, the stories
and experiences of young gays and lesbians, and last but not least, the attitude
and opinions of school staff − teachers, who have the greatest potential to
improve the situation. Namely, the teachers, besides the parents, create and
direct the teaching process, and with their views and actions form a basis, on
which the youth will later build their lives. Therefore, it is important that the
teachers are aware of the influence that they have on the lives of their students.
The present report gathers the voices, experiences and opinions of 323 teachers
from the Slovene secondary schools. Within the process of the research the
participants were directly involved in the discussion on homosexuality and
homophobia, (possibly) faced discomfort, but undoubtedly contributed to
breaking the notorious educational silence about homosexuality. Except with a
few individuals, the analysis of data, with the majority, shows a significant shift
in perspective from extremely negative perceptions of homosexuality, and an
important turnaround toward the recognition of the importance of the discussion
about homosexuality in the school environment. In spite of the fact that most of
the respondents have inadequate information and (some of them) reservations
about the topic, they see this as an ethical and moral responsibility, which will
help them carry out their calling. The gathered information clearly underlines the
need for greater support and changes, which must exceed the level of the school
and the individual, and be adopted on the national, local and institutional level.
4
The past experiences have taught us that the educational system, regarding the
discourse on homosexuality, is headstrong and sometimes inflexible;
consequently, for successful work within this project we tried to engage with
those who can bring changes from within. For all the support with the research
we would therefore like to thank the Ministry of Education and Sports of the
Republic of Slovenia, Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth, the Educational
Research Institute and SVIZ– Education, Science and Culture Trade Union of
Slovenia. The NSLE (National School of Leadership in Education), the "Mladi
Učitelj" online portal, and the "Šolski razgledi" magazine helped us with the
distribution of the online questionnaire.
With this report we would like to make sure a continuous, objective, nonideological and critical discourse on homosexuality finally finds its place within
the Slovene educational environment. Therefore, we would especially like to
thank all 323 participants for their trust in sharing of their experiences.
Jasna Magić and Simon Maljevac
Organisation Association Informational Centre Legebitra
5
2. The Research:
"I think the school environment is truly
becoming more open to it, maybe we are finally
coming towards that moment when we can talk
about homosexuality openly and without
reservations."2
(Zoja, 56)
The existing Slovene research dealing with education and homophobia,
predominantly studies the situation of and violence as experienced by LGBT
youth in schools, or tries to establish whether and in what manner does the
discourse on homosexuality actually appear in the school environment. In the
research on everyday life of gays and lesbians (N=445) in Slovenia (Švab,
Kuhar, 2005) 53% of respondents reported at least one experience of violence in
school due their sexual orientation. Similar conclusions were drawn from the
research on the everyday lives of LGBT young people conducted by Društvo
informacijski center Legebitra (2007, N=221). The research revealed that more
than one tenth of LGBT students in the school environment often face violence
(mostly verbal) due to their sexual orientation, and more than 35% of the
respondents had at least one experience of violence due to their sexual
orientation in school. Both studies visibly stress that the school environment is a
dangerous space for LGBT youth. This is also confirmed by the last research by
the Organisation Društvo informacijski center Legebitra, regarding this topic,
titled "Excuse me, Miss, Are you a Lesbian?" (N=123), which in comparison to
previous studies, does not focus on the experiences of students but rather on
LGBT educational staff.
The "Homophobia in our school?" research is a part of an international project
"Breaking the Walls of Silence"3, which studies the openness of the school
environment to the issue of homosexuality. In Slovenia, the research was
carried out between April, 2011, and December, 2011. The information was
gathered through an online questionnaire and focus groups. The online
questionnaire was available between 14th June and 21st November, 2011, and
was based on a model developed for secondary school teachers in 2005 by LGBT
2
The respondents’ statements were translated form colloquial into grammatically correct Slovene, where we
took care not to change their tone or the meaning. The names under the statements are fictitious. The number
beside the name represents the age of the respondent.
3
A two-year project titled "Breaking the Walls of Silence" is run in partnership with the Polish organisation
Kampania Przeciw Homofobii and the Scottish organisation LGBT Youth Scotland. The project started in April
2011. Project activities in Poland and Slovenia are focused on the work with secondary school teachers;
Scotland focuses on working with university students. The main objective of the project is to prove that school
staff needs additional support when introduced to the discourse on homosexuality or challenged by
homophobia.
6
Youth Scotland4. The questionnaire was designed in the 1KA online tool, which
enables gathering and analysis of data on a server (SaaS). In the first phase of
the project (June), the questionnaire was sent to publically available e-mails of
all public secondary schools in Slovenia5, with a request they distribute it among
teachers and other school staff. In the second phase (October) we sent it to the
e-mails of all headmasters with the help of the National School of Leadership in
Education. The first two phases yielded less than a half of the final number of
respondents. The majority of respondents, almost 60 %, were acquired by
sending individual calls to teachers' publically available school e-mails in the last
phase (October).
In addition to the online questionnaire three focus groups with a total of 14
participants (3 males and 11 females), who represented three different
secondary schools, were orgainsed. Within the focus groups we wanted to record
the actual experiences and stories of teachers from their school environments.
The focus groups were held with teachers who teach in the Central, Savinja and
Drava regions.
The study was preformed abiding the rules of ethics. The participants were
familiarised with the content, aim, objectives and the course of the research, the
method of information gathering and analysis, and reporting of results. We did
not collect any personal information from the participants, or information about
the schools where they teach.
The report consists of two parts:
(1)
The statistical and qualitative analysis of data: online questionnaire and
focus groups.
(2)
The summary of results.
The conclusion of the report contains the recommendations for changes, which
come from the main conclusions of the research.
4
The original questionnaire is available at:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/05/25091604/12, 12.01.2012
5
A list of public secondary schools from the Ministry of Education and Sports:
https://krka1.mss.edus.si/registriweb/Seznam2.aspx?Seznam=3010, 15.01.2012
7
2.1 Methodology
The online questionnaire consisted of 42 questions, which focused on the
following areas:
- knowledge of school staff about the school policies against discrimination
and violence,
- the incidence of the discussion about homosexuality in class,
- perception of homophobic violence in schools, and addressing the
violence,
- competences and skills of the school staff for addressing and challenging
homophobic violence, and
- the needs of school staff when introduced to the discourse on
homosexuality or challenged by homophobia.
In the research and analysis we discuss homophobic violence between students
(peer violence), except where stated otherwise.
For the purposes of preserving anonymity the participants were not asked to
provide the name of the school. The sample therefore does not enable
generalisation of results to all Slovene secondary schools. As regardless of the
overall regional participation, we cannot establish how many different schools
actually participated in the research.
The quantitative analysis was prepared by SPSS (version 16.00) and Microsoft
Excel 2007 programs.
In the introduction to the questionnaire the term homophobia was defied as an
irrational fear, hatred or intolerance to LGB (lesbian, gay, bisexual) individuals
and / or groups; as dislike, fear or hatred of homosexuality, with consequences
like prejudice, discrimination and violence. Homophobic violence/incident is any
form of violence, which includes elements of homophobia. The forms of
homophobic violence include verbal and nonverbal (psychical) violence, e.g.:
harassment, bullying and threats, and homophobic comments and insults (e.g.
look at that fag, sissy, poofter ...), as well as physical violence (hitting, kicking,
spitting), often accompanied by homophobic insults. Homophobic violence was
also defined as abusive jokes about gays and lesbians; we strongly stressed that
homophobic violence can also be experienced by persons, who support LGBs
and/or persons, who are not LGB, but are perceived as such.
The analysis of the questionnaire follows the structure of the questionnaire
(Appendix 1); the basis for the qualitative interpretation of information and
development of recommendations was provided by the support literature
(Appendix 2).
8
2.2 The Sample
The online questionnaire was partially completed by 484 respondents. The
analysis includes only those, which were fully completed, which was also stated
in the intro to the questionnaire.
The final sample, for which all the results presented in the continuation are valid
(unless otherwise specified), thus consists of 309 respondents.6 It is comprised
of 78.8 % females and 28.2 % males. The sample clearly includes more women,
which is not surprising, since the educational system employs more women than
men. The majority of respondents are between 31 to 50 years of age. (Table 1)
Age group
%
20 – 30
31 – 40
41 – 50
51 – 60
61 – 70
več kot 70
11,0
37,5
34,0
15,9
1,0
0,6
Table 1 – Age groups
The sample includes 89 % of teachers, 5 % of respondents are counsellors and
social workers, while the rest are psychologists, headmasters and librarians. For
all groups of respondents within this research we use an umbrella term − school
staff.
The dispersion of respondents according to the region and type of school where
they teach (Table 2) shows that the survey covers all regions. The majority of
respondents teach in the Central region (28.7 %), which is not surprising, since
the region has the highest number of schools. According to the list of public
schools 39 secondary schools out of 158 are located in the Central region.
Regardless of the numbers however, the response rate of teachers in this region
is lower than the response rate of, for example the Drava region, which has
(according to the list of public schools) a total of 25 schools (with 22.6 %
response rate), which is comparable to the Savinja region response rate
(according to the list - 21 schools), where 12.9 % of our respondents teach.
The majority of respondents teach in public grammar schools or secondary
vocational schools. Those who selected "Other”, wrote that they are teaching at
several schools simultaneously.
6
The number (309) represents the total number of respondents, who completed the questionnaire. The final number of all participants in
the survey is 323, taking into account the 14 teachers from focus groups.
9
Type of school:
Statistical
region
Grammar
school
(private)
Grammar
school
(public)
Vocational
School
Technical
–
vocational
School
Mura
1
7.1 %
2
1.3 %
1
6.7 %
Drava
1
7.1 %
42
27.8 %
Carinthia
1
7.1 %
Technical
School
Other:
Total
2
2.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
6
1.9 %
5
33.3 %
19
19.0 %
1
10.0 %
2
10.5 %
70
22.7 %
5
3.3 %
0.0 %
4
4.0 %
1
10.0 %
1
5.3 %
12
3.9 %
0.0 %
11
7.3 %
4
26.7 %
17
17.0 %
5
50.0 %
3
15.8 %
40
12.9 %
0.0 %
1
.7 %
0.0 %
3
3.0 %
0.0 %
2
10.5 %
6
1.9 %
0.0 %
3
2.0 %
0.0 %
3
3.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
6
1.9 %
Southeast
Slovenia
0.0 %
11
7.3 %
0.0 %
8
8.0 %
1
10.0 %
1
5.3 %
21
6.8 %
Central
Slovenia
9
64.3 %
44
