Sexuality, one of the central aspects of human existence, encompasses a range of expression that can vary by historical moment, culture, social or economic class, and even the individual. Its seeming fluidity and scope can make it difficult to comprehend. Closely connected with the notion of sexuality is gender. Gender is a set of stories people tell themselves and each other about what it means to be male and female. Like sexuality, stories about gender vary among individuals, cultures, and historical eras. As with any complex, socially created quality, individuals create and recreate their gender throughout their lives. Sexuality and gender are intimately intertwined concepts in the sense that gender assists individuals in navigating sexual choices, in helping them find others with whom sexual activity may be a possibility. This entry looks at the impact of sexuality and gender issues in education, providing both a brief overview and a more detailed look at the historical record.
Schools Take Responsibility
Perhaps because of the fluidity and possible variation in sexuality and gender expression, societies have endeavored to define norms that are maintained through rule creation and enforcement, individual and group vigilance, and language aimed at reinforcing notions of sexual and gender conformity. In the past, religious institutions, local communities, and extended families upheld the greatest portion of responsibility for maintaining sexuality and gender norms. As educational institutions, particularly tax-supported schools, proliferated, however, they bore ever-increasing responsibility for imparting normative sexuality and gender in youth. This shift in responsibility was most pronounced during full-scale industrialization of the economy, which had as an attendant consequence the greater involvement of parents in wage-earning work outside the home. Schools then assumed growing responsibilities for raising children to the degree that working parents declined it. Schools essentially became important agencies in defining and shaping sexuality and gender among youth.
The significant responsibility for maintaining normative sexuality and gender among youth has been carried out by schools ever since. This largely implicit work is embedded in virtually every aspect of schooling: who is hired to teach, how students and school workers may dress, what events—both curricular and extracurricular—might be organized, how students may behave with each other and with school staff, and what content constitutes the explicit curriculum. Because the regulation of sexuality and gender norms among youth so pervades the work of schooling and is so deeply enmeshed in its culture as well, members of school communities simply have assumed that this function always has existed and therefore is a natural part of the work of schools.
This ongoing assumption, which is akin to acceptance of the sexuality and gender regulating functions of schools, has continued until persons who transgress sexuality and gender norms have challenged that authority. Over the past half-century, persons who have defined themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, or, to use the broader but still contentious label, “queer,” have mounted challenges to the conventional sexuality and gender order of schools. At first, only a few school-workers with nonconforming sexuality and gender identities publicly stood up for their employment rights. Since then, not only have larger numbers of school-workers and their allies campaigned for improved conditions for queer-identified persons in schools, but so, too, have students. Over the past two decades in particular, students have played powerful and central roles in winning rights for sexuality and gender transgressors in schools.
These efforts have not succeeded easily. Rather, conservative countermovements have confronted sexuality and gender transgressors at every turn. As the mutability and variety of sexual and gender identities has been championed by growing numbers of persons, a backlash movement effectively has tempered this expansion, endeavoring to squeeze human sexuality and gender into a narrowly constrained, binary model. Within this model, room exists only for heterosexual behavior among persons with distinct, polarized gender identities aligned with supposed biological sex. The right-wing backlash movement has enjoyed significant political and social success over the past few decades by deploying strategies that include using emotionally laden language, casting all talk about sexuality and gender in starkly oppositional or binary terms, and essentially leaving out or ignoring the social complexities and nuances that complicate phenomena as deeply rooted as gender and sexuality.
Tracking the History
During recent skirmishes between sexuality and gender transgressing persons in schools and their conservative critics, as well as over the long-term past since the industrialization of our economy and compulsory school attendance, one of the fundamental means of influencing or regulating students’ sexuality and gender has been through hiring school-workers who might model acceptable sexuality and gender norms.
When coeducational common schooling spread during the mid-nineteenth century, schoolwork split neatly into two realms: administrative work performed primarily by men, and teaching, which quickly became women’s work. This division closely resembled the bifurcated responsibilities of men and women in conventional heterosexual households, with men exerting authority and representing family units in the external realm and women overseeing domestic affairs. Schools, then, essentially came to resemble the families whose services they had come to supplement. School principals, then later superintendents, performed manly work while teaching became feminized in the sense that it was acceptable mainly for women. This role segregation could not have been lost on students, who, no doubt, internalized this implicit and powerful message.
