Lesbian and gay parents in early childhood settings: A systematic review of the research literature

Abstract

This article presents the first systematic review of all the existing peer-reviewed literature (n = 20) on gay and lesbian parents and their children in early childhood education settings. The review includes articles that were empirical or pedagogical practice oriented, focused exclusively on early childhood education (Birth to 5 years), and concentrated on gay and lesbian parents and their children. Considering the date range of the articles (1990–2012) and their similar content, indications are that the field of early childhood has not progressed very far in the thinking and practices in relation to gay and lesbian parents and their children. Recommendations made in 1990 are being put forth as still needed today. Implications for pedagogical change and future research needs are provided.

Keywords

gay lesbian parents systematic review early childhood

Introduction

Gay and lesbian (GL)–headed families are increasing in numbers and becoming more prominent in the United States as rights are being extended in the arenas of marriage, civil partnerships, foster parenting, and adoption (http://www.lambdalegal.org/issues/marriage-relationships-and-family-protections). In addition, with access to medical interventions such as insemination and surrogacy, there are continued increased opportunities for parenthood. In the most recent US census (2010), there were 131,729 married same-gender households and 514,735 same-gender unmarried partner households (Gates and Cooke, 2010). These couples in total reported raising more than 111,000 children (Gates and Cooke, 2010). Yet, there are ongoing critiques of census data and specifically the reporting of GL households (Black et al., 2000; Tasker and Patterson, 2007). For example, single parenting GLs, as well as GLs remaining in heterosexual-looking households, are not accounted for. Thus, other estimates, previous to the more current census, believe that there are possibly 2–12 million children living in GL households (Fedewa and Clark, 2009). As many as 10 million school children in the United States have a parent who identifies themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) (Bower and Klecka, 2009). Despite our inability to know exactly how many children are being raised in GL households, what we do know is that this number is increasing and these children are found in educational settings.

The large and growing numbers of GL-headed families necessitate schools and teachers to be prepared to include and support the children and their gay or lesbian parents. It is well established in education research that parents impact the educational outcomes of their children and that school environments and teachers are then the strongest predictors of how involved parents are with their child’s education (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Epstein, 1995; Epstein et al., 2002; Koerner and Hulsebosch, 1996). Thus, this points to the importance of schools and teachers being prepared and invested in communicating, welcoming, and working with GL parents, in order to best fulfill their professional mandate of educating the children. It is important to note that various national organizations in early childhood such as the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC), National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) emphasize the need to welcome and celebrate families from all different backgrounds, implying the inclusion of GL families (Burt et al., 2010). These organizations are also clear that no child may be discriminated against based on family structure. Yet, they are not explicit in a focus toward or in the needs of GL parents. In fact, research has found that in teacher education training programs, topics related to GL parenting or families are seldom discussed (Fox, 2007; Jennings and Sherwin, 2008; Koerner and Hulsebosch, 1996; Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth, 2008).

Researchers have also found that there is very little research in the area of GL-headed families in early childhood settings (Averett and Hegde, 2012; Bliss and Harris, 1999; Hegde et al., 2014; Maney and Cain, 1997). We were unable to locate a single comprehensive literature review on this topic area. As a result of this lack of focus and information, and due to our own previous experiences in this research area (Averett and Hegde, 2012; Hegde et al., 2014), the need for a systematic review of the literature on GL parents in early childhood settings was evident.

Contextualizing ourselves

Due to our research backgrounds and personal interests in this content area, as well as our research philosophies, we felt it was important to contextualize ourselves and provide a reflection upon who we are as researchers and educators. As will be demonstrated in several of our method choices below, we engaged in many of Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) highly regarded criteria for “naturalistic” research. These criteria are often utilized in qualitative studies in order to evaluate their worth and are considered through the use of various techniques.

Specifically, reflexivity on the part of the researchers is one of those techniques, and its use is believed to enhance the confirmability of a study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1988). Reflexivity and transparency on the part of the researchers are deemed as important because a researcher’s background and position are commonly assumed to impact and influence what they study, their angle, methods, and framing of conclusions (Malterud, 2001). The belief then is that all researchers come to research with their backgrounds and positions firmly in place, and that they are inescapable, so that the best that can be done is a transparent attempt to lay them bare. Reflexivity is then achieved through various steps, such as the use of multiple investigators, which creates increased dialogue and more variety in perspectives upon the research. Reflexivity is also achieved through the disclosure of the positions, backgrounds, and relevant values of the researchers themselves. Therefore, we provide the following descriptions of each member of the research team and what we brought to this process.

