Early childhood administrators’ use of and beliefs about inclusive practices for gay and lesbian families

Abstract

This qualitative study utilized purposive sampling across the state of North Carolina to examine the practices of early childhood administrators in creating centers that were inclusive to gay and lesbian headed families. Data from four open-ended questions were analyzed to consider the use of picture books, promotional materials, and training for staff that were lesbian and gay parent focused. As well, a fourth question that asked for any feedback the participants wished to share revealed underlying beliefs and values of the NC administrators. Results indicated a continuum of practices that tended toward heterosexism and homophobia with limited lesbian and gay affirming practices reported. Implications include the need to increase training availability, increase LGBT content in early childhood preparation programs, and creation of policies that are inclusive to lesbian and gay headed families in early childhood settings.

Keywords

administrators early childhood gay lesbian parents

Background

The field of early childhood care and education reflects the diverse and changing demographic landscape of the United States of America (USA), representing people with different nationalities, ethnicities, religious beliefs, genders, and sexualities. Further, with more rights extended to same-sex couples in this country, we are seeing a rise in gay and lesbian (GL) headed households (Avery et al., 2007; Goldberg and Smith, 2013; Tasker and Patterson, 2007). The United States (U.S.) Census Bureau (2013) reports, 640,000 same-sex couples living in the same household. Gates and Cooke (2010) believes that around 6 million children in the U.S. have parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ). Nonetheless, researchers believe the numbers projected are far less than what we see in reality (Averett and Hegde, 2012; Bower and Klecka, 2009; Jeltova and Fish, 2005; Kitner-Duffy et al., 2012; Tasker and Patterson, 2007). Though the actual number of children being parented by GL individuals is unknown, we recognize that early childhood centers are often GL parents first institutionalized experience (Meadows, 2001). It is critical that these experiences are positive for the parents. A supportive, transparent, and welcoming administration can help GL families feel welcomed as administrative leadership creates the culture of the center.

In the current study, we considered the administrator of a high-quality childcare center to be the primary contact person for the GL families. We know that administrators spend a considerable amount of time communicating with families on daily basis (Rodd, 1999). Hence, creating environments that are welcoming of GL families is one of their core responsibilities. Research indicates that administrators that hold positive attitudes toward GL individuals and are comfortable with their parents’ GL identities more often implement inclusive practices within their centers (Church et al., 2018). Thus, administrators play an important role in forming and maintaining an inclusive environment for their GL parents.

We utilized several conceptual and theoretical lenses to examine this issue closely. Homophobia is defined as fear, contempt, prejudice, and a variety of other negative attitudes toward members of the LGBTQ community. Homophobia then results in discriminatory behaviors toward LGBTQ individuals. Whereas heterosexism or heteronormativity is typically not considered as violent or aggressive as homophobia, its discriminatory behavior lies in an assumption that heterosexuality is the normal sexual orientation or assumed to be everyone’s orientation. Several researchers have challenged the concept of heteronormativity and its presence in early childhood settings and its environments (Cloughessy and Waniganayake, 2019; Gunn, 2011; Janmohamed, 2010; Kroeger and Regula, 2017) as a dominant concept that can marginalize and not recognize diverse family structures that exist within society and classroom. This phenomena is translated into practice when we see limited resources in the classroom that reflect or respect diverse family structures. For example, curricula decisions are predominantly based on the heterosexuality assumption of children and their families and some topics such as “two moms” or “two dads” are never discussed or assumed to not exist. Heterosexism within centers leaves GL families invisible in the lives of their children. It is also important to address the issue of homogeneity which in diversity issues is similar to that of expressing to be color blind or to not see race. Similarly, people will state that they treat everyone the same but what this often leads to is continued invisibility and marginalization as the differences, needs, and concerns of GL families are marginalized. Another lens is that of anti-oppressive education (Kumashiro, 2000), which attempts to stop oppression from happening in the classroom. In this study we utilize the administrator’s perspective to assess and understand how they empower or marginalize gay and lesbian family structures by utilizing anti-oppressive pedagogical and administrative policies and practices.

Over the past decade attitudes toward same-sex couples has seen a positive change within the United States (Hicks and Lee, 2006; Jeltova and Fish, 2005; Whitehead, 2018). Nonetheless, negative attitudes regarding GL parenting and corresponding outcomes for children has continued (Avery et al., 2007; Bliss and Harris, 1999; Whitehead, 2018). Most researchers conclude GL parents are loving and capable, and their children’s development is not compromised by their parent’s sexual orientation (Anderssen et al., 2002; Averett et al., 2009; Patterson, 2008). However, parents still report discrimination within early childhood settings. Goldberg’s (2014) study compared preschool experiences for lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents. GL parents found the educators’ lacked experience in working with GL families and rendered their family structure to be invisible. Also, the use of heteronormative language within the school setting was fairly common. Thus, although there is a resounding call for more inclusion within the field of early childhood and push toward accepting and representing “ALL FAMILIES” (as reflected by NAEYC’s publication on ethics (Feeney and Freeman, 2018) and anti-bias education (Derman-Sparks and Edwards, 2020), it is not being intentionally practiced as widely in the field as is needed.