29.1 %
2
13.3 %
27
27.0 %
1
10.0 %
5
26.3 %
88
28.5 %
Upper
Carniola
Inner
CarniolaKarst
1
7.1 %
13
8.6 %
1
6.7 %
10
10.0 %
1
10.0 %
1
5.3 %
27
8.7 %
0.0 %
9
6.0 %
0.0 %
5
5.0 %
0.0 %
4
21.1 %
18
5.8 %
1
7.1 %
4
2.6 %
2
13.3 %
1
1.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
8
2.6 %
0.0 %
6
4.0 %
0.0 %
1
1.0 %
0.0 %
0.0 %
7
2.3 %
14
100.0 %
151
100.0 %
15
100.0 %
100
100.0 %
10
100.0 %
19
100.0
%
309
100.0
%
Savinja
Central Sava
Lower Sava
Gorizia
CoastalKarst
Total
Table 2 – Regional dispersion/type of school
The majority of respondents stated that they have been teaching at their school
between 5 to 10 years.
In an open question the respondents were asked to specify which subject(s)
they teach. The answers were logically organised into four categories, as seen in
Table 3.
10
Subject areas
%
Humanities
43.4
Science
20.1
Specialised subjects
17.2
Physical education
4.9
No answer
12.0
Other
Total
2.5
100
Table 3 – Respondents subject areas
A detailed analysis of the answers provided revealed that the participants were
mostly teachers of specialised subjects (17.2%), foreign languages (14.9%), the
Slovene language (9.7%) and mathematics (8.7%).
2.3 Awareness of school policies against discrimination and violence
Neža Kogovšek Šalamon in the article "Šola, homofobija in pravo" (School,
homophobia and law) (Obrazi homofobije, 2011) in a review of the existing
legislation of the Republic of Slovenia, pertaining to the education system,
establishes that none of these policies contain provisions that prohibit
discrimination in schools. Discrimination is mentioned only in the "Rules on the
Code of Conduct in Secondary Schools" (Official Gazette of RS, no. 43/2007),
where the second article says that every secondary school student has the right
to safety and protection against all forms of violence in schools, and to equal
treatment regardless of their gender, race and ethnical background, religion,
family's social status and other circumstances. (ibid., 2011:21)
Since individual provisions in policies create a safety mechanism for the students
as well as for teachers, the knowledge of these is key especially when we want
to react to and address violence.
Table 4 shows that almost 70 % of respondents know that the existing policies
and their provisions also regulate violence and discrimination among the
students. Nevertheless, around 30 % of respondents are not familiar with this.
The result is worrying since it can be interpreted that these respondents are also
not aware of the fact that the "Rules on the Code of Conduct in Secondary
Schools" pertain to all secondary schools.
11
Does your school have a policy, which
also regulates violence and
discrimination against and among
students?
%
69.9
Yes
No
13.6
Don't know
16.5
Table 4 – Awareness of provisions against discrimination and violence
Table 5 shows that the respondents (N=216) are relatively unfamiliar with the
content of provisions about violence and discrimination. The Rules on the Code
of Conduct in Secondary Schools (within the context of the question), namely,
explicitly only forbid discrimination on the basis of gender, race, ethnic
background and religion, however the respondents also chose the option of
sexual orientation (29.6 %) and disability/handicap (46.3 %).
Do the rules explicity forbid discrimination and
violence on the basis of:
Gender
Sexual orientation
Disability/handicap
Race
Ethnic background
Religious beliefs
Yes
No
43.1
29.6
41.2
44.9
46.3
45.4
44.4
54.6
45.4
40.3
39.4
39.8
Don't
know
12.5
15.7
13.4
14.8
14.4
14.8
Table 5 – Personal circumstances, as regulated by the school policies (in percentage)
Since the questions 2.1 and 2.2 can also be interpreted as if we are asking about
special / additional school policies, we allow a possibility that certain schools
have their own Rules, based on the “Rules on the Code of Conduct in Secondary
Schools”, which contain similar, even expanded provisions and that some of the
responses may refer to those.
In order to verify the thesis, however we would have to check all the provisions
on discrimination and violence in schools represented by the respondents; which
information collected within this research does not allow.
Regardless of the possible interpretation of questions 2.1 and 2.2 (see Appendix
1), the results clearly state that the respondents are considerably less familiar
12
with the representation of sexual orientation, in comparison with other personal
circumstances mentioned in the provisions of the Rules / policies.
In order to prevent and monitor violence in the school environment, some
schools are introducing mainly preventive approaches, for example organisation
of educational workshops and such, where the school cooperates with local and
nongovernmental organisations. As shown in Table 6, the majority of
respondents are not familiar with any events being organised in their school that
would address discrimination and violence on the basis of a specific personal
circumstance.
Does your school organise events (workshops, visiting
lecturers, etc.), which specifically address violence
and discrimination on the basis of:
Don't
Yes
No
know
Gender
26.2 59.5
14.2
Sexual orientation
21.7 61.8
16.5
Disability/handicap
32.4 51.8
15.9
Race
21.4 62.8
15.9
Ethnic background
24.9 57.6
17.5
Religious beliefs
18.8 63.1
18.1
Table 6 – Events/workshops on discrimination and violence in schools (in percentage)
Violence and discrimination are generally not popular subjects in school
discourse, as is also stated by the authors of a research titled: " Nasilje v šolah:
konceptualizacija, prepoznavanje in modeli preprečevanja" (Violence in Schools:
Conceptualisation, Recognition and Prevention Models) (2008). The research
also shows that almost half of the Slovene secondary schools (42 %) do not
engage with external actors in prevention of peer violence.
The experiences of the participants in the focus groups here partially confirm the
results from the online questionnaire. One of the groups pointed out that the
school does not organise workshops or events on the topic of violence or
discrimination nor cooperates with external experts. There was a general
consensus that such activities can be useful, but not as prevention but rather as
a solution for tackling and addressing violence when it already occurs.
Otherwise, the mere mentioning of a potentially controversial issue could
instigate unnecessary conflict. In the context of "what is invisible is not a
problem" the teachers in this group particularly placed the discussion about
homosexuality, which in their opinion is needed only when the issue itself
becomes controversial in the school or in class:
13
"Sometimes it feels that if you talk too much about it
[homosexuality] ... you only give fuel to those who oppose it.
Therefore, if there is no problem, there is no need for discussion,
since the discussion itself could cause conflict."
(Pandora, 46)
The participants’ experience of another other group is quite the opposite; their
school actively addresses the issues of violence and discrimination and explicitly
challenges the prejudice about homosexuality through cooperation with external
lecturers as well as through participation at various events. The teachers noted
positive influences of such awareness raising activities in students, who are
actively involved. They pointed out that coming into contact with differences
added to the experience of a more open environment that actively promotes
understanding and empathy towards minorities. They also stressed that such a
high level of involvement in the fight against violence and discrimination would
be impossible without active support from the school management.
"In conversations with teaching colleagues from other schools I
notice that our cooperation with external actors and organisation of
workshops is almost enviable. I can sense that not all school
managements approve this kind of approach."
(Zoja, 56)
The participants of the third focus group mentioned that their school has various
internal methods for continuous promotion of tolerance and non-violent
behaviour. When introducing topics which regular teachers cannot cover
effectively they cooperate with external lecturers. Sexual orientation is not
addressed explicitly but within the context of "different personal backgrounds”.
"Homosexuality as a topic does not come up explicitly, since
constantly promoting tolerance towards all differences. Our
has great diversity, like special needs children, so being
nothing special. If kids in primary school accept a child with
needs, then accepting homosexuality is a piece of cake."
we are
school
gay is
special
(Češnja, 60)
14
2.4 A discourse on homosexuality in a class
Research to this date on discourse about homosexuality in class shows mostly
the lack thereof; reasons vary. Rare data from teachers indicate lack of
experience and knowledge regarding the subject, while the experiences of
nongovernmental organisations show the power and influence of parents, who
wish to influence the teaching process and silence the discussion about
homosexuality; another reason is the absence of this topic from the curriculum.
Within the survey 6.8 % of respondents answered that within class they often
discuss homosexuality, 35 % discuss about the topic sometimes, 24.9 % discuss
it rarely, 12 % believe the discussion is not within the scope of the subject they
teach, only a few believe that the discussion does not belong in school (1.6 %).
(Table 7)
Within this question the division between genders is interesting, since 71 % of
female teachers at least sometimes discuss homosexuality, while 40 % of male
teachers never discuss homosexuality in class.
Do you also discuss homosexuality and homophobia within the subject(s) you teach?
Male
4
4.6%
22
25.3%
23
26.4%
16
18.4%
17
19.5%
No, does
not
belong in
the
regular
class
2
2.3%
Female
17
7.7%
86
38.7%
54
24.3%
33
14,9%
20
9.0%
3
1.4%
9
4.1%
Total
21
6.8%
108
35.0%
77
24.9%
49
15.9%
37
12.0%
5
1.6%
12
3.9%
Gender
Yes,
often
Yes,
sometime
s
Yes,
rarely
No, I have
not had the
opportunity
No, does
not belong
within the
subject
Other
3
3.4%
Total
87
100.0
%
222
100.0
%
309
100.0
%
Table 7 – Incidence of the discussion in the classroom
29.4 % of those, who discuss homosexuality with their students, believe that the
discussion in class is most often initiated by the teacher, 33.5 % that the
discussion is opened by students, 35.5 % that it is brought up equally by both.
Within the focus groups the teachers had quite different views about the
inclusion of the discussion in their classes. The opinion that the issue is often not
brought up was predominating. One group discussed that they could, within their
own subjects, gradually introduce an expertly supported discussion, which would
put students in a position, where they would have to think about the issue, while
15
the participants in another group believed that the topic should be addressed
only when it poses a problem or when students display negative attitudes. All
focus groups pointed out that the teacher, who opens the topic or participates in
the discussion, should be confident and have relevant and accurate information.
The experience of our participants clearly shows that the lack of experience and
information influences whether a teacher will open this topic in class or not.
Tanja stressed that she does not feel knowledgeable and only addresses the
topic in class only when necessary.
"I can sense that in some classes the students would like a more
straightforward discussion about it, so I started to feel fear and a
sort of pressure. I think I'm afraid to address the issue, because I'm
not sure I would be good at it. I don't feel confident. It also depends
on the dynamics and attitude in the class about the topic in general."
(Tanja, 34)
According to the focus groups, the discussion is brought up by teachers and
students alike. However it is sometimes difficult to avoid the discussion during
some subjects, if its contents are to be delivered comprehensively and
objectively, as states Lev:
"I teach sociology and philosophy, and this topic is hard to avoid.
The discussion begins spontaneously. Questions and opinions from
the students come by themselves, and reactions vary greatly. I feel
it is important that I create a space, where the opinions on the topic
can be expressed freely, and in a manner that is not offensive and
threatening to anyone."
(Lev, 36)
2.5 Lack of the discourse
Almost half (48.9 %) of those who do not discuss homosexuality (N=92) believe
that it is because they do not know enough about the topic, and 19.6 % believe
that the discussion is not within the scope of their teaching.
The presence of the discussion is influenced also by the absence of the issue