Paige

Professionally, Paige is an associate professor of Social Work whose research focuses on LGBT issues, such as LGBT family formation, identity, and aging. She has also worked in a variety of early childcare and educational settings. Of particular interest in terms of this study is that her graduate research assistantship was in a university child development lab pre-school. As a trained social worker, Paige has a vested interest and commitment to social justice and equality. This commitment is brought into her research and teaching.

Personally, Paige lives as a heterosexual but believes in the continuum approach (Kinsey et al., 1948) and the more postmodern critical approaches to sexual orientation labels as seen in Queer theory (McPhail, 2008) and, as such, does not see her sexual identity as fixed. This too impacts how she approaches sexuality research and her teaching.

Anu

Professionally, Anu is an associate professor in the Department of Child Development and Family Relations with expertise in early childhood care and education (ECCE). She has worked in the field of ECCE for more than 15 years encompassing different roles: classroom teacher, clinical supervisor for student teachers, professor of early childhood, and presently also a consultant for state-level early childhood initiatives. She has specifically published on issues related to diversity in ECCE, teacher beliefs and practices on developmentally appropriate practices/inclusion, and quality childcare. The NAEYC (2005) code of ethics informs all her work that she does in the field of care and education and issues related to social justice and equality reflect within her scholarship of teaching, research, and service.

Personally, Anu is heterosexual and a devoted mother of two beautiful young children. Anu believes in sexuality being very fluid and takes pride in being androgynous.

Justin

Professionally, Justin is a nursing student. He has an undergraduate degree in psychology and has worked on various research projects in the field of clinical health psychology. Justin has historically been a quantitative researcher until this project.

Personally, Justin is a gay male who is drawn to the research of GL parenting because he desires to become a parent one day. Additionally, he has witnessed some of the hurdles his GL friends have had to overcome in their journey of raising children. Justin is an active supporter of LGBT awareness and acceptance efforts in his college communities.

Creation of the research team

Paige and Anu have an ongoing professional relationship that involves several studies on GL parents in educational settings (Averett and Hegde, 2012; Hegde et al., 2014). The need for this article was realized through the experience of the past research projects and ongoing frustrations with an inability to locate relevant articles in our content focus. Then, an oft-repeated discussion between Paige and Anu about finding a gay- or lesbian-identified team member was realized when Paige met Justin while he was considering pursuing a social work degree. It was believed that a gay or lesbian research team member would assist in the critical examination of the existing research, specifically for ideas and concepts that were heteronormative or biased.

Several points of difference became evident through the process of analyzing the articles. Specifically, in the critiquing of articles, it became clear that Paige identifies with some of the more radical aspects of Queer theory, while Anu and Justin follow a more traditional viewpoint of LGBT issues. In addition, Paige’s background is qualitative research, while Anu and Justin are quantitative researchers. These differences brought various points of view and knowledge to the systematic review process. This process is further described in our “Methods” section.

Methods

Selection criteria

A total of 20 articles were located that met the selection criteria for this review. Our criteria included only peer-reviewed articles that were selected based upon the content focus and age of the children. The following further delineates the criteria.

Peer review

We intentionally included only articles that were peer reviewed. We did not include books, thesis, or articles from non-empirical sources. We did this in order to best consider the current state and future needs of the research literature.

US context

We specifically excluded any literature that was conducted in settings outside of the United States. While there are studies being conducted outside the United States in the content focus, we felt that due to differing laws, educational policies, accreditation boards, and general cultural norms with regard to GL families, it is difficult to compare content across countries.

Content focus

The content of the articles had to focus exclusively on GL parents and their children, within early childhood settings. In contrast, articles that focused on GL children were not included.

Furthermore, we included articles that focused on pre- and in-service teachers in early childhood settings, in working with the children and parents of GL-headed families. In contrast, we did not include articles that focused on GL teachers or on teachers in elementary, middle, or high school settings. In addition, we did not consider articles that included a focus on the early childhood context when it was in addition to several other contexts or foci.

