Courageous Leaders: Promoting and supporting diversity in school leadership development

Abstract

This article examines the effect of the United Kingdom’s first LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) School Leadership programme. Based on the values of authentic leadership, promoting inclusion, celebrating diversity, accepting difference, challenging the status quo and achieving social justice, the Courageous Leaders programme provided mentoring, training and support for LGBT teachers aspiring to become school leaders. Utilising Social Phenomenology as methodological framework, the article considers the written reflections of a single cohort of 10 lesbian and gay teacher participants to reflect on the way in which Courageous Leaders affected their professional identities and behaviours.

Keywords

Leadership LGBT mentoring schools sexuality teachers

Introduction

This article examines the effect of the United Kingdom’s first LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) School Leadership programme. It aims to interrogate the value of the programme to the LGBT teachers who participated. Based on the values of authentic leadership, promoting inclusion, celebrating diversity, accepting difference, challenging the status quo and achieving social justice, the Courageous Leaders programme provided mentoring, training and support for LGBT teachers aspiring to become school leaders. Utilising Social Phenomenology as methodological framework, the article considers the written reflections of a single cohort of 10 lesbian and gay teacher participants to reflect on the way in which Courageous Leaders affected their professional identities and behaviours.

There is evidence to suggest that schools are particularly challenging environments for LGBT teachers. Despite legislative protection, recent literature about LGBT teachers continues to record concerns about discrimination in UK schools (Rudoe, 2014; Thompson-Lee, 2017). Evidence suggests that many LGBT teachers do not yet feel adequately protected in schools. Preston (2018), for example, notes an enduring climate of fear about coming out in the school workplace, stating that LGBT teachers have to ‘navigate complex terrain negotiating tricky private and professional boundaries’ (p. 340). Lee (2018) too found that one in four of the teachers she surveyed believed that their LGBT identity had been a barrier to promotion.

Courageous Leaders was a year-long programme for teachers designed around the values promoting inclusion, celebrating diversity, accepting difference, challenging the status quo and achieving social justice; Courageous Leaders provided mentoring, training and support for LGBT aspiring school leaders over a 12-month period, with the aim of helping them achieve promotion. Using the written evaluations of a single cohort of 10 teacher participants who each identified as either lesbian or gay, this article explores the effect of the programme on the professional identities and behaviours of the participants.

This article is underpinned by a post-structuralist theoretical framework that rejects essentialist paradigms of sexuality and challenges heteronormativity. Schools practise heteronormativity through the expectations placed upon pupils and staff. School staff are entrusted to uphold and promote the dominant discourse of the wider community and this usually means that heterosexuality, male masculinity and female femininity are the only gender and sexual identities that are encouraged in young people and even staff (Jackson, 2006). Rigid binaries of male/female, boy/girl, heterosexual/homosexual are engineered from the earliest years of formal education. Schools preserve and perpetuate the norms of masculinity and femininity, equating masculinity with strength, activity and rationality; and recognising in femininity the inverse but complementary features of weakness, passivity and emotionality (Ferfolja, 2010). Pupils are coerced into understanding, accepting and engaging in the practices of gender regulation and heteronormativity (Renold, 2002), and this endures through all stages of education, from the play corner in reception right through to the school leavers’ prom (Robinson, 2002). This article assumes that gender and sexual identities are multiple and fragmented (Ward and Winstanley, 2005) and are constructed in relation to others and within systems of power and knowledge.

The article begins with a brief review of the literature, before describing the Courageous Leaders programme and the aims of the research. Next, the methodological process is examined and then, drawing on the written course evaluations of the participants, common themes are identified, before conclusions are reached.

Leadership can be broadly defined as holding an influence which moves others to think and behave in a particular way (Fassinger et al., 2010). Historically, in Western society, leadership evolved from the notion of great male leaders, commanding authority and controlling their followers (Sy, 2010). More recently, theories of leadership present models in which authority needs to be earned and depends on the leader convincing others of their credibility, by exhibiting traits, skills and expertise that convince potential followers that a leader is worthy of following. Fassinger et al. (2010) describe leadership as a transactional interplay of lead-and-obey behaviour in which followers, motivated by self-interest, are rewarded, praised or punished for specific behaviours determined by the leader. This transactional interplay model of leadership is however contingent upon leaders being beyond reproach themselves, emanating power and not presenting perceived weaknesses that followers may take advantage of (Fassinger et al., 2010). According to Blount (2003), heterosexual, White, masculine and able-bodied are all characteristics embedded in Western conceptualisations of leadership, including school leadership. Despite a teaching population in the West that is overwhelmingly female, the traditional notion of the Headmaster is a trope in which the masculine White male continues to preside, particularly in secondary schools. Even in primary schools, where teaching younger children is regarded as feminised and inextricably linked to care (Moreau, 2019), UK Government policies continue to focus on attracting men into teaching, ignoring the under-representation across all education phases of women in leadership roles (Moreau et al., 2008).

There are a number of leadership programmes emerging however, aiming to challenge the White male leadership trope and improve the diversity of school leadership. For example, there have been programmes for Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) aspiring leaders (Coleman and Campbell-Stephens, 2010), and there is a thriving women’s leadership programme called Women Ed. Women Ed describes itself as a grass-roots movement connecting existing and aspiring leaders in education. With the mantra of 10 per cent braver, the programme encourages women to succeed in leadership positions, challenging gender stereotyping in schools and seeking to close the gender pay gap (Porritt and Featherstone, 2019).

While the BME and Women’s Education Leadership programmes, in common with Courageous Leaders, aim to produce more diverse school leaders, for LGBT teachers, the decision of whether or not to declare their sexual identity by coming out in school means unlike BME and Women aspiring leaders, LGBT teachers may be misidentified in the workplace and subject to heteronormative practices.