Strategies for inclusivity for GL families in early childhood settings

There is a 20-year-old body of literature in early childhood that repeatedly has called for specific practices for a more GL inclusive early childhood classroom (Averett et al., 2017). More than anyone, the administrator has the authority to bring about this change. Strategies suggested by Bower and Klecka (2009) include topics such as modifying assignments, including GL books, materials, and posters, and forms that are not heteronormative or exclusionary to various family structures.

Additionally, there are strategies that have been specifically formulated for administrators that include changes within mission statements (Burt et al., 2010; Duke and McCarthy, 2009; Fox, 2007), marketing materials (such as brochures, websites) (Burt et al., 2010; Clay, 2004; Duke and McCarthy, 2009), training for staff (Burt et al., 2010; Duke and McCarthy, 2009; Ryan and Martin, 2000, anti-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity (Burt et al., 2010; Duke and McCarthy, 2009; Fox, 2007), asking families what language they use to describe themselves and using that language accordingly (Burt et al., 2010), displaying gay-friendly or gay-ally symbols (Duke and McCarthy, 2009; Fox, 2007), hiring staff who have experience working with GL-parented families (Clay, 2004), and staying current on legal and social issues affecting the LGBTQ community (Duke and McCarthy, 2009; Meadows, 2001).

More recently, Longley (2020) proposed strategies that could be welcoming of LGBTQ staff within early childhood programs. These include developing an “Encountering Resistance” document that protects and respects LGBTQ staff, bringing visibility to staff’s personal identities such as having a “Get to Know Me” profile, books for staff and children that can be showcased every month, including and celebrating LGBTQ community presence within the center by connecting and inviting community members to share stories and publicly celebrating events such as “Pride Month,” and finally normalizing LGBTQ identities within their respective centers by using the right terminology and etiquette showcasing respect toward their own staff.

Overall, studies conducted on GL families within early childhood settings are limited to practice wisdom and are not empirical (Averett et al., 2017). As well, most studies focus on teachers working with children belonging to GL families and there is even more limited research specific to the administrator’s role (Averett et al., 2017). Our recent quantitative study examined administrator’s attitudes and experiences working with gay and lesbian headed families (Church et al., 2018). This study sheds light on administrator’s attitudes, preparation, comfort, and use of inclusive practices with their respective childcare centers. However, it did not explore administrator’s differing views on their practices, training requirements for staff, and detailed use of GL friendly strategies and materials within their centers. Thus, the main purpose of the study was to build upon our previous work and examine the qualitative responses given by early child-care center administrators to four open-ended questions, that captured administrators use of inclusive practices and identified barriers to implementation.

Methods

Participants

The current study is based on data that was collected from across the state of North Carolina (NC). Purposive sampling was utilized to include participants from the 100 counties in North Carolina, which were selected using the Child Care Facility Search Site found on the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education (NCDCDEE) website (http://ncchildcare.nc.gov/parents/pr_sn2_ov_sr.asp). Participants were required to be directors of a four- or five-star childcare centers, as determined by the North Carolina Star Rated Licensing system (North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education [NCDCDEE], 2005), which mandates childcare centers in NC to acquire a star rating as a part of their licensing requirement. The star ratings range between one and five stars. Higher quality childcare programs generally have a four- or five-star rating. The star ratings are based on two considerations: program standards and staff education. The program standard considers aspects of the center such as staff-to-child ratio, square footage per child, the amount and quality of materials available for children to play with, and sanitation issues. The staff education component considers teacher qualification and credentials. Centers are also awarded a quality point which can count toward their star rating if they meet additional education or programmatic criteria such as, 75% of center infant/toddler teachers have obtained an Infant/Toddler Certificate or smaller class sizes.

Setting

North Carolina is considered a generally conservative and evangelical Christian state often described as part of the “Bible Belt” that runs through the Southern part of the United States (Brunn et al., 2011). Thus, North Carolina culturally is steeped in values associated with those ideologies to include values such as being predominately pro-life, believing homosexuality is a sin, and against the separation of the Christian church and the state government. In regard to LGBTQ rights within the state, in 2011 the North Carolina senate passed a bill that put an amendment on the state constitution banning same-sex marriages. North Carolina voters approved this amendment 61% to 39% in 2012. North Carolina did begin recognizing same-sex marriage in 2014 as a result of the federal court decision reversing individual states rights and declaring them unconstitutional. Then in 2016 North Carolina passed a law referred to as HB2 which prevented local governments to have laws superseding state law concerned with hiring protections and use of bathroom facilities. HB2 required that all people must use the bathroom of the gender assigned at birth. This portion of the law was repealed in 2017. However, the hiring portion which made it difficult for minorities of any type to sue on the basis of hiring discrimination stood. The Governor did sign an executive order late in 2016 outlawing LGBTQ discrimination in hiring for state employees only. North Carolina hate crime statues do not include sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2019 the governor signed an executive order banning any state funding for conversion therapy on minors. Thus, North Carolina has not been considered an LGBTQ friendly state but has more recently increased in LGBTQ rights and protections.