Age range

We only included articles that utilized early childhood education settings, samples, and/or teachers. Specifically, we defined early childhood as Birth to 5 years, and only articles that met this standard were included in the analysis. We chose this age range, rather than the NAEYC accreditation–based age range of Birth to 8 years (http://www.naeyc.org/accreditation) because of the variance in early childhood licensing among states (http://nrckids.org/index.cfm/resources/state-licensing-and-regulation-information/). For example, the state in which the authors reside (North Carolina) defines early childhood as Birth to 5 years; thus, we followed our particular state’s context. As well, we found many articles that were a mix of the later early childhood age (5–8) but also included other age ranges. We realized if we were to include up to age 8 years, we would then also have to include articles that had other age ranges. Thus, to best follow our particular context and to simplify the inclusion criteria, we strictly adhered to articles that utilized an age range of Birth to 5 years or were general pedagogical wisdom and provided no specific age range.

Search procedures

Articles were located via searching through six databases that included the following: (1) SocINDEX, (2) PsycINFO, (3) Social Work Abstracts, (4) LGBT Life, (5) Education Research Complete, and (6) Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). Boolean searches were conducted using the following terms: “Gay,” “Lesbian,” “LGBT,” “Family,” “Parent,” “School,” and “Teacher,” and each search was conducted systematically in order to use every possible combination. For example: the SocINDEX was searched using the terms, “gay” and “family” and “school,” then “gay” and “family” and “teacher,” then “gay” and “parent” and “school,” then “gay” and “parent” and “teacher,” then “lesbian” and “family” and “school,” and so on. This was repeated in each database in order to locate every possible article that met our criteria.

Two different graduate research assistants, following the search method described, conducted the searches at two different points in time. In addition, the lead researcher then combed all the reference lists of the located articles to look for any possible secondary sources that were potentially missed in the database searching. The multiple paths of data location (searching) provided triangulation of the data (Thurmond, 2001), which, according to Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) often cited benchmarks for evaluating research, produces rigor and trustworthiness in the methods.

Analysis process

All of the located articles whose abstracts potentially connected to our topic areas were considered for inclusion by the research team. The three researchers independently read through and critiqued each article for inclusion. We then met repeatedly to discuss the basis for inclusion or exclusion of each article. Furthermore, during these meetings, content area themes emerged, which included parent focus, parent and school interaction, school focus, child focus, teaching LGBT content to children, and teacher training. As well, we noted that the articles were empirical, or provided teaching wisdom and reflections, or were a combination of both. The content areas then were considered and reconsidered until there were less content areas. The content areas are discussed in the “Results” section.

After the articles were narrowed down to only those that met our selection criteria, we then met repeatedly to discuss the articles, which content area they best fit in, and what they provided to the literature. We evaluated each article using a table, which included columns for the methods used, the key results/findings, and the critique points of each article. The research team considered and analyzed each article independently, filling out our forms independently, and then met repeatedly to discuss our findings.

The entire analysis process included 14 meetings over an 8-month period that were conducted face-to-face, via Skype, or phone conference. Each meeting lasted approximately 1–2 hours. The independent rating and sorting of the articles by the research team provided another point of triangulation (Thurmond, 2001), which then enhances the rigor and credibility of this study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). In addition, the lead researcher kept a detailed record of the methods, meetings, findings, and overall process of the research. This type of detailed record, or research journal, is another of Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) benchmarks of rigor, as it can be used as an audit trial and enhances the confirmability of a study and aids in establishing trustworthiness.

Results

A total of 20 peer-reviewed articles that spanned 22 years (1990–2012) were located that met the criteria for inclusion. Of the 20 articles, 14 were pedagogical wisdom based and only 6 were considered empirical studies (Table 1). The 20 articles were found to cover four different foci:

How to address LGBT issues in early childhood settings (n = 8);

Teaching LGBT literacy to children (n = 6);

Pre-service/teacher training on LGBT issues (n = 4);

The educational outcomes of the children of GL parents (n = 2).

Table 1.

Articles via focus and type.