from the school curriculum. This is confirmed by the opinions of several
respondents, who wrote under "Other". One of the female respondents wrote:
"There is no time for the topic, because the school curriculum does not foresee
it," while another respondent wrote, "I have not yet come by a direct contextual
link to this issue, while it could have been included in the curriculum and
addressed as such (but it is not)." The data from the sample shows that the
16
teachers, who do not discuss the topic in class, mostly teach science and
specialised subjects.
In the special edition of the Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies:
Homosexuality and School) (Volume 60, No. 4, 2009), as well as in the "Obrazi
homofobije" (2011) and other surveys, we can read that the discussion about
homosexuality in schools is still too often understood as promotion of
homosexuality. Although we listed it as one of the options in the question about
the lack of discussion, our sample shows this belief is held only by 1.6 % of our
respondents.
2.6 The topic of homosexuality in the curriculum
Table 8 shows that more than 60 % of respondents believe that the discussion
about homosexuality should be an integral part of the curriculum at least in
some subjects; 12 % of respondents believe that the discussion should be a part
of the educational process, but within the compulsory electives, while 4 %
believe that it does not belong within the regular classes.
Should the discussion about homosexuality and
homophobia be included in the curriculum?
4,2%
4,9%
Yes, in most of the subjects
9,7%
12,3%
Yes, in some subjects
8,7%
Don't know
60,2%
No, the discussion should be treated
within the compulsory electives
Such discussion does not belong in
the regular class
Other:
Table 8 – Inclusion of the discussion about homosexuality in the curriculum
The inclusion of the topic in the curriculum does not actually guarantee
objectivity of its delivery. The way a topic is presented always depends on the
values, knowledge and objectivity of the teacher, as is also the opinion of one of
the respondents: "I believe it is not necessary to include it in the curriculum, but
teachers should have a clear standpoint toward all types and forms of violence;
only then they are able to discuss this with their students. The students should
17
always feel safe enough to be able to talk about violence, regardless whether the
topic is in the curriculum or not."
The list of subjects, within which the curriculum should include the discussion
about homosexuality, is led by humanities (sociology, psychology, art history,
etc.). Under "Other" the teachers mentioned various subjects, most often
physical education, health education, philosophy, ethics, etc. (Table 9)
The subjects, which should include
the discussion about homosexuality:
98,1%
100,0
90,3%
80,0
Sociology
Psychology
Art History
Biology
History
Native language
Foreign languages
67,6% 66,7%
60,0
47,7%
39,4 %
40,0
30,1%
20,0
0,0
Table 9 – The subjects, which should include the discussion about homosexuality
In spite of the legal basis, which already indirectly introduces the discussion
about homosexuality, 73.1 % of respondents believe the discussion about the
issue is not present enough in the secondary schools. (Table 10)
Is the discussion about homosexuality and
homophobia in secondary schools present:
Too much
0,6
18,4
Enough
73,1
Not enough
1,3
6,5
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
100,0
This discussion does not
belong in a school
Other
Table 10 – Presence of the discussion in schools
18
Under "Other", the most common answer was "Don't know", while one of the
respondents noticed that the topic is present in the school environment, but in a
negative and dismissive manner: "I believe it is not present in the right way and
it is therefore not present enough." In the experiences of another respondent
the discussion is not present in the school environment at all: "I wanted to say
'not enough', but the right answer is 'not present at all'. Should we discuss it
more often? Yes."
The data from the focus groups almost entirely support the results of the online
questionnaire. More than two thirds of participants pointed out that they do not
discuss the issue often enough, but they would probably do it if the topic was
included in the curriculum. The opinion of the majority was that the teachers
should address the issue more often in a proficient and objective manner only
two participants believed the issue is addressed often enough:
"I believe that it is enough what the curriculum already addresses,
because I do not see it as a problem."
(Ana, 55)
Reservations toward a more frequent and competent discussion turned out to
be, in some participants, the result of deeply rooted stereotypes, which are the
consequence of not only an individual's understanding of this personal
background, but also a product of the educational system, which reinforces
these stereotypes. Pandora pointed out that as a teacher she is aware of these
stereotypes and is trying to face them on a rational level. She is aware her
objections are irrational, but at the same time prejudices create a doubt into the
legitimacy of her own opinion about the topic:
"Within the context of this topic I sometimes wonder what is right
and wrong. I have my own opinion about what I teach in class. I
believe I have a very tolerant attitude toward homosexuality. But in
the fourth grade of primary school they still teach that a family
consists of a father, mother and two children ... We should also
question what we are being taught ..."
(Pandora, 46)
Those who often address the issue pointed out that it most often happens
because of questions and comments from students. Some teachers, in spite of
indirect presence of the issue in the curriculum, are well aware that the debate
about the issue must be clearly present; the discussion is not only allowed but
also implicitly prescribed by the principle of human rights, which represent the
framework of the common values that public schools are obligated to follow:
19
"The discussion about homosexuality is for me a part of the
educational objectives; the knowledge about this issue is a part of
general education, and we can do this as teachers. We have the
authority. Education about the respect of human rights is a part of
the curriculum. The authority is on our side."
(Zoja, 56)
Similarly as in the online questionnaire, the focus groups also displayed the
polarisation according to the categories of subjects under within which the
discussion should take place. The majority of teachers believed the freedom and
the responsibility to raise the discussion in class falls on the teachers that teach
humanities:
"I believe that an individual teacher can already do a lot about it if
they want. Our school has a great method of presenting the
accomplishments of important persons through stories, anecdotes
and biographies. In art history, history and the Slovene language one
can accomplish a lot, for example present homosexual authors,
inventors and artists as role models and thus present homosexuality
in a non-threatening way."
(Benka, 45)
2.7 Identification, perception and tackling of homophobic violence
"Since you're asking ... I do not even detect
other forms of homophobia, except comments."
(Zora, 54)
The results of the survey by the School Student organisation of Slovenia (DOS)7
about violence in the Slovene secondary schools (2008) show that, in the
opinion and experiences of students, teachers never or very rarely help stop the
violence. The authors speculate as to the reasons, but they believe that teachers
do not recognize the violence, or the violence is hidden. Awareness about who
can be a (typical) victim of violence and recognising the causes of violence can
definitely help to improve sensitivity to violence.
7
The main aim of the research about violence in secondary schools of the School Student
Organisation of Slovenia was to determine if violence is present in the Slovene secondary schools,
and if it is to what degree, how it manifests, how students face and experience it, and what is their
opinion about the possibility of prevention. The data was gathered through a questionnaire sent to
135 Slovene secondary schools. The analysis of the data included the responses of 600 students.
Source: http://dos.omnia.si/uploads/dosraziskava-o-nasilju-n.pdf, 15.01.2012
20
About who is the most likely victim of homophobic violence, 82.5 % respondents
believed that these are the students perceived by their peers and/or the
community to be LGB, 62.5 % of respondents thought it is the students, who do
not hide their sexual orientation, while 56.6 % believe that the most likely
victims of homophobia are also those students (boys), who are not "manly"
enough, and teachers (and other school staff), who are challenging homophobia
(52.8 %), 44.7 % of respondents also believe that the teachers, who do not hide
their orientation, are at high risk.
Several respondents also selected "Other", writing that anyone who is not
conforming to the majority or raises the discussion on homosexuality can fall
victim to homophobia. One of the respondents wrote: "We do not talk about
homosexuality in our school, so we do not have a lot of homophobia. But anyone
who says anything about homosexuality can face homophobia. All who stick out
get called names (queer, sissy, faggot, etc.)."
According to the definition of verbal and physical homophobic violence in the
introduction, the respondents were asked if they are aware of any verbal or
physical homophobic violence in their school at the present.
The data in Table 11 show that at present 35.5 % of respondents notice verbal
homophobic violence. The physical homophobic violence is being perceived by
almost 5 % of respondents.
In perception of violence there is an interesting discrepancy with regard to the
gender, since both forms of violence is perceived to a greater degree by the
male teachers.
At the present, are you familiar with any cases of
verbal homophobic violence at your school
At the present, are you familiar with any cases of
physical homophobic violence at your school
Gender
Yes
No
Don't know if it is
homophobia
Yes
No
Don't know if it is
homophobia
Male
37
42.5%
42
48.3%
7
8.0%
8
9.2%
75
86.2%
4
4.6%
Female
72
32.4%
130
58.6%
19
8.6%
7
3.2%
200
90.%
15
6.8%
Total
109
35.3%
172
55.7%
26
8.4%
15
4.9%
275
89.0%
19
6.1%
Table 11 – Perception of verbal and physical homophobic violence/respondents' gender
21
The results from Table 11 are not surprising, since most of the existing studies
about the violence in schools reveal that the most common forms of violence
among students are verbal or psychological. There is less physical and other
forms of violence. In comparison with the results of the "Violence in Schools"
research (2008) the perception of psychological violence in our sample is lower
by almost 10 %, but one must take into account that perception of psychological
violence is in itself difficult, while perception of psychological homophobic
violence requires additional knowledge. Therefore, we can safely assume that
teachers notice only some of it, which means that the real incidence of
homophobic violence is undoubtedly higher.
The fact that we start to think about homophobia only when somebody points it
out, is supported by an experience of one of the respondents: "Only when I
started to fill out this questionnaire, I began thinking that there is probably more
homophobia than we notice, but it is (if it exists) probably very hidden in the
school environment."
That teachers most often notice verbal violence is confirmed by the findings from
the focus groups. Within these the teachers most often mentioned jokes, swear
words, name calling, comments and prejudice as forms of homophobic violence.
Some participants in focus groups emphasized the difference between male and
female students regarding homophobic violence. They noticed considerably more
homophobia from male than female students:
"Boys often use words like 'faggot', 'gross', 'unnatural'. When I
mention homosexual practices from the ancient Greece, some male
students are absolutely overwhelmed and ask me if I am talking
about faggots; they just cannot grasp the idea."
(Ika, 46)
"I have seen boys get picked on at PE because lack of skills in sports,
or because somebody made a funny move. In lower grades when
their motors skills may not yet be developed, they make strange
moves that the others characterise as girly and that opens the gate
to the remarks; these boys are labelled for their entire time at that
school."
(Zoro, 27)
"Several times I have experienced deep and direct prejudice, mostly