Procedures

A total of 299 (14.6%) administrators of either four- or five-star childcare centers in the state of North Carolina consented and participated in the study, and 67.89% (N = 203) of participants completed the survey by leaving no more than 10% of the questions unanswered. The surveys were administered using Qualtrics. Participation in the study was completely voluntary and consents were obtained at the start of the survey. Data was collected for an 8-week period of time. Follow-up reminders were sent out at 2 and 6 weeks after the original invitation. The survey incorporated both open-ended and Likert-type questions. Due to the expansive dataset, only results of the open-ended questions are analyzed here; scholars interested in the quantitative responses are encouraged to consult Church J Hegde et al. (2018)

Measures

Demographic survey

A brief, self-constructed demographics survey began the survey. Information regarding administrators’ age, gender, sexual orientation, racial/ethnic group, religiosity, and practiced religion considered their personal characteristics, while their highest level of education, current title within their school/center, and years worked in the field of early childhood care and education (ECCE) provided information on their professional characteristics. The demographics survey also asked for center-specific information such as the North Carolina county in which their center operates, the number of stars the center holds, and whether or not the administrator knows if their center currently serves children with GL parents.

Open-ended questions

Participants were asked to respond to the following four open-ended, unlimited response size, questions:

1. My school/center incorporates pictures and books on GL families in the classroom. Please indicate how many and describe.

2. Training for staff on working with GL families. If applicable, please describe.

3. My school/center includes GL families in promotional materials (brochures, websites, photos, inclusive language, and etc.) Please indicate how many and describe.

4. Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?

Analysis

For purposes of the current paper, the responses to these four open-ended questions were analyzed. There were 69 responses to question one regarding pictures and books on GL families, 45 responses to question two regarding training on GL families for staff, 28 responses to question three regarding GL family inclusivity in promotional materials, and 67 responses to the fourth and final question asking broadly for anything else participants wished to share.

A member of the research team engaged in content analysis as described by Patton (2002). According to Patton (2002), content analysis “attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings” (p. 453). Specifically, conventional content analysis is used when the theory or literature on a topic is limited and pre-existing categories do not exist (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005). While there is a body of research on gay and lesbian families in early childhood settings, there have been few studies that specifically examine administrators’ practices, and none that are theoretical. Thus, conventional content analysis was chosen in order for the potential of theoretical concepts to emerge from the data.

Initially the responses were reviewed to gain a general sense of the content and identify initial patterns (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005; Patton, 2002). Emergent themes were noted, and the data were sorted and re-sorted via codes or themes. The emergent themes were then reconsidered to seek consistency and continually re-sorted and re-themed as needed. As part of the content sorting process, the numerous themes were considered for combining into a smaller number of themes. From the themes that demonstrated scaled and gradient qualities within the language used by the participants a final theoretical model emerged that suggested a continuum of responses for three of the questions. The presentation of the themes via the continuums allows for the overlap yet distinctions between the words of the participants. The continuums provide the various reasonings behind the often negative responses that could have been categorized singularly, yet would not have respected the detailed explanations provided by participants. As well distinctions between the responses can speak to the various attitudes present – for example homophobic responses versus heteronormative responses versus homogenous responses. Additionally, as is consistent with content sorting, the connections, overlap, and relationships between themes (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) lend themselves to a continuum model. The continuums are presented based on the responses given to three questions that included incorporation of GL pictures and books within classes, use of LGBTQ trainings for center employees, and GL inclusive promotional material. In each continuum there is a classification of the themes (i.e. homophobic), the themes (i.e. Every Classroom), and then exemplar quotes from the participants for that theme, below them.

Results

Incorporation of gay and lesbian pictures and books

Question one asked administrators of early childhood centers to share how many and what type of books and photos that represented GL families they had. The continuum of responses as demonstrated in Table 1 ranged from Many to being Against having GL books and pictures.

Table 1.

Continuum of gay and lesbian pictures and books.