Focus	Authors	Pedagogical	Empirical
How to address LGBT issues in early childhood settings	Burt et al. (2010)	X
	Clay (1990)	X
	Clay (2004)	X
	Fox (2007)	X
	Meadows (2001)	X
	Ryan and Martin (2000)	X
	Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth (2008)		X
	Wickens (1993)	X
Teaching LGBT literacy to children	Chick (2008)	X
	Emfinger (2007)	X
	Lakey (1997)	X
	Riggs and Augoustinos (2007)		X
	Rowell (2007)	X
	Stewig (1994)	X
Pre-service/in-service training on LGBT issues	Averett and Hegde (2012)		X
	Casper et al. (1996)	X
	Kitner-Duffy et al. (2012)		X
	Szalacha (2004)	X
The educational outcomes of the children of gay and lesbian parents	Fedewa and Clark (2009)		X
	Potter (2012)		X

LGBT: lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.

As stated above, there were 14 articles that were categorized as pedagogical wisdom. However, we think it is important to recognize that while most were clearly pedagogical wisdom (n = 11), there were several that included data (n = 3) but were not clearly presented as empirical. For example, Clay (2004) stated that phone interviews and questionnaires were used; however, there are no details about these methods and no specifics more than this simple statement. There are also no demographics provided or description of analysis procedures. There was an article that was labeled by the author as a “review of research and program evaluation” (Szalacha, 2004) and another that was not labeled by the author in any methodological framework but was based around the use of interviews (Wickens, 1993). However, we categorized these three as pedagogical wisdom instead of as empirical studies because of the lack of any specific methodology description, details, or specificity in any of the three articles. As well, each of the articles’ primary focus was on presenting their pedagogical wisdom based on either anecdotal experience or past literature.

Based on the above requirements of methodology inclusion in order to be considered empirical, the topics of “pre-service/teacher training on LGBT issues” and the “educational outcomes of the children of gay and lesbian parents” contained the most empirical articles with two studies in each topic area. The topics of “teaching LGBT content to children” and “how to address LGBT issues in early childhood settings” each had one empirical article. Of the empirical articles, three were quantitative studies (Averett and Hegde, 2012; Fedewa and Clark, 2009; Potter, 2012), two were qualitative (Riggs and Augoustinos, 2007; Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth, 2008), and one utilized a mixed method (Kitner-Duffy et al., 2012). Because there are a low number of empirical articles, we organized the findings of the articles via themes primarily, but then included within each theme a distinctive empirical section to highlight the empirical knowledge within the literature and to distinguish it from the practice wisdom.

How to address LGBT issues in early childhood settings

The topic of how to address LGBT issues in early childhood settings was the most frequent (n = 8) within the existing early childhood education literature (Burt et al., 2010; Clay, 1990, 2004; Fox, 2007; Meadows, 2001; Ryan and Martin, 2000; Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth, 2008; Wickens, 1993). Only four of the eight were completed within the past 10 years (Burt et al., 2010; Clay, 2004; Fox, 2007; Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth, 2008). All of the articles in this topic area provided general pedagogical wisdom for early childhood settings, on how to be welcoming and inclusive of children and their GL parents. Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth (2008) provided the only empirical study in this content area.

Practice wisdom

The practice wisdom articles had a great deal of overlap and suggested very similar things repeatedly, such as:

Safety from bullying and intervention when it occurs (Burt et al., 2010; Clay, 1990, 2004; Fox, 2007; Ryan and Martin, 2000; Wickens, 1993) (n = 6);

Visible diversity in the classroom (posters, books, media, symbols) that are GL representative (Burt et al., 2010; Clay, 1990, 2004; Fox, 2007; Meadows, 2001; Wickens, 1993) (n = 6);

Inclusion of specific GL family topics into curriculum (Burt et al., 2010; Clay, 2004; Fox, 2007; Ryan and Martin, 2000; Wickens, 1993) (n = 5);

Inclusive language and forms (Burt et al., 2010; Clay, 1990; Fox, 2007; Meadows, 2001; Ryan and Martin, 2000) (n = 5).