Heteronormativity defines, produces and perpetuates gender and sexuality practices in day-to-day school life (Thompson-Lee, 2017). Difference or diversity, particularly in schools, is too often framed ‘in terms of deficiencies and frequently labeled…as genetic and moral failings’ (Karpinski and Lugg, 2006: 281). Gray (2010) argues that male masculinity dominates in schools, achieving its superior status through misogynistic and homophobic cultural and social representations. Schools sanction those identities and relationships that conform to the norms and values of heterosexuality – male masculinity and female femininity – but in doing so render individuals who do not appear to fit, as excluded or Othered. Despite 74 per cent of the United Kingdom’s school workforce being female, less than a third of women become Head Teachers (Torrance et al., 2017). The privileging of male masculinity in school contributes then to the continued emergence of masculine male school leaders in an environment in which they represent a minority of the workforce. Although secondary schools in the United Kingdom are starting to acknowledge and support young people with LGBT identities, it remains extremely challenging for LGBT teachers and in particular LGBT teacher leaders to reconcile their personal and professional identities in the workplaces. Lugg and Koschoreck (2003) described school leadership as ‘the final unrecognized and unexamined closet’ (p. 4), adding that heterosexuality is a compulsory component of school leadership. Payne and Smith (2018) concur, noting that normative gender and sexuality serve as strong, emotional organising factors in educational leadership. Britzman (2012) attributes this to the relationship teachers have to their workplace and their history as school pupils. Britzman states ‘Teaching is one of the few professions where newcomers feel the force of their own history of learning as if it telegraphs relevancy to their work’ (2012: 1).

One of the ways in which LGBT school leaders may emerge is through carefully managing the intersection between their professional and personal identities. Sparkes (1994) suggests that while the splitting of identities into professional and private may offer LGBT teachers a place of safety and protection from harassment or discrimination, it disguises the difficulties LGBT teachers encounter and perpetuates the myth to pupils in particular, that everyone is heterosexual.

In her article, ‘The problem of coming out’, Rasmussen (2004) considers the moral, political and pedagogical issues that necessarily influence educational discourses of the closet and coming out. She suggests that coming out discourses tend to forge a relationship between inclusivity and coming out, a relationship that, she claims, situates the closet ‘as a zone of shame and exclusion’ (p. 144). Rasmussen asserts that by encouraging teachers to come out, it leaves those who are unable to do so feeling that they have somehow abdicated their moral responsibility as a role model to young people.

Aspiring school leaders are expected to conform to gender expectations, presenting as typically male or, in the case of female leaders, typically female. According to Courtney (2014), the latter can be particularly problematic for aspiring women leaders, as the traits of leadership such as ambition, strength, power and assertiveness are all imbued with notions of masculinity. Fassinger et al. (2010) state that there is an obvious and ironic double bind for some lesbian leaders because as a lesbian, she cannot be viewed as a ‘real’ woman, but as a woman, she cannot be viewed as a ‘real’ leader. And if she further confounds her predicament by clear transgressions of gender role behaviour (i.e. by dressing or acting in masculine way), it is reasonable to expect that her professional identity will be further threatened and her perceived (and even actual) leadership effectiveness compromised.

Much of the literature on LGBT teachers portrays them as marginalised by the heterosexual hegemony of their school communities (DePalma and Atkinson, 2009; Gray, 2010; Rudoe, 2010; Thompson-Lee, 2017). Neary (2013) describes the school staffroom as ‘embedded with assumptions of heterosexuality’ (p. 13). For LGBT teachers, significant energy and vigilance is required then to navigate the heterosexual staffroom and classroom. LGBT aspiring school leaders may experience low self-efficacy in regard to assuming certain leadership roles; Lineback et al. (2016) found that the LGBT teachers in their study tried to remain as invisible as possible in their schools so as to not draw attention to themselves, acknowledging that this strategy was not conducive to job promotion. Fahie (2016) too found that participants in his study avoided opportunities for promotion, as to do so would ‘increase their professional profile and raise their level of visibility within the local community’ (p. 402).

Some of the strategies LGBT teachers deploy to manage their identities in school may be however conducive to emerging as leaders. Fassinger et al. (2010) state that in studies of gay and lesbian leadership, many LGBT leaders overcompensate for their sexual identity by achieving and demonstrating high competence, hoping that their ability will safeguard them against discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of their sexual identity (see also Coon, 2001; Rudoe, 2010; Snyder, 2006). Much of the literature shows that LGBT teachers place inordinate amounts of time and energy into their teaching, often over-performing in order to develop a positive professional reputation as an outstanding teacher or teacher leader. Lesbian teachers in Griffin’s research similarly sought to acquire the reputation of being someone ‘not to mess with’ (1992: 173), while strategies adopted by Rudoe’s (2010) participants included endlessly rehearsing how they would respond to confrontation in relation to homophobic remarks or behaviours.

There is evidence to suggest, however, that some of the values espoused by LGBT workers make them ideally placed to become effective leaders. Snyder (2006) showed that employees who work for gay leaders have significantly higher levels of career engagement, career satisfaction and workplace morale, than the general workforce in the United States. Coon (2001) discovered that gay and lesbian leaders attributed their leadership strengths to previous challenging experiences as sexual minorities. The strengths attributed to being gay or lesbian included challenging the status quo of the organisational culture, risk-taking, being willing to listen and learn, fostering collaboration and inclusion, and empowering others, especially those on the margins of the workforce. A number of these qualities are entirely consistent with characteristics important in models of leadership in contemporary workplaces.