Affirming	Affirming	Affirming	Homogenous	Invisibility	Heteronormative	Homophobic
Many	Every classroom	A few	Same as all families	None but not opposed	No need	Against
“We have many GL family pictures and books featuring GL families.”	“We have photos and books in each classroom that depicts families with gay/lesbian parents”	“We have a few, not many, books depicting GL families.”	“Teachers include just as they would any group”	“None in library, but not opposed to.”	“This has not yet occurred in our center. If and when we do have a GL family in our center we will adapt to make them feel comfortable.”	“I feel that is private. Just like me and my husband business. Everyone won’t get to heaven amen.”
“There are eight books at the center that discuss having two dad’s and having two mom’s”	“We strive to have a few books in each age group that incorporate GL families in the classroom.”	“Only a couple. . .cartoon drawings, realistic photos.”	“Many different books and pictures that portray all different family styles”	“I don’t seek out books that have these families pictured but if I found them I would get them.”	“No GL families at this time”	“No books, and I don’t think we will. That’s something highly offensive to so many people. No need to rock the boat!”

As noted above there were 69 responses to this question about use of GL pictures and books. The majority of the responses were in the Same as All families category with most administrators responding that the books on and pictures of GL headed families were one of many diverse family structures portrayed in their center and classrooms. The Against category had the least amount of responses. However, it is of note that the question asked how many they had and what type, thus the question was not asking whether they did or did not, and why not.

This continuum demonstrates degrees of responses such as many versus every classroom, which could be in fact the same response or could have a great deal of overlap. However, these were differentiated to respect the exact language differences used by participants.

LGBTQ Training

Question two asked administrators about the type of training that their early childhood setting offered on LGBTQ diversity. The continuum of responses as demonstrated in Table 2 ranged from General Diversity Trainings to LGBTQ Training Not Needed.

Table 2.

Continuum of LGBTQ training for staff.

Homogenous	Openness	Openness	Heteronormative	Heteronormative
General diversity trainings	Group or individual discussions	Not had any but would like to	None offered	Not needed
“We talk about cultural and overall sensitivity and acceptance of all-regardless of race, income, religion, sexual orientation, etc”	“We have had children from GL families, topic discussed at staff meetings with favorable results”	“I have not had this training but would like to.”	“There have been no trainings offered in our area.”	“Not needed at this time”
“Our company requires a Diversity training for all staff, it includes conversations about same sex couples and families”	“We have discussed but not training”	“Have not done this, but would love to!”	“I do not know of any training for myself or staff”	“Have not felt the need to do so yet”

As noted above, there were 45 responses to the question of training on GL issues. The majority of the answers were that none were offered or that they had not had any but would like to. This continuum and its themes are mostly negative with some openness found in the responses given. As well, the General diversity training theme points toward a homogeneity attitude toward diversity and LGBTQ issues specifically.

Promotional materials

Question three asked the administrators about the use of GL inclusive promotional materials to include brochures, websites, photos, inclusive language, etc. The continuum of responses as demonstrated in Table 3 ranged from Gender Neutral Forms to None with several variations to the No response.

Table 3.

Use of GL inclusive promotional materials.

Affirming	Openness	Heteronormative	Heteronormative	Heteronormative
Gender neutral forms	Never thought of	No families promoted	Do not need	No
“Wording is not gender specific”	“I have not done it yet, but is a good idea”	“Our facility does not include family pictures in promotional materials”	“I do not and have not had GL parents that I am aware of”	“I have not seen any examples in the marketing materials we are sent”
“I work for head start and we are now federally mandated to change wording in our application process, etc. we are still in the process of explicitly addressing the issues programmatically”	“I do not but will now consider.”	“We do not have pictures of families at all on the brochure, just a few of children only”	“Again we do not have any GL families in our center”	“NA”

As reported above only 28 administrators responded to this question about the use of promotional materials that were GL family inclusive. The majority of these responses were in the various “No” categories with only 6 of the 28 indicating the use of GL inclusive promotional materials.

Other comments

Question four asked the administrators to share any comments, questions, or concerns that they had. This question had 67 responses which is viewed as a large response, as the second most frequently answered question out of the four open-ended questions. The data from this question resulted in four themes that indicated the administrator’s beliefs regarding GL families which include: Homosexuality is a Sin, We Treat Everyone the Same, The Questions Do Not Apply, and This Made Me Think.

Homosexuality as a sin

Participants used this open-ended question to clearly share their religious beliefs that homosexuality was a sin. Nineteen out of the 67 responses supported this belief system and were included in this theme. These beliefs were also often shared in lengthy, descriptive responses as demonstrated below:

Sin is sin; whether homosexuality, adultery, or compulsive lying to name a few. I do not feel like G/L’s are sick but have chosen to live that kind of lifestyle. I do not feel like they should be discriminated against but shown in the Bible where they are wrong and seek to change. They deserve to be loved but their lifestyle not accepted. I do not know how I will be when I am faced with enrolling a same sex family or hiring a G/L. I know I cannot discriminate but it will be hard for my because of my religious beliefs. I think I will be able to work with them and care for their children the same as any other. I believe they will know where I stand on their lifestyle by the life I live for Jesus and at the same time I will show them the love of Jesus. Maybe it is time for me to retire as the world is changing faster than I am willing to change.