Although less frequently discussed, there were also additional suggestions that were less classroom based and more focused on the overall environment within an early childhood setting. These suggestions for how to address LGBT topics in early childhood settings included the following:

Anti-discrimination school policies that include sexual orientation (Burt et al., 2010; Fox, 2007; Ryan and Martin, 2000) (n = 3);

Anti-bias training for all staff that specifically includes LGBT issues (Burt et al., 2010; Ryan and Martin, 2000) (n = 2);

Awareness of the broader issues that GL families face in society (custody, legal status, rights, etc.; Meadows, 2001; Ryan and Martin, 2000) (n = 2).

Empirical studies

Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth (2008) provided the only empirical knowledge within this theme, and their findings supported two of the above-stated needs, that of safety from bullying and intervention when it occurs and the need for inclusion of specific GL family topics into curriculum.

Overall, it is interesting to note that these less frequent and overall school-based changes are seen in some of the more recent articles. This suggests some movement toward next level steps of making not just classrooms but also the overall culture of the school responsible for being LGBT welcoming. Yet, many of the same suggestions and ideas for how to be more LGBT friendly in early childhood education settings that were being put forth in 1990 were still being stated as needs and of importance in 2010. This points to an overall lack of progress over the course of 20+ years, in the inclusion of LGBT-welcoming practices within early childhood settings.

Teaching LGBT literacy to children

The articles included in this content area very specifically focused on the inclusion of LGBT literacy in classrooms. They differed from the more general articles found in the “how to address LGBT issues in early childhood settings” due to their being more specifically and exclusively focused on literacy. There were six articles that fit this topic area (Chick, 2008; Emfinger, 2007; Lakey, 1997; Riggs and Augoustinos, 2007; Rowell, 2007; Stewig, 1994). Of these articles, five were reflections on and suggestions of LGBT-focused picture books and how to incorporate them into the classroom, and one was an empirical content analysis of LGBT picture books (Riggs and Augoustinos, 2007).

Practice wisdom

There was a great deal of overlap in the reasons for and the actual books suggested for inclusion. However, there were exemplars. Specifically, Emfinger (2007) provided the most comprehensive list of 50 LGBT-friendly books for children. Rowell (2007) presents the most holistic article, by suggesting LGBT-friendly books not just for reading but also for infusing into various content areas, such as math, science, and social studies. Lakey (1997) shared the experience of including a LGBT-friendly book into an early childhood setting and the democratic process that was undertaken in order to address the fears and concerns of parents.

Empirical studies

Riggs and Augoustinos (2007) provide the only empirical study in this topic area, a queer theory content analysis of 20 storybooks that feature GL families. Their findings suggest that most of the current storybooks reinforce a White heterosexual norm for parenting, and they call for more diverse stories, family structures, and race representations.

Overall, the most recent article within this category is from Chick (2008), which is still 7+ years old. This points to a need for a more updated examination of the LGBT early childhood literature, as we would hope that there has been a great deal more literature within the past 7 years, especially given the increase in rights and recognitions of LGBT families within the past few years. Lakey (1997) provides the experience of the teachers, administrators, and parents but not that of the children.

Pre-service/teacher training on LGBT issues

There were four articles that focused on the topic of pre-service or in-service teacher training on LGBT issues (Averett and Hegde, 2012; Casper et al., 1996; Kitner-Duffy et al., 2012; Szalacha, 2004). Of these articles, two are teaching wisdom based and two are empirical attitudinal studies.

Practice wisdom

Of the two teaching wisdom articles, each provides a different perspective. Casper et al. (1996) discuss their individual and collaborative experiences as researchers and professors on multiple projects with regard to sexual orientation and early childhood teachers, parents, and children. Written in 1996, they provide a historical context (starting in the 1980s) for LGBT issues in early childhood and provide reflection on their experiences as the leaders in the topic area. Szalacha (2004) wrote a literature review of teacher education on LGBT issues. However, the article contains no methods for the inclusion or choice of articles reviewed, and it is unclear in terms of the process used. Szalacha (2004) points toward the literature demonstrating a need for more pre-service and in-service training on LGBT issues and acknowledges that to date this has yet to occur.