It can be challenging for LGBT teachers seeking career progression to know whether or not to reveal their sexual identity in the school workplace. The disclosure process may be affected not only by their current environment, but also by the individual’s perceptions of past experiences of discrimination, much of which may have painfully taken place within the school environment as a pupil. According to Ragins et al. (2007), the fear of negative repercussions in the workplace may lead to psychological distress and decreased job performance even in the absence of actual discrimination (p. 1104).

Though rarely explicitly articulated, there is evidence that the principal fear of LGBT teachers (particularly those in primary schools) is that their heterosexual colleagues, and parents of pupils in their care, will align their identity with discourses of hypersexuality and paedophilia (see Borg, 2017; Cavanagh, 2008; Thompson-Lee, 2017). Piper and Sikes (2010) too observe that ‘fear of the pedophile taints adult–child relationships in general’ (p. 567). Although Preston (2018) suggests all teachers are potentially under suspicion, Piper and Sikes argue that ‘When the focus is on sex that is regarded as being outside of the norm…the difficulties are magnified’ (2010: 567). The moral panic around child protection is a particular problem, therefore, for LGBT in schools. As the title of the 2010 article by Piper and Sikes declares, ‘All Teachers are Vulnerable but Especially Gay Teachers’ (p. 566).

Within the last 10 years, there have been important leaps in protective legislation in the United Kingdom for LGBT individuals in the workplace (e.g. see the Equality Act 2010). The Equal Marriage Act (2015) has also improved the status of same-sex relationships, positively presenting LGBT identities in the mainstream and providing occupational security, particularly around workplace benefits and pensions for same-sex couples. This has emboldened a minority of LGBT teachers in the United Kingdom to come out at school (e.g. see Daniel Gray cited in Ratcliffe, 2018).

The traditional role of the school leader is as a figurehead, and this entails being a visible presence in all aspects of school life. Attendance at extracurricular events such as parent–teacher fundraising events, school concerts and school social gatherings is an important part of school leadership. Typically heterosexual school leaders would be accompanied at such events by their opposite-sex partner or spouse. However, Fassinger et al. (2010) note that in the case of an LGBT leader, the presence of a same-sex partner is a constant reminder to the wider school community of the gender transgression and may be deemed as inappropriate, due to the way in which same-sex relationships are often conflated with the act of sex, in a way that heterosexual relationships are not. Conversely however, the apparent lack of any partner may also be seen as unusual, suggesting the leader lacks the necessary attributes to attract a partner of any kind and is perhaps odd or deficient in some way. It takes considerable courage for an LGBT school leader to present themselves with their same-sex partner in the school community. However, Fassinger et al. (2010) argue that the visibility of a same-sex partner, especially over time, may normalise same-sex relationships within the school community, dispelling negative myths for those with little previous contact of LGBT relationships. It may also encourage others within the school community to come out themselves creating an environment that is inclusive. The consistency of a single partner may also be viewed by school stakeholders as a stabilising influence which counters the promiscuous and hypersexual stereotypes synonymous to some, with elements of LGBT community.

The climate for LGBT schoolteachers remains extremely challenging. Improvements to equalities legislation at the macro level do not necessarily filter through to create a more positive day-to-day experience for LGBT teachers at the micro level of their school communities. LGBT aspiring school leaders must navigate complex cultural and political school environments while under scrutiny of a host of different school stakeholders. To become a visible LGBT school leader is then an act of considerable courage.

The Courageous Leaders programme

The Courageous Leaders programme offered LGBT aspiring school leaders mentoring by education leaders in a safe and inclusive environment. Workshops promoted confidence building, developed the communication and presentation skills of participants and examined what it means to be an authentic school leader.

The cohort of 10 teachers analysed for the purpose of this article comprised of seven females, all identifying as either lesbians or gay women, and three males, all identifying as gay men. All participants were White and British. The absence of racial diversity suggests perhaps that teachers identifying as both BME and LGBT are perhaps more likely to pursue a programme based on their racial rather than sexual identity, the latter of which can be hidden. Table 1 provides summary data for each member of the cohort.

Table 1.

Summary data for each member of the Courageous Leaders programme cohort.

Participant pseudonym	Identity	School phase	Length of time in teaching	Role on commencement of Courageous Leaders	Promoted to within 12 months
Andrew	Gay man	Secondary	5 years	Assistant Head of Music	Head of Music
Ben	Gay man	Secondary	2 years	Teacher of Politics	Head of Department
Clare	Lesbian	Primary	18 years	Class teacher	–
Donna	Gay woman	Secondary	15 years	Head of Physics Department	Assistant Head Teacher
Eve	Lesbian	Primary	11 years	Class teacher	–
Fraser	Gay man	Primary	3 years	Director of Learning	Head of School
Grace	Lesbian	Secondary	10 years	PE teacher	Head of Year
Helen	Lesbian	Secondary	12 years	Head of Department for Science	Deputy Head Teacher
Isabel	Lesbian	Primary	21 years	Class teacher	Head of Alternative Provision
Joanne	Gay woman	Sixth Form	10 years	Science teacher	Head of Sixth Form

In order to access the programme, the participants had to seek the permission of their Head Teacher to release them from school for five face-to-face days, with the Courageous Leaders programme paying for teaching cover. Each of the participants was then at least open to their Head Teacher about their sexual identity prior to embarking on the programme. The face-to-face training days took place in London inevitably leading to the majority of participants being based in London or Essex (six participants), with each of the further four participants from the East of England, Surrey, Bristol and Ayrshire. The face-to-face sessions spread throughout a single academic year and covered a range of themes and activities including Verbal and non-verbal communication skills, Becoming an Authentic Leader, LGBT leaders as role models, 1:1 Mentoring from an LGBT leader and Networking

Aims

The overarching aim of this project was to explore whether the Courageous Leaders Programme was effective in supporting LGBT teachers to achieve promotion as their authentic selves. Within this overarching aim, the project aimed to explore the following three key issues:

The motivations of participants for applying for the programme and in particular the challenges they face as an LGBT teacher in schools.