I believe homosexuality to be a sin however, I feel that no one should be mistreated or made to feel bad. I will not foster an environment that will welcome this confusing concept to young children. I will not provide books or literature that will make it seem that I feel this practice to be ok. If the topic comes up and a child mentions he has two mothers it will be said that that is how his family is and that every family is different and special in their own way but I will not dedicate lesson plans and books that support it. We will just keep the conversation moving. Many think I’m a hater of G/L but I’m not. I do not support it and I do believe it to be a sin but I choose to hate the sin not the sinner. We all have our own crosses to bare so I am not going to judge anyone for their choices however, I will not support the thought that it is ok and good and acceptable in my center. I would never express my opinions to the young children in my center, not because I’m a coward but because as a parent myself I want my child’s more and values to come from what we Believe in our home and not what is being forced fed to them at school.

As a Christian, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. It is important to note however that I view sin as sin, none greater or less in God’s eyes. I am a sinner forgiven by grace. I have a niece, several friends, former employees, church family, and colleagues that are GL. My desire is to always embrace people where they are, love them for who they are, and challenge them to be the best they can be. I will always share the love of Christ and uphold Biblical principles and values but unlike many middle-aged heterosexuals, I believe that this should be done in love, without persecution and ridicule, and always with the intent to lead people to salvation through Christ Jesus. Thank you for the opportunity to share.

As indicated in the above exemplar quotes, there was a focus on sin, Christian beliefs systems, and yet a corresponding belief that they were not discriminatory while holding these beliefs.

We treat everyone the same

Similar but different in tone, were the 14 statements that shared the belief that everyone should be treated equally and that they believed in and practiced this belief. These responses often included a religious belief but focused more on equal treatment as seen in the following exemplar quotes:

I believe it is important for everyone to remember that the children were not asked to be put in these situations, therefore they should not be treated any differently. And though I don’t agree with GL, I try to treat everyone the same.

While it is against my religious beliefs (GL) I also feel very strongly that it is not our place to judge and that every human being should be treated equally and without ridicule of any sort. Jesus loves everyone and so should we.

Often like the Homosexuality is a Sin theme, the responses in We Treat Everyone the Same included a reference to religious beliefs, as seen in the above quotes. However, other responses within this theme were specific to GL families being treated like heterosexuals, while other responses included a more general belief that everyone should be treated the same regardless of any demographic factor as seen in the following quote:

Families are families, and children are children. As a child care provider, I believe that showing respect, love, and open honest communication is the key. A couples sexual orientation is not a factor in caring for a child. At the work place, I deal with this issue the same way as I deal with divorced parents, remarried parents, married parents, single parents and partners—communicate and support the family to help parents, guardians, and the children stronger.

The questions do not apply

While the previous themes focused more on the administrators who wanted to share their personal beliefs, this theme and the next more specifically spoke to the survey itself. However, in each of these there is an underlying belief system that is evident through their reflections on the survey itself. Specifically, in this theme of The Questions Do Not Apply, 11 administrators in this study wanted it clear that the survey asked questions that they felt did not apply to them because they currently did not have any gay or lesbian headed families that attended their center. For example:

There were several questions that I had a hard time answering because they did not apply to me or my center. Currently, we do not have any GL couples at our center.

I really couldn’t answer every question with the options provided. Some of the questions didn’t really pertain to our situation.

I have never had to deal with this issue so it was hard to answer some of the questions.

These responses demonstrate an underlying belief that certain diversity topics or possibly just LGBTQ topics should not be covered within an early childcare center unless it is representative of an actual family present in the center.

This made me think

Another theme that was focused on the experience of the survey was that of This Made Me Think, where 10 of the administrators realized through the completion of the survey that they had not given much consideration to this topic but would now, as seen in the following:

WOW!!!! I had to do some serious reflection here. I’ve had one Lesbian family and it was a great experience overall. I didn’t make a fanfare of them as I saw this family as just a family. The only issue I recall is feeling like it wasn’t my place to explain to the children that so and so had two mommies. That said, I skated around those issues trying to stay low key and neutral for fear of the family being judged or even me being looked at as accepting TOO much etc. Aforementioned, I had a great experience with this family but this survey helped me to see that I am not 100% prepared not because of my personal beliefs but my preparation to share with the other families. I have just been awakened and CONVICTED! Great survey!

I have no issue with G/L lifestyle but have considered incorporating more into my program since this survey.

I gained some insights and ideas from the questions in this survey. I would welcome more information on incorporating gay and lesbian families into our facility.

The participants in this theme also indicated an interest in receiving more training and information on GL topics, as reflected in earlier responses as well.

There were also other responses provided to this open ended question that did not fit into one of the above themes, but also were not consistently shared and thus not robust enough to be considered a theme. For example, one individual came out in their response while another asked about the anonymity of the survey.