from boys, but also from girls; however, boys are definitely in the
lead here."
(Taja, 28)
22
Table 12 confirms the hypothetic answers collected at question 4.2 and clearly
shows that male students are in fact exposed to homophobic violence to a
greater extent. This is also confirmed by all international and national studies:
"In school, gays are 'the ideal targets' for various insults and verbal abuse,
which are based on stereotypical image of homosexuals." (Maljavec and Magić in
Sodobna pedagogika, 2009:108).
Male
student
Female
student
A male
student
couple
A female
student
couple
Verbal homophobic
violence?
80.7
28.4
9.2
6.4
Physical homophobic
violence?
62.2
31.2
37.5
6.2
Who is facing :
Table 12 – Exposure to homophobic violence
The occurrence of homophobic violence for the period over the last three years
(Table 13) is especially interesting in comparison with the data from Table 11.
Table 13 shows that the occurrence rate for the period of the last three years is
twice as high as at the present. In total almost 30 % of respondents report that
they witnessed homophobic violence in school at least 6 times within the last
three years. If we also add those who witnessed violence at least once, the total
share of those, who witnessed homophobic violence in school in the last three
years, is 72.5 %.
Almost 5 % of respondents report that they witnessed incidents of homophobic
violence within the last five years more than 25 times.
23
In the school where you teach, how often did you
witness:
Verbal homophobic
violence
%
Physical
homophobic
violence
%
Never
23.9
Never
83.8
Once
7.4
Once
5.5
2 to 5 times
35.3
2 to 5 times
7.1
6 to 10 times
15.5
6 to 10 times
1.9
11 to 15 times
6.8
11 to 15 times
1.0
16 to 20 times
2.3
16 to 20 times
0.0
21 to 25 times
0.3
21 to 25 times
0.0
More than 25 times
4.9
More than 25 times
0.3
3.6
Other
Total
Other
Total
100.0
0.3
100.0
Table 13 - Perception of incidents of homophobic violence in the last three years
Under "Other" the respondents reported different experiences. A little less than a
half mentioned verbal homophobic violence became a part of "everyday life", as
one of the respondents wrote: "I noticed it, I don't know how many times.
Offhand use of vulgar words such as 'faggot', etc. is present in the school
hallways every month." However others, who do not witness homophobic
violence, acknowledge that this doesn’t mean it is not present, which is
confirmed by the experiences of at least two respondents: "I didn't notice it,
which doesn't mean it's not there," while the other wrote, "I didn't notice it
myself, but the students told me about it."
However the invisibility of homophobic violence is not only a result of a lack of
teachers’ skills and competences, but more than often a result of the invisibility
of young LGBs in the school environment which is also confirmed by Ika's
experience:
"Since the environment is not permissive, there are no visible gay
and lesbian students in our school, so I haven't had to use any
severe measures, so far, when addressing homophobic remarks or a
rude joke. I also haven't noticed more serious violence."
(Ika, 46)
The connection of invisibility of homophobic violence with the invisibility of LGB
individuals is confirmed by numerous articles and researches, among other
Jasna Magić in Začarani krog homofobnega nasilja (The vicious circle of
homophobic violence) (2011) writes: »The invisibility can easily be interpreted
24
as nonexistence. And it is exactly this nonexistence of gay and lesbian
individuals that in the long term brings about negative consequences. As it,
among other, also results in the invisibility of specific issues faced by gay and
lesbian individuals in the society and invisibility and denial of homophobic
violence. While this invisibility offers a platform for false tolerance that manifests
itself in the statements such as »I am not bothered by homosexuals, till I see
them in public« it at the same time allows stereotypes and prejudices about
homosexuality, that can't be overcome by the invisibility.” (Magić in Mavrična
svetovalnica, 2011:23)
2.8 Competence for addressing and challenging homophobia
Tanja Rener in her article "Homoseksualnost in šola: stališča študentk in
šudentov do obravnave homoseksualnosti pri pouku" (Homosexuality and
School: Students’ Attitudes Towards Discussing Homosexuality in Schools)
(Journal of Contemporary Sudies, 2009) points out that according to the results
from international surveys the school staff very rarely intervene when it comes
to homophobic violence. The reasons for lack of intervention can be found in
negative attitudes toward LGBTs and lack of knowledge about the possibility for
support for LGBT students. In the same article Rener states that within the
survey among the students of the Gay and Lesbian Studies at the Faculty of
Social Sciences in Ljubljana, that was carried out in the summer semester of
2009 (N=45), 60 % of respondents believed that teachers should be additionally
trained to address homosexuality and connected topics, 40 % believed that
additional training would be a good thing, while not necessary (ibid., 2009:110).
In our sample 33 % of respondents state they participated in a seminar about
how to challenge violence and discrimination in schools. Out of those who
participated in such a seminar, 36 % received information on how to tackle
homophobic violence and discrimination.
This means that our sample contains exactly 36 respondents, who received
information about how to challenge homophobia in schools at (a) seminar(s).
They represent a mere 12 % of our entire sample.
25
Have you within your teacher training receive information on
how to tackle homophobic violence and discrimination at
school?
Yes
36%
No
64%
Table 15 – The percentage of respondents (N=101), who received information about
how to tackle homophobia in schools
Similarly, the analysis of our focus groups shows that the majority of teachers
have no professional training in challenging homophobia and homophobic
remarks. Although the participants in two focus groups believed they have
enough information, the follow-up conversation revealed that the information
came mostly from secondary sources, via discussions and debates with
colleagues and co-workers and through media. Only two participants said they
sometimes consult expert and scientific texts about the topic.
About a half of participants in the second group thought they need more expert
information and training on the topic, while the other half believed that training
on the subject would be required, but they doubted teachers would want to
participate.
"The information that we have is there because of personal interest
and general knowledge. We do not have particular understanding
about the subject and I personally didn't attend any seminars about
it. I know that the National Education Institute and the Ministry [of
Education and Sports] organised trainings on the subject of violence,
but these seminars are probably attended more by teachers of
humanities. I think, at least in our school, the teachers are not so
much interested in the subject."
(Ana, 55)
"I personally believe that I have enough information about the topic.
But I believe it is important that I am aware that I also have a few
unaddressed fears about it. How to tackle homophobia is not
addressed specifically at seminars about violence and discrimination.
In the best case scenario homophobia is listed as a possible form of
violence over a group at risk. I don't remember ever hearing more
about it."
(Lev, 36)
26
In their research Kuhar and Švab established that coming out has an important
place in the process of individual's reinterpretation and redefinition of their own
stigmatised identity (2005:54). Through the absence of discussion about
homosexuality in all areas, but especially from the family and school
environments, young gays and lesbians are growing up in a kind of informational
blockade, which maintains stigmatisation of homosexuality (ibid., 2005:63). In
spite of the fact that coming out is a process, which importantly influences an
individual's perception of him or herself and relationships with others, almost
half (49.2 %) of respondents in our survey believe that coming out of students
in the school is not necessary. (Table 16)
How would you feel if there was an LGBT
student in your class, who would not hide
his or her sexual orientation?
%
I believe that it is important that students feel
safe
46.6
I believe that coming out as LGBT is not
necessary
49.2
An LGBT student would make me feel
uncomfortable
Other
1.0
3.2
Table 16 – The attitude of respondents toward coming out in the school environment
However, coming out does not only favourably influence the individual in the
process, as it enables him or her to live in accordance with his or her identity,
but it also breaks the stereotype of "otherness" of LGBTs. This is also an
experience of one of the respondents, who wrote under "Other": "I found myself
in such a situation several times and coming out was one of the most important
experiences for students' development and creation of close and honest
relationships among students." Other respondents wrote different opinions under
“Other” about the necessity/importance of coming out. There were a few who
believed that coming out is an individual's private decision, and some
respondents wrote that they understand and support coming out, but that such
and individual would probably face difficulties because of it in school.
The focus groups dedicated a lot of time to coming out. The analysis shows
dispersion of opinions and experiences, and huge differences in understanding of
the meaning of coming out for a person, as well as its purpose. Within this
context most of the participants were of the typical opinion that revealing one’s
sexual orientation belongs in a private sphere and does not belong in the school
environment. Also with those, who justified this opinion with care for their
27
students, since the school environment is supposedly not a safe space, we
couldn’t sense an understanding of an individual's need for coming out. None of
the participants referred to possible added value of coming out for the school
and its studens.
The reaction to coming out is also connected to the teachers' knowledge about
and understanding of homosexuality, as proved by Pandora's experience; she
believes that due to inadequate knowledge she could not be a successful
confidant to an LGBT student:
"If a student came out to me, I would avoid talking about it and send
them to the social worker. Although we talk about this a lot ... I don't
know ... when you're in that kind of situation ... I'm not sure I would
be brave enough to delve into it."
(Pandora, 46)
In one of the focus groups there was a discussion about the actual case of
coming out by of the school’s students. The teachers mentioned confusion
regarding the help and support in the instance, when they could not be sure if
the coming out was a cry for attention or an actual expression of sexual
orientation:
"The discussion was opened when there was an actual girl, who
identified herself as a lesbian and turned to one of the teachers for
help. We talked about whether this is an actual coming out or more
of a fad. Did the girl want attention because of her family situation?
Anyways, it took us some time to establish how we could help her
and offer support."
(Češnja, 60)
In the context of the discussion on coming out and setting up a support system
for LGBT student’s a question was raised within the on-line questionnaire as well
as within the focus groups on whether gay or lesbian teacher could have a better
understanding of the situation of LGBT students and whether such teacher could
function as a support to LGBT students.
The results of a Research Report on the Situation of LGBT Educational Workers
in the School System in Slovenia: “Excuse me, Miss, are you a lesbian?”8«
8
The main aim of the project “Excuse me, Miss, are you a lesbian?” (Organization Društvo Legebitra, 2011) was
to gather data about whether the Slovene school space allows LGBT teachers to truly carry out their primary
mission without restrictions, whether it enables them to offer all available support to all their students, and
whether it openly allows them to teach and present themselves to their students in their entirety. The data was
gathered via an on-line questionnaire and half-structured individual interviews. The research involved 123
respondents. Source:
http://www.drustvo-legebitra.si/images/stories/Excuse_me_Miss_are_you_a_lesbian.pdf, (22.01.2012)
28
(Legebitra, 2011), show they can't. The participants of the research, who
revealed their sexual orientation in the school environment, due to unfriendly