The experiences of the participants on the programme itself and the extent to which they found being in an all LGBT professional environment helpful.

The extent to which participants had achieved promotions as a result of the programme, or made changes to their professional practice based on learning during the programme.

Methodology

Phenomenology underpins this research. The investigation aims to describe the richness of content in human complexities (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008; Litchman, 2006) and seeks to make explicit the implicit structure and meaning of human experience. According to Padilla-Díaz (2015), in phenomenology, the investigator aims to articulate their lived experiences and the phenomenological investigator or researcher should construct the studied object according to its own manifestations, structures and components.

The typical data collection method of the phenomenological investigator is the open-ended interview. However, in this case, the participants were invited to complete a programme evaluation form by email and, for pragmatic ease of data collection, this evaluation was designed to perform a dual role. Firstly, it served as a monitoring the participant experience to make improvements for future cohorts of the programme, but it also served to encourage critical reflection on the way in which the participants had engaged with the programme.

The evaluation form consisted of only four qualitative free text written comments, encouraging reflecting on their experiences of the programme, as well as its subsequent effect on their professional identity and behaviour in the workplace. The four questions were as follows:

What motivated you to apply for Courageous Leaders?

What was your promotional goal during the year of the Courageous Leaders and did you achieve this?

Please describe your experiences on the programme.

How have you applied your experiences on the Courageous Leaders to your professional practice once back in your workplace?

It is important to acknowledge the relationship of the researcher to the Courageous Leaders cohort. The researcher identifies as a lesbian, is a teacher by background and acted as a mentor to two of the Courageous Leaders participants. It is imperative then to recognise that the sense-making that has taken place for the purpose of this article has been co-constructed by both the participants and the researcher, with the latter contextualising the written responses through the lens of knowing the participants over the period of the five face-to-face days, and interpreting the written reflections in light of her own challenges as a lesbian teacher (Thompson-Lee, 2017). Additionally, on a pragmatic note, the personal connection between the author and each of the Courageous Leaders participants led to 100 per cent return rate of the written evaluation forms, which is highly unusual in the collection of written forms of data.

Ethical considerations

According to Busher (2019), supportive cultures can help marginalised participants to benefit from involvement in research by developing their identities and voices through having their views on situations valued. In turn this offers important insights as expert witnesses of teaching, learning and educational institutional practices. It is important to note that even though the researcher was connected through the Courageous Leaders programme, none of the participants were actively persuaded or encouraged into submitting their responses for the purpose of this project. The enthusiasm with which the LGBT teacher participants engaged in the research demonstrates Busher’s assertion that these teachers wanted their voices to be heard. However, it is acknowledged that the researcher’s relationship with the participants adds a layer of complexity to the findings. However, on balance I consider instead that my knowledge and understanding of the programme enriched the reporting in this article, as I had the benefit of seeing first-hand, participants change as the programme progressed. I also got to know participants professionally and so could contextualise the comments made in their written evaluations.

Full ethical approval was gained through the researcher’s host university and participants were assured that they could withdraw their written responses at any time. Although participants recorded their real names on the responses submitted, the researcher allocated pseudonyms to each participant, so that on publication of the research, it would not be possible for these LGBT teachers to be identified.

The data set of 10 evaluations was analysed first utilising emergent coding (Carspecken, 2001) across the free text responses. This produced a number of key themes including coming out, networking, gaining confidence, leadership skills and seeking promotion. Each of the key themes was analysed using Carspecken’s critical approach (2001), which subsequently and inductively produced sub-themes including being role models for students, leading LGBT awareness among teacher colleagues, communication and presentation development, and renewed ambition.

Results and discussion

The males on the programme averaged only 3 years of teaching, while the females averaged 13 years in teaching. This suggests that the males had identified themselves, or had been identified by their school, as potential leaders much more quickly than their female counterparts. This seems to support Fassinger et al.’s (2010) assertion that the trajectory of leadership for gay men and lesbians is very different, and lesbians experience the double bind of both gender and sexual identity, in what Carruthers-Thomas (2019) describes as both the glass ceiling (for women) and the glass closet (for the LGBT community).

Participants identified a number of challenges in being an LGBT teacher and aspiring leader, and described how these had motivated them to participate in the programme. Anxiety in the workplace and being wary around school stakeholders was a common theme. LGBT teachers recognised the importance of moving between schools to gain promotion, but concerns around navigating personal and professional identities and in particular ‘coming out’ in each new job caused considerable apprehension. The risk of moving schools and either being discriminated against or not being able to come out made participants wary and added a layer of complexity to career decision-making. Where participants moved to new schools for promotion, anxiety had initially been high. Andrew, a gay male teacher with 5 years’ experience, moved schools to be an Assistant Head of Music but initially regretted the decision.