Discussion

As demonstrated above the results of this study indicated a continuum of practices by administrators within their centers, that overall tended toward homophobic, heterosexist, and homogentiy practices. Overall, there were limited lesbian and gay affirming practices reported. The participants shared more of general diversity practices in terms of books and trainings, but even more consistently reported not feeling GL practices were relevant, needed, or appropriate.

It is not surprising that diversity books and/or specifically GL books were utilized by some of the participant’s centers, as there is often a great focus in early childhood education and research on diverse books and literacy (Averett et al., 2017; Chick, 2008; Cloughessy and Waniganayake, 2019). Literacy is a core area of education where diversity practices are promoted within teacher preparation programs (Janks, 2000).

Of note was that participants shared the belief that if they did not currently or had never had GL parents send their children to their centers, that then these practices were not applicable or needed. These findings are similar to those of Robinson and Jones-Diaz (2000) regarding LGBTQ and other diversity representations within early childcare, that out of sight is out of mind and thus anti-bias education is viewed as not relevant, if it is not visible among the children.

Responses also indicated that often when LGBTQ topics were covered, such as in books or trainings offered to the center staff, they were grouped in with a variety of other diversity topics. Previous research has demonstrated that when diversity training is broadly presented, often LGBTQ topics are under-represented or not actually of focus and assumed that general acceptance or tolerance is promoted (Lipkin, 2002). These responses point to homogenizing differences among various oppressed groups and an invalidation of the particular experiences of LGBTQ individuals.

These responses indicate that these highly rated centers within the state of North Carolina have heteronormative or heterosexist cultures, where these centers marginalize and do not recognize diverse family structures. This is based on these participants assumption that GL families are not present and a lack of interest in creating GL welcoming centers for GL parents to even consider. This invisibility hurts not only the children whose parents may be closeted to the center staff, but also hurts all of the children that attend that center, as heterosexist cultures and discourses exist within these the centers.

Particularly telling were the responses to the last open-ended question where participants shared that their personal beliefs, namely Christianity, was driving the practices within their centers and was resulting in homophobia or heterosexism for many of them. While these findings are not surprising, given the large body of literature that has demonstrated that religious beliefs operationalized as conservative and behaviors (i.e. frequency of attendance), is the most frequent trait of those with negative attitudes to LGBTQ individuals (Averett et al., 2009; Kitner-Duffy et al., 2012; Maney and Cain, 1997; Whitehead, 2018), they are nonetheless meaningful. These responses are considered meaningful as the open-ended question was a broad and general one soliciting any further comment, yet it received one of the largest number of responses from the participants demonstrating a keen interest in sharing. As well, it provided the most lengthy and descriptive responses from the participants, demonstrating their strong and clear desire to share their personal religious beliefs.

Additionally, holding contradictory beliefs (personal vs. professional) on this topic is not uncommon in the field of education. Kitner-Duffy et al. (2012) in their study found that early childhood pre-service teachers might hold personal prejudices and narrow-minded perspectives on this topic, however, they might portray to the real world that they are tolerant and open-minded. One such example, Kitner-Duffy (Kitner-Duffy et al., 2012) provides the illustration where students stated they would include topic on LGBTQ families only if an LGBTQ family was a part of their classroom. This is exactly what the administrators stated within our study. Thus, in last few years (2012–2020) things remain unchanged and administrators believe that their personal beliefs do not impact their professional responsibilities. Yet in the real world administrators are allowing children’s education to be impacted by their personal beliefs as they make GL parents and families invisible in their centers. As well, the administrators in this study demonstrated a lack of broader social and ethical responsibility toward their profession.

The encouraging finding of this study was that as a result of participation in the study, some administrators felt the need to examine their own heterosexism and indicated that they would reconsider their practices so that they were more inclusive of GL families. While some indicated a fear of the risks associated with this, several also realized the lack of attention to diversity and social justice was a larger problem (Robinson, 2005).

Implications

These findings have several potential implications. Implications of this research include the need to improve and increase LGBTQ training availability and the need to continue to increase LGBTQ content and critical reflection in early childhood preparation programs. Specifically, there is a need within the state of North Carolina for education and training that focuses on conservative religious values and how they impact GL families. Additionally, these findings indicate the need for creation of policies that are inclusive to lesbian and gay headed families in early childhood settings, potentially from national accrediting or state rating bodies. Lastly, this research also points to a need for more research into this topic.