Empirical studies

It would seem from our current findings that what Szalacha realized in 2004 still holds true, as we were able to locate only two articles that examined teacher training empirically and seems to point toward very little pre-service and in-service training that has occurred or been documented. Averett and Hegde (2012), the current authors, utilized questionnaires with pre-service early childhood teachers and school social work students to examine their attitudes toward GL-headed families. We found overall positive attitudes toward working with GL parents, but it is of note that the early childhood students did not feel as prepared (educationally). Kitner-Duffy et al. (2012) also examined pre-service early childhood teachers but conducted both quantitative and qualitative pre- and post-tests based on their experience in a course on working with LGBT parents. They found marked changes in the student’s attitudes after the course and improvement in all areas. Thus, all of the articles in this topic area speak to the great need for pre-service training and for more examination of pre-service training and in-service training of early childhood educators.

The educational outcomes of the children of GL parents

The only articles in this topic area included two empirical studies that looked at the educational outcomes of children of GL parents (Fedewa and Clark, 2009; Potter, 2012). Fedewa and Clark (2009) used an existing data set and compared 35 same-sex parents to 35 randomly selected heterosexual parents in their reporting of child outcomes. They found no significant differences in academic achievements, but they did find that the social adjustments of the children were impacted by the home–school partnership. Potter (2012) utilized the same data set and examined the math scores of the children of same-sex parents compared to two-parent heterosexual households. They found that the children of the same-sex parents scored lower, but the parent sexual orientation was not significant, while the number of family transitions was significantly related to the lower math score. It is important to point out that the data set that both analyses utilized contained primarily lesbian parents.

Both of these articles (Fedewa and Clark, 2009; Potter, 2012) demonstrate that the children of GL parents can experience difficulties that hamper their educational performance. One difficulty is that of social adjustment, while the other is a result of multiple family transitions. However, both articles are limited in their generalizability due to the need for the authors to extrapolate the same-sex families through indirect variables and through the use of self-report on the part of the parents.

Discussion

Within the 20 peer-reviewed articles that were located and reviewed above, two pressing issues became clear: first, the literature implications on the field of early childhood’s work with LG-headed families and, second, the many research needs on this topic. Below is further discussion of these two issues.

Implications for early childhood education

The most salient finding from the examination of the literature was that many of the same suggestions and ideas for how to be more LGBT friendly in early childhood education settings that were being encouraged in 1990 are still being stated as needs and of importance in articles written in 2010. This points to an overall lack of progress over the course of 20+ years, in the inclusion of LGBT-welcoming practices within early childhood settings. Specifically, many of the articles discussed the same and ongoing need to incorporate very basic things such as LGBT-friendly symbols, books, and inclusive language. It seems important to recognize that there may be early childhood settings that are at different levels and that some may have heeded this call for basic practices years ago, and now be at a point where they should consider broader issues, as Burt et al. (2010), Fox (2007) and Ryan and Martin (2000) suggest, such as school-wide anti-discriminatory policies and anti-bias training for all school staff. One reason that there has been little increase in LGBT-welcoming practices could be a result of the next issue, that of lacking pre-service and in-service training.

The literature examined in this review is clearly lacking in terms of documenting pre-service and in-service training for teachers, administrators, and school personnel. Yet, there are repeated calls within the literature for the need to increase, evaluate, and incorporate pre-service and in-service training on LGBT issues so that schools are knowledgeable and prepared to work with GL parents. It is important to note that we cannot be sure if some of the issues are that researchers are not studying the topic or if the pre-service and in-service training is not occurring frequently. Several authors seem to indicate that the training is not regularly occurring (Averett and Hegde, 2012; Fox, 2007; Souto-Manning and Hermann-Wilmarth, 2008; Wolfe, 2006), while other authors have indicated that early childhood programs in colleges and universities are increasingly becoming more intentional about including LGBT family trainings (Burt et al., 2010). If the latter continues to occur, then there is need for more documentation via peer-reviewed publications that demonstrate the outcomes of these classes and the student readiness. In turn, we might then find that the pedagogical practices begin to increase and see new suggestions and ideas with regard to how to be more LGBT inclusive.

Future research needs

Through the above analysis and even when considering implications, it became overwhelmingly apparent that there are many research needs within the literature on GL parents within early childhood education. Overall, there is a need for more empirical studies as the literature is filled with wisdom-based reflections. Early childhood researchers need to focus on the topic of GL-headed families as they become more visible, involved, and increase in numbers due to legislative changes. There is need for more quantitative, more qualitative, and more action research overall.