I wanted to…see if I was able to be the leader I believed I could be, but in the early days of my latest job I struggled a lot with anxiety and was afraid I had made the wrong choice in moving. (Andrew)

Four participants wrote of feeling isolated in their current roles, and engaged with the Courageous Leaders programme because they did not know any other gay people in their schools. Ben, a gay male secondary schoolteacher of Politics within 2 years of his first teaching appointment, stated:

As a gay man (new to the profession) it can at times feel a bit isolating and [I] hoped to benefit from meeting others and learning from their experience to help me overcome my internalised fears and anxieties. (Ben)

Essentialist paradigms of sexual identity, difference or diversity are often framed in terms of deficiencies and creates an othering of LGBT teachers. Feeling othered and vulnerable in the school community was something a number of participants wrote of struggling to overcome. Three participants described being ambitious but lacking the confidence to put themselves into roles where they would be more visible within the school community, as this comment from Andrew articulates:

I was excited to attend a programme specifically for LGBT teachers, as I had never previously had an opportunity to be out at work, and this was something I felt strongly about. I particularly felt vulnerable in a new leadership position and was nervous about exposing my true self. I was excited to share and listen to other people’s experiences who are LGBT teachers, as I did not know any LGBT teachers who were in any sort of school leadership role. (Andrew)

This comment captures the value of LGBT-specific leadership training, not least for networking. The absence of visible LGBT leader role models for LGBT teachers can deter others from putting themselves forward for senior leadership positions, resulting in perpetuating schools as sites of heteronormativity, and leadership as, visibly at least, only heterosexual. Five participants were motivated to join the Courageous Leaders programme because they wanted specific guidance on whether or not to disclose their sexuality at school, fearing that it may adversely affect opportunities for promotion. There was particular concern about whether or not to disclose their sexual identity to students, fearing what colleagues and particularly the parents of pupils would think. Clare, a lesbian primary schoolteacher with 18 years’ experience, aptly captures her concerns and motivation for joining Courageous Leaders:

I was excited to attend a programme specifically for LGBT teachers, as I feel sexuality brings with it fear and uncertainty, particularly thinking about whether or not to come out at school and the adverse effect this could have on my career progression. (Clare)

LGBT identities are too often imbued with notions of sexual acts in the way that heterosexuality is not. When applied to teachers, LGBT sexual identity is too often conflated with child protection discourses, due in part to the tabloid press historically associating male paedophilia (with boys) with homosexuality. Panic about protecting children from an LGBT teacher is often a guise for a more deeply entrenched worry about the ‘proliferation of queer identifications in school’ (Cavanagh, 2008: 388). When every child is a potential victim of sexual abuse, every teacher is a potential perpetrator. When concern is expressed about the influence on young people of openly LGBT teachers, schools are perhaps instead trying to preserve the conservative and heteronormative status quo (Thompson-Lee, 2017).

Overwhelmingly, the major reason cited by participants for wanting to join the Courageous Leaders programme was the absence of any sort of specific LGBT support network for teachers, as Clare described.

There isn’t a support network in teaching for LGBT people and I hoped this programme would offer that. It can be so isolating when you are not out to anyone at school. (Clare)

Rumens (2011) describes the importance of workplace friendship as a resource for mentoring, climbing managerial career ladders, fitting into existing work cultures and developing managerial and leadership identities. Rumens found that LGBT workers preferred to befriend heterosexual colleagues, fearing that an association with other LGBT workers would hinder career development. If then, as Rumens suggests, LGBT workers avoid contact with one another within the workplace, it is important, as Andrew, Ben and Clare identified, that a safe professional network of LGBT support is available outside the workspace. Courageous Leaders met this need for the LGBT teacher participants, providing a safe space in which they could participate in a mutually supportive environment.

Experiences on the programme

The sense of an LGBT community for aspiring leaders was recognised by all participants as a strength of the programme. Donna, an experienced Head of Physics in a secondary school, states:

The sense of an LGBT community was nurtured quickly in the group. This provided a safe, trusting and insightful view of leadership, especially addressing LGBT issues in schools or our own personal challenges. Previously I felt much more isolated and now I do feel as if I am part of a larger community, facilitating change and support for LGBT students and staff. The course has had a huge impact on me in this field. (Donna)

It was clear that the LGBT teachers valued feeling a part of a community in a way some of them had struggled to do in their schools. Despite clear equalities legislation, Payne and Smith (2018) state that school leaders often see embracing LGBT stakeholders as a politically charged act, rather than a professional obligation, and one in that is ‘potentially antagonistic to the heteronormative culture of the school community’ (p. 208). Spending time as their authentic selves reflecting on their professional practice developed the confidence of participants, allaying fears and anxieties about the dissonance between their professional and personal identities, as Eve, a lesbian primary schoolteacher with over a decade’s experience, describes:

The size of the community that is out there to call on for support made a strong impression on me and I realised that so long as the right culture is created in school, there should be no reason why anybody should be worried about talking about these issues in school. (Eve)

Over the course of the programme, Courageous Leaders was frequently referred to by participants as their ‘safe space’, somewhere in which they could let down their guard and not worry about managing the intersection of their professional and personal identities. In the written reflections, several expressed that this was a relief, allowing for greater focus on leadership, without worrying about identity management. Ben, a secondary schoolteacher relatively new to teaching, describes his clarity of focus and thought once the issue of sexual identity was no longer apparent:

[it] allowed for frank, open and stimulating discussion in a safe environment where we could discuss challenges faced and be solution focused. This was incredibly empowering where I could be an open and out professional without the hesitation or after thought of what my colleagues may think of me. This enabled me to feel more confident and able to actively participate without the hesitation that so often influences my decision making process in new situations. (Ben)

Ben’s reflection hints at the way in which managing his sexual identity erodes his confidence in the school workplace, causing him to be wary and hesitant in his interactions with others.