work and educational setting can’t act as a support system to LGBT students.
They are also specifically avoiding raising the discussion about homosexuality in
class, since they believe that the students, colleagues, parents and the local
community could understand this stereotypically as promotion of homosexuality.
(ibid: 22).
“Before, when nobody knew about me, I often brought it [discussion
on homosexuality] up in class. But now that I know some of them
know I’m afraid I would not be taken seriously anymore, because, of
course I’m talking about it since I’m a lesbian – and the message
would fall flat. They could also understand it mistakenly as promotion."
(Pia, 30)
There are different ways of addressing different forms and types of violence in
schools. Violence can be addressed on the spot by a teacher who witnesses it;
teachers can also get advice from the school counsellor or from the school
management in more severe cases. Table 17 shows that a little less than 71 %
of respondents would talk to the student(s) (perpetrator) if they witnessed
verbal homophobic violence.
What would you do if you witnessed:
Homophobic verbal
violence
%
Homophobic physical
violence
%
I would immediately
sanction such behaviour
23.3
I would immediately
sanction such behaviour
68.6
I would talk to the student
about it
70.6
I would talk to the student
about it
18.8
I would report it to the
headmaster
I would not react to the
incident
3.6
0.3
I would report it to the
headmaster
I would not react to the
incident
9.4
0.0
Other
2.3
Other
3.2
Total
100
Total
100
Table 17 – Addressing homophobic violence
It is very encouraging to see that great majority of the respondents would
address the homophobic violence if they witnessed it. This was also evident from
29
the answers under "Other", where the respondents also stressed that they would
sanction/address homophobic violence like any other form / type of violence. On
the basis of this we could presume that the majority of respondents address or
tackle the violence they witness in schools. To a degree, the statement can be
verified with the question about the self-assessment of skills for tackling
homophobic violence.
The data in Table 18 show that 42 % of respondents believe that they do not
have the appropriate knowledge and skills to tackle verbal homophobic violence,
while 60 % do not feel competent to tackle physical homophobic violence.
In your opinion, do you have enough knowledge and skills to appropriately
challenge:
verbal homophobic
violence
Yes, enough
Yes, some
Not enough
I don't have any
Total
%
22
35.6
40.1
2.3
100
physical homophobic
violence
Yes, enough
Yes, some
Not enough
I don't have any
Total
%
14.9
24.6
48.5
12
100
Table 18 – Competence of respondents for challenging homophobic violence
The collected information does not allow for an assumption if and how a feeling
of incompetence actually influences actual tackling of homophobic violence,
however a relative answer might be found in the research “Nasilje v šolah”
(2008), where the authors linking the knowledge on violence with the reaction to
it state: “Knowledge, skills and attitude towards violence influence the sensitivity
toward and for addressing violence, and also strengthen the feeling of one's own
competence in this area. Without confidence that we can do it and the
knowledge about how to challenge the violence when it occurs, we are less likely
to intervene and sanction it. (Nasilje v šolah, 2008:155).
The data from the focus groups verify the information collected via on-line
questionnaire. All the participants assessed that they always react to violence
and challenge it when they notice it. The main method for challenging violence
was discussion. A couple of teachers mentioned they doubt their interventions,
in spite of arguments supported by facts, are able to convince the students that
their actions were violent and inappropriate:
30
"In class I always react to homophobic remarks and comments, but I
have a feeling, that the students are not taking me seriously. It
seems like they believe they are being thought something dry and
theoretical; that this is not a part of life and that rights are not
available to all. The students think that we are obligated to say those
things. They have a hard time accepting that your opinions differ or
that you might even have facts with which you challenge their way of
thinking. I noticed that my opinions regarding homosexuality do not
touch them."
(Zoja, 56)
"I have a hard time convincing students about something they do not
want to understand. We talked about homophobia a lot, but some
simply cannot exceed the emotions, connected to the issue."
(Taja, 28)
All participants stressed that they react to the violence that they witness in
class, however it was also pointed out that violence does not happen only during
class:
"There is a lot of tension between students also during breaks and
not only during classes. During breaks the teachers are not with the
students and we don't know what is going on during breaks in school
hallways."
(Zora, 54)
2.8 The needs of school staff when introducing discourse on
homosexuality and when challenging homophobia
"Better understanding of the issue would surely help
toward a more active approach and understanding of
this specific personal background."
(Taja, 41)
Table 19 shows that, in the opinion of the majority of respondents (53.1 %),
challenging homophobia and overcoming it requires an anti-violence strategy on
a national level. This strategy should explicitly include approaches against
homophobia. 47.2 % believe that they would get the most support from
31
trainings on how to tackle homophobic violence and discrimination, while 32 %
of respondents believe enough support would already be the inclusion of the
issue in the curriculum.
What would you need to be more effective when
challenging homophobia in school?
100
A national policy that would
clearly address homophobia in
schools
More educational seminars /
trainings on the topic
90
80
70
Inclusion of the topic in the
curriculum
60
50
40
30
47,2
Parent's support
32
26,9
26,2
A local policy that would clearly
address homophobia in schools
20
10
6,8
3,2
Nothing - I have enough
support / information
0
Table 19 –The needs of school staff in the fight against homophobia
Many surveys show that the students' family environment is an important factor
in addressing violence. The students, staff and parents bring their own values,
attitudes, stereotypes and prejudice into the school environment and
interpersonal relationships. This is also confirmed by the results in table 20,
which show that the respondents believe that the largest obstacles in
overcoming homophobia in the school are negative attitudes and prejudice of
parents (68.3 %) and negative attitudes and prejudice of students (62.8 %).
Again, they pointed out the need for a wider strategy (local and national
policies), which would include explicit approaches for tackling homophobia in
schools.
32
Negative attitudes / prejudices
The biggest obstacles in overcoming
of parents
homophobia in the school environment:
of students
100,0
90,0
Lack of policies that directly
address fight against
homophobia
of teachers
80,0
70,0
68,3
62,8
60,0
50,0
40,0
30,0
Lack of experience with the
topic at teachers
46,9
35,6
of other school staff
27,5
of school management
20,0
10,0
0,0
8,7
6,1
2,3
There are no obstacles - this
topic does not beling in schools
Table 20 – The largest obstacles in overcoming homophobia in schools
Within the focus groups the teachers also discussed how parents and family
influence the attitudes toward LGBTs. Similarly to respondents in the online
questionnaire, they believed that the parents and the cultural environment of
the students greatly influence the opinions and attitudes of the students.
"If the family itself is more liberal, then the child will be more open
and accepting of the issues relating to this subject."
(Pandora, 46)
Secondary schools are certainly under great "social control" of the direct work
environment, as well as their students and parents. Several surveys on the
subject speculate about the true influence of parents in the school, while the fear
of parents' influence regarding the discussion on homosexuality is especially
strongly felt by LGBT teachers, as stated in the survey "Excuse me, Miss, are
you a Lesbian?" (2011).
The participants in our survey had different experiences with the influence and
reach of parents. Those, who do not discuss the subject often, fear that the
discussion about homosexuality in class could cause parents to react:
33
"Some parents want control over the information their children get at
school and they relentlessly pressure the teachers and search for
every possible lever that would allow them to influence the content.
There are not many like that in our school, but those who are can
really get what they want... I'm am talking in general, but I believe
that with this topic [homosexuality] things could get complicated."
(Pandora, 46)
None of those who discuss about homosexuality in class reported the discussion
got them into conflict with parents:
"I do not feel any pressure, neither from the parents nor from the
system. Exactly the opposite; I believe that I already have all the
support to open the subject without reservations − the legislation,
together with the media atmosphere, which I believe is very
favourably disposed to the issue."
(Lev, 36)
The media, besides the family environment, also play a central role in shaping
the opinions and attitudes. "They can also 'make' certain acts acceptable and
legitimate, and others unacceptable." (Ule in Nasilje v šolah, 2008:9). Since this
survey was carried out during public, media and expert debate about the new
Family Code, which also includes economic and social rights of same-sex
couples, we wanted to know whether the debate, which was sometimes hostile
and explicitly intolerant toward LGBTs, caused the increase of homophobia in the
school environment.
As the Table 21 shows, more than 37 % of respondents believe that media had a
great influence on the increase of homophobia in the school environment.
The public debate over the last two years about the
new Family law bill in Slovenia contained many
homophobic statements. Do you believe these also
influenced the incidence rate of homophobia in the
school environment?
Yes
No
Don't know
Other
%
37.2
26.5
34.3
1.9
Table 21 –The influence of media on the increase of homophobia in the school
environment
34
The discussions in the focus groups often touched on the public debate about the
Family Code. Except for rare exceptions the consequences of the debate were
assessed as positive and supportive toward opening of the discussion in class:
"I think that the debate about the Family Code opened the issue and
brought to light many convincing arguments for understanding gays
and lesbians and the lifestyle itself. In a way I feel more comfortable
addressing this issue in class."
(Lev, 36)
There are several expert articles and publications about the lives of LGBTs in
Slovenia, which could help teachers reach greater confidence when opening and
maintaining a fact-supported, scientific and objective debate in class.
The results in Table 22 show that almost 50 % of our respondents have no
knowledge, where they could obtain this information and more than 6 % believe
that they do not need it in their work.
Do you know where you can turn to for support and
information about homosexuality and homophobia to
help you with the discussion in the classroom,
addressing homophobic incidents, etc.?
Yes
No
I believe I don't need such information in my work
%
46.0
47.6
6.5
table 22 – Familiarity of teachers with the support system(s)
In the sample the majority of respondents (52.4 %) look for support information
by contacting nongovernmental organisations, 35.8% turn to the school
counsellor and 19% respondents find the information in the school library.
35
3. Summary
The sample
The final sample of respondents of includes 309 respondents. It is comprised of
78.8 % females and 28.2 % males. The majority of respondents are between 31
to 40 years of age. The sample includes 89 % of teachers; most of them teach
at a public grammar school or a secondary vocational school. The study
encompassed all statistical regions in Slovenia, with the highest number of
respondents from the Central region (28.7 %). Most stated that they have been
teaching from 5 to 10 years, and the majority of them teach humanities.
The final number of all participants in the survey is 323, taking into account the
14 teachers from focus groups
1. Knowledge about school policies against discrimination and
violence