NAEYC’s position statement on Advancing Equity in Early Childhood Education is creating a new movement in the field of early childhood care and education, that affirms the idea that all children should experience equitable learning opportunities and administrators and teachers are professionally obligated to advance equity in their field. In the context of this study that means ALL practices at a high-quality childcare center should reflect these tangible and intangible inclusive practices. Tangible practices are reflected by the curriculum adopted for the center, modified to suit the needs of LGBTQ families (e.g. books and materials used in the classroom, policies formulated at the center). While, intangible practices are attempts administrators make toward being a more inclusive center; having or developing positive attitudes toward LGBTQ families, taking responsibility for any biased actions (even if unintended), working toward being more self-aware and cognizant of one’s own action and trying to change for better, allowing staff to be trained on this particular diversity topic, and looking for resources within the community to enrich diversity training. Thus, ADVANCING EQUITY should form the backbone for change (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2019).

The need for more training on LGBTQ issues has been a repetitive theme in the literature (Averett et al., 2017; Beren, 2013; Bower and Klecka, 2009). Training that is provided to the administrators at both levels; pre-service and in-service should be examined closely. We urge both community college and Institute of Higher Education (IHEs) to examine their curriculum closely and evaluate where LGBTQ literature is being taught explicitly in their teacher education programs. Morgan and Kelly-Ware (2016) provide a model for this. Further, in-service training should be practical and more widely accessible. Some of the administrators in the study feared parental resistance on this topic. Lakey (1997) provides a model for how this was accomplished in one school. Thus, part of administrator/teacher training on LGBTQ should take into consideration educators concerns regarding parents reactions if a topic on LGBTQ is introduced to children and how to best navigate it.

As well, results of this study indicate the need specifically to increase the critical reflection of administrators into their own personal and religious beliefs, values, and practices. Elementary education teacher education programs have demonstrated these pedagogical practices (Howard and Ticknor, 2019; Howard et al., 2018; Ticknor et al., 2020) and can provide direction for both early childhood education programs and in-service training programs.

Additionally, accessibility to high quality training on this topic and its dissemination needs to be broadly implemented. The administrators in this study were clear that training was not available, or they were not aware of it. Potentially state or local agencies such as the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education can offer high quality online LGBTQ training content for administrators with built-in incentive, such as CEU credits. This idea needs to be further explored.

In terms of policy implications, state rating systems, such as the North Carolina Star Rated Licensing system (NCDCDEE, 2005), that was accessed for the present study need to consider including social justice and diversity as a part of the rating systems for early childhood centers. While state and federal centers such as Head Start have incorporated anti-discrimination policies into their centers, private centers are not held to the same standards.

There is continued need for further research into this topic, specifically into administrators and their attitudes, practices, and beliefs in regard to LGBTQ topics in early childhood. There is very little on this topic in regard to this specific sample despite the fact that administrators are key to the culture and practices that create a welcoming environment for GL parents and one that resists heterosexist teaching of young children. There is a need for wide spread program evaluations that include diversity topics to include LGBTQ, within the evaluation criteria.

Conclusion

The current study attempted to add to the limited literature on early childhood administrators’ practices and beliefs regarding lesbian and gay headed families. This work extends upon our previous works and attempts to further the field in addressing the slowly changing culture of early childhood centers to be more GL affirming and welcoming. These results indicate that highly rated centers can still engage in heterosexist, heteronormative, and homophobic practices despite NAEYC’s call to ADVANCE EQUITY. Early childhood educators, state regulating bodies, administrators and teachers must be more intentional in progressing the field through increased and expanding education, trainings, and policies in order to engage in social justice for LGBTQ families.

Footnotes

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Paige Averett

References

Anderssen

Amlie

Ytterøy

(2002) Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43(4): 335–351.

Averett

Hegde

Smith

(2017) Lesbian and gay parents in early childhood settings: A systematic review of the research literature. Journal of Early Childhood Research 15(1): 34–46.

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.

Averett

Nalavany

Ryan

(2009) An evaluation of gay/lesbian and heterosexual adoption. Adoption Quarterly 12(3–4): 129–151.

Avery

Chase

Johansson

, et al. (2007) American’s changing attitudes towards homosexuality, civil unions, and same-gender marriage. Social Work 52: 71–79.

Beren

(2013) Gay and lesbian families in the early childhood classroom: Evaluation of an online professional development course. Learning Landscapes 7(1): 61–79.

Bliss

Harris

(1999) Teachers’ views of students with lesbian or gay parents. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies 4: 149–171.

Bower

Klecka

(2009) Lesbian mothers’ bids for normalcy in their children’s schools. The Educational Forum 73(3): 230–239.

Brunn

Webster

Clark

(2011) The Bible belt in a changing South. Southeastern Geographer 51(4): 513–549.

10.

Burt

Gelnaw

Klinger

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

11.

Chick

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

12.

Church

Hegde

Averett

, et al. (2018) Early childhood administrators’ attitudes and experiences working with gay and lesbian-parented families. Early Child Development and Care 188: 264–280.

13.

Clay

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

14.

Cloughessy

Waniganayake

(2019) Lesbian parents’ perceptions of children’s picture books featuring same-sex parented families. Early Years 39(2): 118–131.

15.

Derman-Sparks

Edwards

(2020) Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

16.