The programme aimed to help participants become more at ease with themselves so that they could focus on leadership in a supportive environment. Fraser, an ambitious gay man in a middle leadership role, captures this:

Through the training provided, I feel I am more self-confident and I feel more settled and accepting of my LGBT status within the teaching profession…Hearing about the experiences of others has made me feel much less alone in my school journey. (Fraser)

The way in which the Courageous Leaders programme reduced anxiety and facilitated self-acceptance within the safe space was recognised as impacting positively on mental health. Donna stated:

It should not be underestimated, the positive effect of support for the LGBT individual on their mental health and overall well-being. (Donna)

The value of Courageous Leaders programme as a resource for LGBT teacher well-being and mental health was echoed by two further participants who admitted in their reflections to bouts of debilitating depression. Meyer (2013) researching minority stress asserts that a sense of harmony with one’s environment is the basis for good mental health. He adds that ‘when the individual is a member of a stigmatized minority group, the disharmony between the individual and the dominant culture can be onerous and the resultant stress significant’ (p. 676). Meyer recognised the way in which LGBT individuals constantly have to try to ‘maintain stability and coherence in self-concept’ (p. 681) and argues that it is the constant disbursement of energy for this purpose that results in excessive psychological stress among members of the LGBT population. It was evident that the participants valued the ‘time off’ from their dissonance with their school environment and the chance to be in a professionally stimulating environment without the burden of managing the intersection of their personal and professional identities.

During the programme, the LGBT teachers participated in a workshop on communication and presentation skills for leadership. Led by a facilitator from RADA (The Royal Academy for Dramatic Arts), participants were given coaching to develop their verbal and non-verbal communication skills, particularly with regard to public speaking. In the presence of the entire cohort, participants co-constructed what it meant to be a school leader while being their authentic selves. This session was overwhelmingly rated as the most rewarding and highly valued aspects of the programme, with Grace, a Physical Education teacher with 10 years’ teaching experience, recognising the discomfort she felt speaking in front of others when used to remaining as invisible as possible in the workplace. She wrote:

The most valuable moment was when we were taught presentation skills. I legitimately hated every second of it as I was very much outside of my comfort zone, but I have learned a great deal about how I come across and [have] grown as a result of it. I’m always Ok in front of the kids, but it’s made me speak up much more readily in staff meetings. (Grace)

As school leadership in the United Kingdom remains overwhelmingly male, heterosexual and masculine (Gray, 2010), the lack of confidence among the cohort may be attributed to insecurities around their suitability and presentation as a leader. During the programme, some of the five mentors led whole group workshops in which they shared their experiences of navigating their heteronormative school communities and achieving their leadership roles in spite of their LGBT identities. The speakers were described as inspirational role models by several of the participants. Helen, a secondary school Head of Science with 12 years’ experience as a teacher, valued hearing from an out gay male Head Teacher, stating:

I didn’t think it would be possible to be a Headteacher and be out at school. But I know now that it can be done and this has renewed my ambition to be a HT all over again. (Helen)

Helen’s lack of access to LGBT leadership role models had caused her to give up her ambition of becoming a Head Teacher, but hearing from a gay senior leader, out to his staff, pupils and all other school stakeholders, motivated Helen to resume the quest for leadership she had previously abandoned because of her sexual identity.

During each of the five face-to-face days, participants met with their mentors one-to-one to plan and work together towards the leadership aspirations identified at the start of the programme by each participant. In between the face-to-face days, mentors kept in email or telephone contact with participants, advising and supporting them prior to making applications for promotion, by reading over personal statements and curriculum vitae, and later offering interview preparation, or rebuilding confidence where participants were unsuccessful. After 21 years in the same school, Isabel worked with her mentor to successfully apply for a Head of School in alternative provision. Isabel clearly appreciated how the mentorship developed her confidence:

My mentor supported me to do the relevant research, and the coaching and mentoring and interview practice helped me to apply for the post. In the past I hadn’t had the confidence to look elsewhere for a job. I felt safer staying put. (Isabel)

With the help of her mentor, Grace was also successful and became Head of Year during the programme, a promotion that took her out of a role she had been in for more than 6 years. Grace wrote:

I was recently granted a promotion in my current school which would have been difficult to etch out without the help of my mentor. They have been contactable at the touch of a button and often offered insights and advice that I would not have been able to access otherwise. (Grace)

Andrew too achieved promotion to Head of Music and attributed the support from his mentor to helping him maintain his confidence through the application and interview process:

I found it so useful to reach out for support from my mentor, they spurred me on when I was doubting myself and was convinced I wouldn’t get the job. (Andrew)

Developing and co-constructing authentic models of leadership was a key component of the Courageous Leaders programme, underpinning all of the face-to-face days. Joanne, a sixth form Science teacher for 10 years, captures the way in which the programme spurred her on to achieve promotion as Head of Sixth Form within a multi-academy trust.

My mentor provided me with the confidence to be myself and take my whole self to work. With this increased confidence, I was motivated to apply for a promotion I thought was beyond me. This is just the beginning, as a result of working with my mentor, I definitely will apply for further senior leadership roles in future. (Joanne)

Joanne’s reflection implies a sense of relief in finding her authentic self and way to embody leadership authentically. It is clear from the testimonies of Courageous Leaders participants that once they permitted their personal and professional identities to coexist, their confidence as potential leaders grew. With the help of their LGBT mentors, they were motivated to realise goals that had in some cases been abandoned due to the perceived complexity of managing their personal identity within the context of being more visible through their leadership role.