As a result of our analysis, we created the following specific list of missing or limited research areas:

Evaluation of pre-service classes and in-service trainings—As noted above, there was only one study that evaluated the impact of a LGBT course on pre-service training and there were zero in-service training evaluations.

LGBT literacy studies—Also as noted above, there is a need for a more recent and comprehensive examination of LGBT picture books. As well, there is not a single article that provides the experiences and reactions of children to LGBT picture books.

School evaluations—There was not a single ethnography or school evaluation that examined a culture of an early childhood setting with regard to being LGBT inclusive. We do not know whether school or teachers are practicing in a way that is welcoming to LGBT-headed families.

LGBT-varied samples—It was very evident that although research used “LGBT” or “lesbian and gay,” in actuality most of the samples were lesbian mothers. There is a need for studies that examine gay fathers’ experiences, as well as bisexual and transgendered parents.

Child-based samples—There were only two studies that examined the outcomes of children in early childhood settings with regard to LGBT issues, and both used a secondary data set. Studies that look at the experiences of children of GL parents, as well as children as they experience LGBT curriculum in early childhood are needed.

Early childhood samples exclusively—As we located articles, we found many that included early childhood samples but within a wide variety-mixed age of children. Although mix-aged studies are useful, we propose that one way to begin to increase the use of the pedagogical practices that are needed is for the early childhood field to more specifically and intentionally examine their field.

Early Childhood school personnel—There is a need for research on other school personnel, such as Directors, Child Development specialists, and/or Support Staff. There was some inclusion of some of these personnel in the research but very little in terms of sample. The administration of an early childcare center is influential in the culture and practices of a school and as such must be included in trainings, evaluation, and consideration of creating LGBT-welcoming school communities.

In addition to this list, there are also needs in terms of how research is conducted and reported within the early childhood field. There is a need for reviewers and editors to have higher expectations of articles that include data. As well, there is a need for early childhood researchers to be more transparent and clear about their methods, as several peer-reviewed publications, have published articles that included data but contained no methods. Editors, reviewers, and authors must attempt to provide the needed details to understand and critique empirical studies. As well, there is a need for queer theory perspectives. There were only 2 articles out of 20 that were positioned as having a queer theory orientation. Queer theory provides a new and advanced perspective on LGBT research and is seen in increasing numbers in LGBT studies in general. As such, the number of early childhood researchers approaching topics from this perspective should increase and align with the general field.

Conclusion

As is clear from the above discussion, there are many needs and opportunities both in terms of practices within early childhood settings and within the research literature. Early childhood educators have a responsibility to create welcoming, respectful, and inclusive classrooms and schools. As well, early childhood preparation programs have a responsibility to educate and train their students for nondiscriminatory practice, and early childhood researchers have a responsibility to evaluate, analyze, and further the field through knowledge creation. In this time of increased rights and growing family formation of LGBT-headed families, early childhood education must heed the call of 22 years of research and begin to transform the field so that LGBT families are welcome and included in the community of schools.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Amy Moore, MSW, and Olivia Neal, former graduate research assistants, for their extensive and repeated literature searching.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Averett

Hegde

(2012) School social work and early childhood student’s attitudes toward gay and lesbian families. Teaching in Higher Education 17(5): 537–549.

Black

Gates

Sanders

. (2000) Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: evidence from available systematic date sources. Demography 37(2): 139–154.

Bliss

Harris

(1999) Teachers’ view of students with gay or lesbian parents. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity 4(2): 149–171.

Bower

Klecka

(2009) Lesbian mothers’ bids for normalcy in their schools. The Educational Forum 73: 230–239.

Burt

Gelnaw

Lesser

(2010) Creating welcoming and inclusive environments for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families in early childhood settings. Young Children 65(1): 97–102.

Casper

Cuffaro

Schultz

. (1996) Toward a most thorough understanding of the world: sexual orientation and early childhood education. Harvard Educational Review 66(2): 271–293.

Chick

(2008) Fostering an appreciation for all kinds of families. Bookbird: A Journal of International Children’s Literature 46(1): 15–22.

Clay

(1990) Working with lesbian and gay parents and their children. Young Children 45(3): 31–35.