Duke

McCarthy

(2009) Homophobia, sexism, and early childhood education: A review of the literature. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 30(1): 385–403.

17.

Feeney

Freeman

(2018) Ethics and the Early Childhood Educator: Using the NAEYC Code, 3rd edn. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

18.

Fox

(2007) One of the hidden diversities in schools: Families with parents who are lesbian or gay. Childhood Education 83(5): 227–281.

19.

Gates

Cooke

(2010) The Williams Institute: North Carolina census snapshot 2010. Available at: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/us-census-snapshot-2010/ (accessed 17 July 2020).

20.

Goldberg

(2014) Lesbian, gay and heterosexual adoptive parent’s experiences in preschool environments. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29: 669–681.

21.

Goldberg

Smith

(2013) Preschool selection considerations and experiences of school mistreatment among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 29(1): 64–75.

22.

Gunn

(2011) Even if you say it three ways, it still doesn’t mean it’s true: The pervasiveness of heteronormativity in early childhood education. Journal of Early Childhood Research 9(3): 280–290.

23.

Hicks

Lee

(2006) Public attitudes toward gays and lesbians: Trends and predictors. Journal of Homosexuality 51(2): 57–77.

24.

Howard

Overstreet

Ticknor

(2018) Engaging preservice teachers with culturally responsive pedagogy: Three model lessons for teacher educators. Journal of Language and Literacy Education 14(2): 1–19.

25.

Howard

Ticknor

(2019) Affirming cultures, communities, and experiences: Teaching for social justice in teacher education literacy courses. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 92(1/2): 28–38.

26.

Hsieh

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15: 1277–1288.

27.

Janks

(2000) Domination, access, diversity and design: A synthesis for critical literacy education. Educational Review 52((2)): 175–186.

28.

Janmohamed

(2010) Queering early childhood studies: Challenging the discourse of developmentally appropriate practice. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 56(3): 304–318.

29.

Jeltova

Fish

(2005) Creating school environments responsive to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender families: Traditional and systemic approaches for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 16(1/2): 17–33.

30.

Kitner-Duffy

Vardell

Lower

, et al. (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.

31.

Kroeger

Regula

(2017) Queer decisions in early childhood teacher education: Teachers as advocates for gender non-conforming and sexual minority young children and families. International Critical Childhood Policy Studies 6(1): 106–121.

32.

Kumashiro

(2000) Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Education Research 70: 25–53.

33.

Lakey

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

34.

Lipkin

(2002) The challenges of gay topics in teacher education: Politics, content and pedagogy. In: Kissen

(ed.) Getting Ready for Benjamin: Preparing Teachers for Sexual Diversity in the Classroom. Oxford: Rowan Littlefield.

35.

Longley

(2020) Embracing LGBTQIA staff in early childhood programs. Young Children 75(2): 66–73.

36.

Maney

Cain

(1997) Pre-service elementary teachers’ attitudes toward gay and lesbian parenting. Journal of School Health 67(6): 23–241.

37.

Meadows

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

38.

Morgan

Kelly-Ware

(2016) You have to start with something: Picture books to promote understandings of queer cultures, gender and family diversity. Early Childhood Folio 20(1): 3–8.

39.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (2019) Advancing equity in early childhood education: A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Available at: https://www.naeyc.org/resources/position-statements/equity

40.

North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education (2005) Star rated license: Overview. Available at: https://ncchildcare.ncdhhs.gov/ (accessed 29 June 2020).

41.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

42.

Patterson

(2008) Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development 63: 1025–1042.

43.

Robinson

(2005) Doing anti-homophobia and anti-heterosexism in early childhood education: Moving beyond the immobilising impacts of ‘risks’, ‘fears’ and ‘silences’. Can we afford not to? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 6(2): 175–188.

44.

Robinson

Jones-Diaz

(2000) Diversity and Difference in Early Childhood: An Investigation into Centre Policies, Staff Attitudes and Practices. A Focus on Long Day Care and Preschool in the South West and Inner West Sydney Regions. Newcastle, Australia: University of Newcastle Research Associates.

45.

Rodd

(1999) A day in the life of an early childhood professional: A comparison of the work of child care staff, teachers and administrators. Early Child Development and Care 149(1): 47–58.

46.

Ryan

Martin

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

47.

Tasker

Patterson

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

48.

Ticknor

Overstreet

Howard

(2020) Disruptive teaching centering equity and diversity in literacy pedagogical practices. Reading Horizons 59(1): 1–23.

49.

US Census Bureau (2013) Same-sex couple households: 2013 American Community Survey. Available at: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/by-year.2013.html (accessed 29 June 2020).

50.

Whitehead

(2018) Homosexuality, religion, and the family: The effects of religion on Americans’ appraisals of the parenting abilities of same-se couples. Journal of Homosexuality 65(1): 42–65.