Outcomes since the end of the Courageous Leaders programme

Eight of the cohort of 10 participants achieved promotion into positions of senior leadership in schools, including one as Head of School (Fraser) and another as Head of Alternative provision (Isabel). All mentioned in the written reflections that they were more relaxed and at ease with their sexual identity both in the classroom and the staffroom. Andrew reported feeling a sense of self-acceptance as a gay teacher and more able to reconcile his teacher and sexual identities:

Through the training provided, I feel I am more self-confident and relaxed at school. I feel more settled and accepting of my LGBT status within the teaching profession. (Andrew)

Fraser, promoted to Head of School, wrote that Courageous Leaders had helped him to be more open with school stakeholders, recognising that once he learned to relax about his sexual identity, he was more effective in his role. He stated:

It is because of this course that I feel less apprehensive about my personal life. I am more open with staff and children and am now more confident and relaxed at school…I no longer shy away from the topic of ‘being gay’ or ‘gay people’ with children and believe it is important that children see the world is made up of a lot of different people. (Fraser)

As a direct result of the programme, three participants (Ben, Fraser and Grace) gained the courage to come out at school. Further to this, two participants (Ben and Joanne) approached their Head Teachers and asked to run LGBT equality and diversity training for school staff. Andrew also set up an LGBT society, becoming an out gay role model for his students. He wrote:

As a result of this course I feel more open and confident at school. I have set up the school’s Equality and Diversity society, and am much more open about my personal life…I have also organised the school’s first ‘diversity week’ and have confidently challenged staff and students who were resistant to taking part. (Andrew)

Andrew demonstrates in challenging staff resistant to taking part in ‘diversity week’ a robustness far removed from the anxiety he experienced at school before joining the programme. Challenging the attitudes of others is an important leadership trait, and school leaders who provide visible and vocal support for institutional change around diversity play an important role in promoting equality as the responsibility of all school. By becoming visible role models in their schools, Ben, Fraser and Grace disrupted the hegemonic heteronormativity in their schools and claimed non-normative identity labels (Courtney, 2014). Furthermore, the eight participants achieving positions of leadership are able to increase the visibility of non-heterosexual identities within their school communities. It could be argued that the Courageous Leaders programme has begun a movement which is serving to queer school leadership. Queering school leadership (Courtney, 2014), within the parameters of the participants fixed LGBT identity labels, is however a paradox of sorts and what loomed large in the narratives of our participants was an acceptance that changes to the heteronormative cultures in which they worked needed to be made cautiously and incrementally. The legacy of the Courageous Leaders programme is however a renewed and determined sense of ambition for those involved. Participants who did not gain promotion themselves within the period of the programme gained confidence by seeing people like them apply for and achieve positions of leadership. The quotation below from Fraser captures the benefits of participation for him:

The network of people I met through the programme made me feel braver and more able to make further leaps up the career ladder. As a direct result of this programme, I had the confidence to pursue my dream of becoming a Head of School. (Fraser)

Conclusions

The Courageous Leaders programme represented a distinct leadership development experience for LGBT aspiring leaders in schools. The values explored in the programme of inclusion, celebrating diversity, accepting difference, challenging the status quo and promoting social justice, are all vital facets of strong transformative school leadership. However, for LGBT teachers, the day-to-day management of potentially incompatible personal and professional identities through vigilance, concealment, assimilation and acts of pseudo-heterosexuality take a great deal of energy on top of what is already a very demanding job. The Courageous Leaders programme afforded participants the opportunity to set aside the management of their sexual and teacher identities and concentrate fully on their development as authentic leaders. Authentic leadership can be described as self-awareness of an ‘emerging process where one continually comes to understand his or her unique talents, strengths, sense of purpose, core values, beliefs and desires’ (Avolio and Gardner, 2005: 324). Authentic leadership relies on relational transparency and a leader’s open and honest communication and relationships with those with whom they work. Once each of the participants was supported to find and embody their authentic LGBT leader self, they went on, with LGBT mentor support, to be more successful than they perceived they would have been without the support of the programme, and the networks and supportive community it provided.

Courageous Leaders has worked with a total of 30 LGBT aspiring teacher leaders over 3 years. When LGBT leaders become visible within our schools, they disrupt hegemonic heteronormativity by embodying a distinct type of leadership that troubles more traditional heterosexual, White, masculine conceptualisations of school leadership. Few would disagree that in order to flourish educationally, young people need access to diverse role models, committed teachers and authentic school leaders. There are almost 500,000 full-time equivalent teachers in the United Kingdom, and 20,000 Head Teachers (Torrance et al., 2017). It is commonly recognised that 1 in 10 of the UK population is LGBT and so it is feasible that there are as many as 50,000 LGBT teachers in UK schools. The Courageous Leaders programme was able to support fewer than 0.01 per cent of this population. At a time when the average length of service for a Head Teacher in the United Kingdom is just 3 years, Courageous Leaders demonstrates that specific LGBT leadership programmes present an important vehicle for improving the diversity of teacher leaders, and facilitating school cultures which enable LGBT teachers to be their authentic selves and flourish within the profession.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Catherine Lee

References

Avolio

Gardner

(2005) Authentic leadership development: getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 16(3):315–338.

Blount

(2003) Homosexuality and school superintendents: a brief history. Journal of School Leadership 13(1):7–26.

Borg

(2015) The Narrative of Gay Male Teachers in Contemporary Catholic Malta. PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.

Britzman

(2012) Practice Makes Practice: A Critical Study of Learning to Teach. Albany: Suny Press.

Busher

(2019) Ethical research practice in educational institutions: engaging with vulnerable participants. In: Busher

Fox

(eds) Implementing Ethics in Educational Ethnography: Regulation and Practice. Abingdon: Routledge, 378–388.

Carruthers-Thomas

(2019) ‘Glass’. Research Poetry Performance for Gender(s) At Work. 10.13140/RG.2.2.33954.48325. Presentation available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331935662_’Glass’_Research_Poetry_Performance_for_Genders_At_Work/citation/download (accessed 13 May 2019).

Carspecken

(2001) Critical ethnographies from Houston: distinctive features and directions. In: Phil

Walford

(eds) Critical Ethnography and Education. Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 1–26.

Cavanagh

(2008) Sex in the lesbian teacher’s closet: the hybrid proliferation of queers in school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 29(3):387–399.