Most of the respondents (70 %) know that their school policies also
address violence and discrimination between and against students. In
comparison with other personal background the participants are
considerably less familiar with the representation of sexual orientation in
the policies.
Violence and discrimination are not popular topics of discussion in the
school environment. Most of the participants are not aware of any events
or workshops, which address discrimination and violence in their school.
The participants, whose schools actively address issues of violence and
discrimination, report that such activities contribute to a more open
environment, which actively promotes nonviolent behaviour, and
understanding and empathy towards various minorities.
2. Homosexuality in the curriculum and as a topic of discussion



73.1 % of respondents believe that there is not enough fact-based and
objective discussion about homosexuality in secondary schools.
The reasons for the lack of the discussion can be attributed to the lack of
knowledge and confidence of individual teachers about this issue, and the
absence of the topic from the school curriculum.
60 % of respondents rarely or sometimes discuss homosexuality in class;
6.8 % discuss it often, while 12 % believe that the discussion does not
belong within the subject that they teach.
36


More than 60 % of participants believe that the discussion about
homosexuality should be an integral part of the curriculum, at least in
some subjects.
Reservations toward addressing the subject in class are the consequence
of stereotypes, which are also created and perpetuated by the educational
system.
3. Identification, perception and tackling homophobic violence




If they noticed verbal homophobic violence, 71 % of respondents would
talk to the student(s) about it.
At the present, the respondents (35 %) most often witness verbal
violence (jokes, name calling, comments, insults and prejudice), and less
often physical and other forms of violence.
The majority of respondents address and react to the violence they
perceive at school. However, the perception of violence itself is
problematic. Teachers only partially notice homophobic violence, which
means that in reality the incidence of homophobic violence is presumably
higher. The invisibility of LGBT youth also contributes to the lack of
perception of homophobic violence in schools.
The participants notice considerably more homophobia coming from male
students than female, while the targets of homophobic violence are mostly
male students. In the 80 % of perceived homophobic violence the victim
was / is a male student.
4. Competence for addressing and challenging homophobia