Clay

(2004) Creating safe just places to learn for children of lesbian and gay parents: the NAEYC code of ethics in action. Young Children 59(6): 34–38.

10.

Darling-Hammond

(2000) Teacher quality and student achievement: a review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 8(1): 1–44.

11.

Emfinger

(2007) Rethinking welcoming literary environments for LGBT families. Childhood Education 84(1): 24–28.

12.

Epstein

(1995) School/family/community partnerships: caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan 76: 701–712.

13.

Epstein

Sanders

Simon

. (2002) School, Community, and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook for Action. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

14.

Fedewa

Clark

(2009) Parent practices and home-school partnerships: a differential effect for children with same-sex coupled parents? Journal of GLBT Family Studies 5: 312–339.

15.

Fox

(2007) One of the hidden diversities in schools: families with parents who are lesbian or gay. Childhood Education 83(5): 273–281.

16.

Gates

Cooke

(2010) The Williams Institute census snapshot 2010. Available at: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Census2010Snapshot-US-v2.pdf (accessed 3 February 2014).

17.

Hegde

Averett

White

. (2014) Examining preschool teachers’ attitudes, comfort, action orientation and preparation to work with children reared by gay and lesbian parents. Early Child Development and Care 184(7): 963–976.

18.

Jennings

Sherwin

(2008) Sexual orientation topics in elementary teacher preparation programs in the USA. Teaching Education 19(4): 261–278.

19.

Kinsey

Pomeroy

Martin

. (1948) Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

20.

Kitner-Duffy

Vardell

Lower

. (2012) ‘The changers and the changed’: preparing early childhood education teachers to work with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered families. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 33(3): 208–223.

21.

Koerner

Hulsebosch

(1996) Preparing teachers to work with children of gay and lesbian parents. Journal of Teacher Education 47(5): 347–354.

22.

Lakey

(1997) Teachers and parents define diversity in an oregon preschool cooperative—democracy at work. Young Children 52(4): 20–27.

23.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

24.

McPhail

(2008) Questioning gender and sexuality binaries: what queer theorists, transgendered individuals, and sex research can teach social work. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services 17(1): 3–21.

25.

Malterud

(2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges and guidelines. The Lancet 358: 483–488.

26.

Maney

Cain

(1997) Preservice elementary teachers’ attitudes toward gay and lesbian parenting. Journal of School Health 67(6): 236–241.

27.

Meadows

(2001) Gay, lesbian, transgendered and bisexual families: the teacher or caregiver’s role in the development of positive relationships. Journal of Early Education and Family Review 8(3): 24–29.

28.

Merriam

(1988) Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (2005) Code of Ethical Conduct and Statement of Commitment. Available at: http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSETH05.pdf (accessed 27 March 2014).

30.

Potter

(2012) Same-sex parent families and children’s academic achievement. Journal of Marriage and Family 74(3): 556–571.

31.

Riggs

Augoustinos

(2007) Learning difference: representations of diversity in storybooks for children of gay and lesbian parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 3(2/3): 133–156.

32.

Rowell

(2007) Picture books reflecting gay and lesbian families. Young Children 62(3): 24–30.

33.

Ryan

Martin

(2000) Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender parents in the school systems. School Psychology Review 29(2): 207–216.

34.

Souto-Manning

Hermann-Wilmarth

(2008) Teacher inquiries into gay and lesbian families in early childhood classrooms. Journal of Early Childhood Research 6(3): 263–280.

35.

Stewig

(1994) Self-censorship of picture books about gay and lesbian families. New Advocate 7(3): 184–192.

36.

Szalacha

(2004) Educating teachers on LGBTQ issues: a review of research and program evaluations. Journal for Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education 1(4): 67–79.

37.

Tasker

Patterson

(2007) Research on gay and lesbian parenting: retrospect and prospect. Journal of GLBT Family Studies 3(2/3): 9–34.

38.

Thurmond

(2001) The point of triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 33(3): 253–258.

39.

Wickens

(1993) Penny’s question: I will have a child in my class with two moms-what do you know about this? Young Children 48(3): 25–28.

40.

Wolfe

(2006) Choosing to include gay issues in early childhood teacher preparation coursework: one professor’s journey. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 27: 195–204.