Coleman

Campbell-Stephens

(2010) Perceptions of career progress: the experience of Black and minority ethnic school leaders. School Leadership and Management 30(1):35–49.

10.

Coon

(2001) A study of gay and lesbian leaders (Publication No. AAT 3032549). Seattle: Seattle University, Graduate School of Education.

11.

Courtney

(2014) Inadvertently queer school leadership amongst lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) school leaders. Organization 21(3):383–399.

12.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2008) The Landscape of Qualitative Research, vol. 1. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

13.

DePalma

Atkinson

(2009) ‘No outsiders’: moving beyond a discourse of tolerance to challenge heteronormativity in primary schools. British Educational Research Journal 35(6):837–855.

14.

Fahie

(2016) ‘Spectacularly exposed and vulnerable’ – how Irish equality legislation subverted the personal and professional security of lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers. Sexualities 19(4):393–411.

15.

Fassinger

Shullman

Stevenson

(2010) Toward an affirmative lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist 65(3):201.

16.

Ferfolja

(2010) Lesbian teachers, harassment and the workplace. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(3):408–414.

17.

Gray

(2010) ‘Miss, are You Bisexual?’: the (re) production of Heteronormativity Within Schools and the Negotiation of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Teachers’ Private and Professional Worlds (Doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University).

18.

Gray

(2013) Coming out as a lesbian, gay or bisexual teacher: negotiating private and professional worlds. Sex Education 13(6):702–714.

19.

Griffin

(1992) From hiding out to coming out: empowering lesbian and gay educators. Journal of Homosexuality 22(3–4):167–196.

20.

Jackson

(2006) Removing the masks: considerations by gay and lesbian teachers when negotiating the closet door. Journal of Poverty 10(2):27–52.

21.

Karpinski

Lugg

(2006) Social justice and educational administration: mutually exclusive? Journal of Educational Administration 44(3):278–292.

22.

Lee

(2018) Fifteen years on: the legacy of section 28 for LGBT teachers in English schools. Sex Education 8: 1–16.

23.

Lineback

Allender

Gaines

, et al. (2016) “They think I am a pervert:” a qualitative analysis of lesbian and gay teachers’ experiences with stress at school. Educational Studies 52(6):592–613.

24.

Litchman

(2006) Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

25.

Lugg

Koschoreck

(2003) The final closet: lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered educational leaders. Journal of School Leadership 13(1):4–6.

26.

Meyer

(2013) Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 1(S):3–26.

27.

Moreau

(2019) Teachers, Gender and the Feminisation Debate. London: Routledge.

28.

Moreau

Osgood

Halsall

(2008) Equal opportunities policies in English schools: towards greater gender equality in the teaching workforce? Gender, Work & Organization 15(6):553–578.

29.

Neary

(2013) Lesbian and gay teachers’ experiences of ‘coming out’ in Irish schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education 34(4):583–602.

30.

Padilla-Díaz

(2015) Phenomenology in educational qualitative research: philosophy as science or philosophical science. International Journal of Educational Excellence 1(2):101–110.

31.

Payne

Smith

(2018) Refusing relevance: school administrator resistance to offering professional development addressing LGBTQ issues in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 54(2):183–215.

32.

Piper

Sikes

(2010) All teachers are vulnerable but especially gay teachers: using composite fictions to protect research participants in pupil—teacher sex-related research. Qualitative Inquiry 16(7):566–574.

33.

Porritt

Featherstone

(eds) (2019) 10% Braver: Inspiring Women to Lead Education. London: Sage.

34.

Preston

(2018) Queer Teachers, Identity, and Performativity, edited by Harris

Anne

Gray

Emily M

. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2014. ISBN: 978-1-137-44192-8 XIV-118.

35.

Ragins

Singh

Cornwell

(2007) Making the invisible visible: fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology 92(4):1103.

36.

Rasmussen

(2004) The problem of coming out. Theory Into Practice 43(2):144–150.

37.

Ratcliffe

(2018) Gay teacher launches network to help British LGBT colleagues. The Observer, 26 May.

38.

Renold

(2002) Presumed innocence: (hetero) sexual, heterosexist and homophobic harassment among primary school girls and boys. Childhood 9(4):415–434.

39.

Robinson

(2002) Making the invisible visible: gay and lesbian issues in early childhood education. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 3(3):415–434.

40.

Rudoe

(2010) Lesbian teachers’ identity, power and the public/private boundary. Sex Education 10(1):23–36.

41.

Rudoe

(2014) Out in Britain: the politics of sexuality education and lesbian and gay teachers in schools. In: Gray

Harris

(eds) Queer Teachers, Identity and Performativity. London: Palgrave Pivot, pp. 60–74.

42.

Rumens

(2011) Minority support: friendship and the development of gay and lesbian managerial careers and identities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 30(6):444–462.

43.

Snyder

(2006) The G Quotient: Why Gay Executives are Excelling as Leaders…and What Every Manager Needs to Know, vol. 360: Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

44.

Sparkes

(1994) Self, silence and invisibility as a beginning teacher: A life history of lesbian experience. British Journal of Sociology of Education 15(1):93–118.

45.

(2010) What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 113(2):73–84.

46.

Thompson-Lee

(2017) Heteronormativity in a Rural School Community: An Autoethnography. Berlin: Springer.

47.

Torrance

Fuller

McNae

, et al. (2017) A social justice perspective on women in educational leadership. In: Miller

(ed.) Cultures of Educational Leadership. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–52.

48.

Ward

Winstanley

(2005) Coming out at work: Performativity and the recognition and renegotiation of identity. The Sociological Review 53(3):447–475.