33 % of respondents attended a seminar about how to tackle violence and
discrimination in schools. In total only 12 % of respondents received
information about how to tackle homophobia in schools within these
seminars.
42 % of respondents believe that they do not possess the appropriate
knowledge and skills for challenging verbal homophobic violence, while 60
% do not feel competent to tackle physical homophobic violence.
The school staff lack (better) understanding of specific actions and
attitudes, connected to the needs of LGBT students (e.g. understanding
the need for coming out). Almost half (49.2 %) of respondents believe
that coming out is not necessary.
37
5. The needs of school staff for tackling homophobia


More than half of respondents believe that for tackling homophobia in the
school environment they would need an actual strategy on the national
level, which would explicitly include policies against homophobia.
Respondents also mentioned seminars and training on the topic of
homosexuality and homophobia and inclusion of the topics in the
curriculum as support elements.
The largest obstacles in tackling homophobia in schools are negative
attitudes/prejudice of parents (68.3 % of participants) and negative
attitudes/prejudice of students (62.8 % of participants).
38
4. Recommendations
Analysis of the research demonstrates the need for changes that should reach the policy
/ system level (eg. inclusion of the discourse on homosexuality and homophobia within
the secondary-school discourse by key actors in the field (such as the Ministry of
Education, The National Education Institute of The Republic of Slovenia, management
and staff of individual schools…) as well as encourage greater commitment and
competences of teachers when addressing the topic in class and in the school
environment.
The changes should, long-term, influence the reduction of prejudice and negative
attitudes towards homosexuality within the school environment and enable safe and
inclusive school environment for all that work and coexist in it.
Systematic prevention of discrimination and violence in secondary schools and
direct inclusion of homophobia as a form of discrimination and violence and
violence:
Schools need to address the topics of violence and discrimination explicitly. When
addressing the basis for violence and discrimination all personal circumstances should be
addressed directly – including sexual orientation(s) and homophobia.
Schools should in their own policies stress sexual orientation as a personal circumstance
that presents basis for discrimination and violence and develop approaches for efficient
prevention of homophobic violence and discrimination that also include constructive,
continuous and systematic:
- Awareness raising of students, teachers (and other school staff) and parents of
forms, biases and consequences of homophobic violence
- cooperation with external experts on the topic and LGBT non-governmental
organizations
Homosexuality in the curriculum and the discourse in class:
The discourse on homosexuality and homophobia should be explicitly included in the
topics of the curriculum that the students should know about. The information should be
distributed in a non-discriminatory, fact-based and objective manner.
The discourse should be included within overall curriculum to ensure that gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender youth will identify with it.
Within the existent curriculum all stereotypes on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
people should be identified and removed.
39
Competences of school staff for tackling homophobic violence
Continuous trainings, of all working in the secondary school environment including the
management, on the topics of homosexuality and homophobia is needed. The lack of
fact-based information needs to be identified and it needs to be ensured that LGBT nongovernmental organizations will be actively included in these trainings.
The role of employees in the school system is of key importance when tackling
homophobia. The support should, sensitively, and in all the phases also include specific
needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students (eg. understanding the need of
coming-out). The confidante (employee) should be compelled to confidentiality regarding
this particular personal circumstance.
Perceiving, recognizing and dealing with homophobia in a school
Awareness o forms of homophobic violence, with management as well as other
employees, and active engagement at preventing homophobia and other forms of
violence, enable that the school staff will be able to recognize homophobia and directly
address it.
Non-discriminatory / fact-based stand of all school employees pertaining to homophobia
creates needed initiatives and basis for consistent fighting against homophobia that
include:
- Establishing safe / confidential spaces for victims of homophobic violence
- Deconstruction of heternormative school-practices so they allow equal
coexistence of various sexual orientations and gender expressions in a school
space.
- Endeavors for clear and inclusive speech / vocabulary and other representations
that encourage understanding and respect of diversity
The needs of school staff when introduced to / introducing discourse on
homosexuality and homophobia
The Ministry of Education of the Republic of Slovenia and The National Education
Institute of The Republic of Slovenia, should recognize the requirement to acknowledge
diverse sexual orientations and gender expressions as a key standpoint for gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgendered people in the school system.
The Ministry of Education of the Republic of Slovenia and The National Education
Institute of The Republic of Slovenia should, in cooperation with LGBT non-governmental
organizations prepare a strategy on prevention of homophobia and include it within the
existent policies on prevention of violence in secondary schools:
- The strategy should set the mechanisms to include the topics of
homosexuality and homophobia within the curriculum and propose the
approaches to reduce homophobia within the secondary schools.
- The strategy should also represent a safety mechanism for all school staff that
will introduce the topics in a class, before parents and/or management that
might oppose that.
40
5. About Društvo informacijski center Legebitra
The Organisation Društvo informacijski center Legebitra is a nongovernmental
and non-profit organisation, with a status of a humanitarian organisation in the
field of social care, and a status of an organisation in public interest in the field
of health protection.
The organisation developed from a non-formal student and youth group
Legebitra, which was founded as a project of the Student Organisation of the
University of Ljubljana in 1998. The organisation is dedicated to professional
standards, quality and committed to the promotion of the rights of LGBT
individuals, and providing social services for the LGBT youth.
LGBT youth, due to the stigma and discrimination on the basis of the personal
circumstance of sexual orientation is one of the most vulnerable social groups.
Therefore, it is very important that they have access to a support system, which
encourages them, positively influences their self-confidence and image, and
promotes active participation in the civil society − through all the programmes
of the organisation.
The employees of the organisation are in the process of continuous training in
the field of youth work in seminars all over Slovenia and abroad. The quality of
our work is proven by years of partnerships with national and international
organisation, who have trusted us and cooperated with us for more than a
decade.
The mission of the organisation is to improve the situation and attitudes toward
LGBTs in Slovenia, on differently elves and spheres of life. By providing a safe
space and relevant and accurate information, the organisation educates and
raises awareness, while pointing out the inequalities in the Slovene society.
Contact information:
Web site: www.drustvo-legebitra.si
E-mail: [email protected]
Address: Trubarjeva 76 / 1000 Ljubljana / Slovenia
Telephone: +386 1 430 51 44
41
About the author:
Jasna Magić works for the Organisation Društvo informacijski center Legebitra. Since
1998 she has been active in providing a safe space for LGBTs in Slovenia; she is also one
of the founders of the student peer group Legebitra and the Organisation Društvo
informacijski center Legebitra. Between 2003 and 2005 she was a board member of the
international gay and lesbian youth organisation IGLYO, where through representing the
interests of the organisation and organising international youth conferences she actively
contributed to the promotion of LGBT rights for the young in Europe. Between 2005 and
2006 she was also a board member of the international organisation Young Women from
Minorities.
Jasna Magić graduated in English language and literature at the Faculty of Arts in
Ljubljana and is currently enrolled in the international postgraduate programme
INDOSOW at the Faculty of Social Work in Ljubljana.
Since 2006 she has been actively involved in the field of human rights training and is a
licenced international and national trainer for human rights, as trained by the Youth and
Education programme of the Council of Europe.
Within her activities in the Organisation Društvo informacijski center Legebitra she
specifically focuses on providing a safe space to the victims of homophobic violence
(individual support, cooperation with the police and counselling services, liaising with
legal services); since 2009 she has been actively involved in projects aiming to develop
safe spaces for LGBT youth in the Slovene educational system.
She is the (co)author of the following relevant research reports and articles:
-
-
-
-
Vsakdanje življenje istospolno usmerjenih mladih v Sloveniji, Kuhar, R. Maljevac,
S., Koletnik, A., Magić, J. (2008). Ljubljana: Legebitra. http://www.drustvolegebitra.si/images/stories/LGBT_Mladi/Istospolno_usmerjeni_mladi.pdf
(22.1.2012).
ACTIVATE!: Research, monitoring and recording of cases of discrimination and
rights violations against LGBT people in Slovenia in the period from November
2007 to November 2008 (Report). Magić, J. Ljubljana: Legebitra.
http://www.ilgaeurope.org/home/how_we_work/ilga_europe_as_a_funder/completed_projects/a
ctivate_against_discrimination_on_the_basis_of_sexual_orientation_and_gender_
expression, (22.1.2012).
Pedri raus!: homofobično nasilje v šolah (Scientific article). 2009. Journal of
Contemporary Studies: Homosexuality in Achool. 60 (126), št. 4. Ljubljana:
ZDPDS
http://www.sodobnapedagogika.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1406&Itemid=26
(22.1.2012).
“Excuse me, Miss, are you a lesbian?” A Research Report on the Situation of LGBT
Educational Workers in the School System in Slovenia. (2011). Ljubljana:
Legebitra. http://www.drustvolegebitra.si/images/stories/Excuse_me_Miss_are_you_a_lesbian.pdf
(22.1.2012).
42
6. Appendix 1 - Online questionnaire
Introduction:
The Organisation Društvo informacijski center Legebitra is between June and November 2011
conducting a survey intended for all secondary school teachers. With the survey, which is part of
an international project "Breaking the Walls of Silence, we would like to research the attitudes of
teachers toward homosexuality and homophobia in the school environment.
The online questionnaire is designed so it assures complete anonymity; the identity of respondents
will not be known to anyone, neither the authors of the questionnaire nor the expert advisory team
that will perform the analysis.
There are 5 sections of questions. The top of the page will display the percentage of questionnaire
left. Please, answer all the questions at one time and not in parts. The analysis will only include
fully filled in questionnaires
Answering the questions will take you about 15 minutes. We would like to thank you for your
patience and time you took to answer the questions.
Your participation in this survey is entirely voluntary. Within this project we will also organise focus
groups with teachers in the autumn of 2011 (September − November) to the subject of
homophobia in the education system.
If you would also like to participate in our focus groups, please write to [email protected], or call
us at +386 1 430 51 44.
*****
The project "Breaking the Walls of Silence" is carried out with the support from the European
Commission, Justice, Freedom and Security Directorate within the Daphne III programme (Prevent
and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups
at risk). The content of the survey does not necessarily reflect the attitude of the European
Commission.
Supporters of the research of the attitudes toward homosexuality and homophobia in schools:
Ministry of Education and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia
Office of the Republic of Slovenia for Youth,
Scientific Council of the Educational Research Institute,
SVIZ – Education, Science and Culture Trade Union of Slovenia.
Terminology:
Homophobia is irrational fear, hatred or intolerance toward LGBTs, which can lead to prejudice,
discrimination and violence. Homophobic violence/incident is any form of violence, which includes
elements of homophobia.
The forms of homophobic violence include psychological violence, like harassment, bullying and
threats, and homophobic comments and insults (e.g. look at that faggot, sissy, homo, etc.), as
well as physical violence (hitting, kicking, spitting), which usually accompanies homophobic
insults. Homophobic violence can also be in the form of jokes about gays and lesbians.
Homophobic violence can also be experienced by persons, who support LGBTs, and/or persons
who are not LGBT but are perceived as such.
43
1. Demographic data
1.2) The statistical region of the school where you teach:
Mura
Drava
Carinthia
Savinja
Central Sava
Lower Sava
Southeast Slovenia
Central Slovenia
Upper Carniola
Inner Carniola-Karst
Gorizia
Coastal-Karst
1.3) Type of school where you teach:
Grammar school (private)
Grammar school (public)
Vocational school
Vocational – Technical School
Technical School
Other:
1.4) Your age:
20–30
31–40
41–50
51–60
61–70
Over 70
1.5) Your gender:
Male
Female
1.6) Your title in the school where you teach:
44
Teacher
School counsellor
Social worker
Psychologist
Headmaster
Assistant teacher
Other:
2. Knowledge about school policies against discrimination and violence
2.1) Does your school have (a) policy(ies) which also regulate violence and
discrimination against and among students?
Yes
No
Don't know
2.2) Do the provisions directly forbid discrimination and violence on the basis of:
Yes
No
Don't
know
Gender
Sexual orientation
Disability/handicap
Race
Ethnic background
Religious beliefs
2.3) Does your school organise events (workshops, visiting lecturers, etc.), which
specifically address violence and discrimination on the basis of:
Yes
No
Don't
know
Gender
Sexual orientation
Disability/handicap
Race
45
Yes
No
Don't
know
Ethnic background
Religious beliefs
3. A discourse on homosexuality in a class
3.1) If you are a teacher, which subject(s) do you teach?
3.2) Do you also discuss homosexuality and homophobia within the subject(s) you
teach?
Yes, often
Yes, sometimes
Yes, rarely
No, I have not had the opportunity
No, because I believe that the discussion does not belong within the subject(s) I teach
No, because I believe that such discussion does not belong in the regular class
Other:
3.4) Who, in your opinion and/or experience, most often opens the discussion on
homosexuality in class?
Teacher
Students
The discussion is opened equally often by teachers and students
Other:
3.5) If you do not discuss about homosexuality and homophobia in class, why not?
I am not informed enough about the issues, nor do I have the appropriate knowledge
to be able to competently answer questions related to homosexuality and homophobia
I believe that any discussion about homosexuality is promotion of homosexuality
I believe such discussion does not belong to regular class
Other:
3.6) Do you think that the discussion about homosexuality and homophobia should be
46
included the curriculum?
Yes, in most of the subjects
Yes, in some subjects
Don't know, I haven't decided
No, the discussion should be treated within the compulsory electives
I believe that such discussion does not belong in the regular class
Other:
3.7) In which subjects of the curriculum, should, in your opinion, homosexuality be
discussed? (Several answers possible.)
Sociology
Psychology
Art History
Biology
History
Native language
Foreign languages
Other:
3.8) In your opinion, is the discussion about homosexuality and homophobia in
secondary schools present:
Too much
Enough
Not enough
I believe this issue does not belong to the school environment
Other:
4. Identification, perception and tackling homophobic violence
4.1) How long have you been teaching at your present secondary school? (Enter number
of months.)
4.2) In your opinion and/or experience, who is (can be) facing homophobia in schools?
(Several answers possible.)
Teachers (and other staff), who are raising awareness about homophobia in the
school
Students who are perceived by their peers and/or environment as LGBT
47
Male students, who are not manly enough
Teachers who do not hide their sexual orientation
Male students who do not like sports activities
Male students whose behaviour is exemplary
Female students who behave like boys
Students who have same-sex parents
Students whose friends or family members are LGBT
Male students who have excellent grades
Female students who are athletes
Students who do not hide their sexual orientation
Other:
4.3) Are you presently familiar with any cases of verbal homophobic violence (insults,
comments, threats, bullying, etc.) at your school (in class, hallways, in the yard, other
school premises, etc.)?
Yes
No
Don't know if it is homophobia or not
Other:
4.4) Who is facing verbal homophobic violence? (Several answers possible.)
A male student
A female student
A male couple
A female couple
A teacher
Other:
4.5) How often did you witness verbal homophobic violence (insults, comments, jokes,
etc.) in the last three years?
Never
Once
2 to 5 times
6 to 10 times
11 to 15 times
16 to 20 times
21 to 25 times
More than 25 times
Other:
4.6) Are you presently familiar with any cases of physical homophobic violence (hitting,
48
kicking, pushing, spitting, etc.) at your school (in class, hallways, in the yard, other
school premises, etc.)?
Yes
No
Not sure if it is homophobia
4.7) Who is facing physical homophobic violence? (Several answers possible.)
A male student
A female student
A male couple
A female couple
A teacher
Other:
4.8) How often did you witness physical homophobic violence (hitting, kicking, pushing,
spitting, etc.) in the last three years?
Never
Once
2 to 5 times
6 to 10 times
11 to 15 times
16 to 20 times
21 to 25 times
More than 25 times
Other:
5. Competence for addressing and challenging homophobia
5.1) Within your teacher training, have you participated in education (training, seminar)
about how to challenge violence, bullying and discrimination in school?
Yes
No
Don't remember
5.2) During such training, did you also receive information on how to tackle homophobic
violence and discrimination in school?
49
Yes
No
5.3) How would you feel if there was a gay / lesbian student in your class, who would
not hide his or her sexual orientation?
I believe that it is important that students feel safe enough to come out, and I
encourage it as a teacher
I believe that coming out as LGBT is not necessary, but I would not be disturbed by
an LGBT student in my class
An LGBT student would make me feel uncomfortable
I would rather not teach an LGBT student
Other:
5.4) What would be the first thing you would do if you witnessed homophobic verbal
violence (insults, bullying, threats, comments, etc.) among students?
I would immediately sanction such behaviour according to the measures, laid down by
the school code of conduct and other school policies
I would talk to the student about it
I would not react immediately to the incident, but I would report it to the headmaster
and other persons responsible
I would not react to the incident
Other:
5.5) What would be the first thing you would do if you witnessed homophobic physical
violence, like kicking, hitting, spitting, etc.?
I would immediately sanction such behaviour according to the measures, laid down by
the school code of conduct and other school policies
I would talk to the student about it
I would not react immediately to the incident, but I would report it to the headmaster
and other persons responsible
I would not react to the incident
Other:
5.6) In your opinion, do you have enough knowledge and skills to appropriately
challenge verbal homophobic violence among and against students (homophobic insults,
50
comments, bullying, threats?)
Yes, enough
Yes, some
Not enough
I don't have any
5.7) In your opinion, do you have enough knowledge and skills to appropriately
challenge physical homophobic violence among and against students (hitting, kicking,
spitting, etc.)?
Yes, enough
Yes, some
Not enough
I don't have any
6. The needs of school staff when introducing discourse on homosexuality and
when challenging homophobia
6.1) In your opinion, what would you need as a teacher in order to be more effective
when challenging and addressing homophobia in school? (Several answers possible.)
More seminars to the subject of homophobia and homosexuality
A strategy in a local level, which would clearly address tackling homophobia in school
A strategy on the national level, which would clearly address tackling homophobia in
school
Inclusion of discussion of homosexuality and homophobia in the curriculum
Support from the parents
Nothing, because I believe I have enough support and information
Nothing, because I believe there is no homophobia at the school where I teach
Other:
6.2) The public debate over the last two years about the new Family Code in Slovenia
contained many homophobic statements. Do you believe these also influenced the
incidence rate of homophobia in the school environment?
Yes
No
Don't know
Other:
6.3) In your opinion and experience, what are the biggest obstacles in overcoming
homophobia in schools? (Several answers possible, select maximum three.)
51
Negative attitudes/prejudice of parents
Negative attitudes/prejudice of students
Negative attitudes/prejudice of teachers
Negative attitudes/prejudice of other school staff
Negative attitudes/prejudice of school management
Lack of experience in teachers
Lack of policies that directly address fight against homophobia
I believe there are no obstacles, because this issue does not belong into the school
Other:
6.4) Do you know where you can turn to for support and information about
homosexuality and homophobia to help you with the discussion in the classroom,
addressing homophobic incidents, etc.?
Yes
No
I believe I don't need such information in my work
6.5) You usually find information about homosexuality and homophobia (several answers
possible):
In the school library
On the school notice board and other information points within the school
With the school counsellor
With nongovernmental organisations
Nowhere, because I have not needed such information
I believe the issue does not belong in the school environment, therefore I am not
familiar with such information
Other:
12) If you have felt restricted by any of the answers or if you would like to point out
something about the issue, or add another experience relevant to the survey, please
write in the space below:
52
7. Appendix 2 - Bibliography
1. Habjan, Andrej (ur.), Mavrična svetovalnica: usposabljanje prostovoljcev,
Ljubljana. Društvo DIH, 2011
2. Kogovšek, Šalamon N., Šola, homofobija in pravo. Obrazi homofobije.
2011. Ljubljana: Mirovni inštitut
3. Kovač Šebart, Mojca in Kuhar, Roman (ur.). 2009. Sodobna Pedagogika:
Homoseksualnost in šola. 60 (126), št. 4. Ljubljana: ZDPDS
4. Kuhar, Roman, Maljevac, Simon, Koletnik, Anja in Magić, Jasna. 2008.
Vsakdanje življenje istospolno usmerjenih mladih v Sloveniji (Raziskovalno
poročilo). Ljubljana: Legebitra.
http://www.drustvo-legebitra.si/images/stories/Legebitra__analiza_raziskave_mladi_istospolno_usmerjeni.pdf, (22.1.2012)
5. Kuhar, Roman. 2001. Mi, drugi: oblikovanje in razkritje homoseksualne
identitete. Ljubljana: ŠKUC
6. Magić, Jasna., Janjevak, Ana. »Oprostite gospa učiteljica, ste lezbijka?«:
Raziskovalno poročilo o položaju istospolno usmerjenih vzgojnoizobraževalnih delavcev in delavk v šolskem sistemu v Sloveniji. (2011).
Ljubljana: Legebitra.
http://www.drustvolegebitra.si/images/stories/Povej_naprej/POVEJ_NAPREJ.pdf,
(22.01.2012)
7. Nasilje v šolah: konceptualizacija, prepoznavanje in modeli preprečevanja.
Poročilo
projekta.
2008.
Šola
za
ravnatelje.
http://www.solazaravnatelje.si/datoteke/File/IVI/crp_V5_0244_porocilo.p
df, (22.01.2012)
8. Raziskava o nasilju na slovenskih srednjih šolah: Raziskovalna naloga.
2008 / 2009. Dijaška organizacija Slovenije.
http://dos.omnia.si/uploads/dosraziskava-o-nasilju-n.pdf (22.01.2012)
9. Švab, Alenka in Kuhar, Roman. 2005. Neznosno udobje zasebnosti:
vsakdanje življenje gejev in lezbijk. Ljubljana: Mirovni inštitut.
53

Homophobia in our school?

Transcription

Similar documents

DVSN Brochure - The Bedford Citizen

A NEW DAY Brochure Women - The Tree of Peace Friendship Centre

Abuse in close relationships - Upplands

Tanisha M. Bagley - printhouse books

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

Russell Simmons, NYC Councilmen and Erica Ford announce New

Combatting Gender-related Violence

Untitled

Gender in conflict - European Union Institute for Security Studies

Yasmin Mohammed, Amanda Persaud, Bibi Sulaman, Samantha