School-workers similarly modeled normative sexuality for their charges. When communities first employed teachers, they selected only single women whom they regarded as chaste paragons of virtue. Women who married were forced to resign. This prevented any conflicts they might experience in deciding where their primary allegiances might lie: with their husbands or male supervisors. At the same time, communities expressly sought married or marriageable men for school administrative positions. By heading a heterosexual household unit, these men defused any potential criticism of their sexuality, manliness, responsibility, character, or fidelity. Women and men in school work thus experienced expectations about their marital and sexual status that were directly inverted. In the end, when schools hired workers who manifested normative sexuality and gender, they wanted to ensure proper modeling for students. Eventually, schools would add curricula with the overt intent of shaping youth into acceptably heterosexual individuals who clearly demonstrated gender-normal qualities and who possessed a keen understanding of middle-class courtship rituals.
Despite persistent efforts to shape the sexuality and gender of students through modeling provided by school-workers, schools also have offered fascinating opportunities for supporting sexuality and gender transgression. A century ago, for instance, communities so feared the effects that a nearly completely female-dominated teaching force might wreak on students, particularly males, that they aggressively sought any men who might show the slightest interest in teaching or an ability to teach youth. They even were willing to hire men who fell outside the normative range of sexuality and gender. The women hired to teach sometimes also transgressed the bounds of normative sexuality. Schools primarily or exclusively hired only single women, which allowed large numbers of single women to live independently, if only modestly. Some single female teachers chose to live with other women, perhaps to share living expenses, but undoubtedly in some cases to center their lives on other women. Women who developed enduring romantic and/or sexual attachments to other women departed radically from conventional sexual mores requiring instead that they center their lives on men.
At first, when these historical moments fostered opportunities for transgressive sexuality and gender among school-workers, little public discussion ensued, especially if the ranks of school-workers could be maintained with reasonable quality and relatively low costs. Eventually, though, criticism mounted. Publicly expressed concerns focused not so much on school-workers in and of themselves, but on how students might be affected by such influences. Critics complained that spinster teachers encouraged girls to eschew marriage. Others argued that effete male school-workers exposed students to sexual abnormalities and infected them with deviant behaviors. Schools typically responded to such public complaint by scrutinizing the ranks of school workers and insisting on sexuality and gender conformity, and also by clamping down on the range of behaviors and expressions permitted of students. Schools, then, have both nurtured transgressive sexuality and gender, and, just as surely, endeavored to contain such transgressions.
Turn Of The Century
Such pressures to constrain sexuality and gender in schools gradually built over the first half of the twentieth century. One particularly powerful force was the suffrage-era backlash movement against women’s steady gains in social, economic, and political power. Teddy Roosevelt led the charge with his vehement protest that middle and owning-class White women as a group were abandoning their responsibilities to marry and bear children—that they essentially were committing “race suicide.” Because an overwhelming portion of the ranks of educated, middle-class, single women either were or had been teachers, spinster teachers found themselves in the crosshairs of such attacks. Making them even more suspect was the fact that many of the leaders and grassroots workers of the suffrage movement were single female teachers.
Along with these developments, the early decades of the twentieth century also brought increased public awareness of persons who transgressed sexuality and gender norms. Books documenting the scientific study of human sexuality, first published in Europe, reached bookshelves in the United States during these years. For the first time, elaborate detail demarcated lines between new classes of sexual beings and behaviors, including “homosexuals,” “inverts,” “intersexuals,” and so on. Much of this early sexology research pathologized persons who transgressed sexuality and/or gender norms. The rapid spread of interest in the young field of psychology also fueled public discussion of a range of sexual identities, behaviors, desires, and neuroses as translations of Freud’s works became widely available. In time, scholarly discussion of human sexuality and gender gave way to portrayals in popular media. Newspapers began reporting police busts of known enclaves of individuals seeking sexual experiences with others of the same sex. Artists, writers, and movie-makers featured characters with explicitly transgressive sexuality and gender until Hollywood production codes imposed in the early 1930s drove such depictions into the shadows.
As language describing homosexuals increasingly appeared in newspapers, books, magazines, and films, public awareness of their existence also grew. However, popular understanding of homosexuality easily crossed any boundaries that may have existed between sexuality and gender. To many, same-sex desire connoted gender transgression. Women who defied gender norms and worked in the public sphere or asserted their rights could be regarded as sexually deviant, or lesbian. During the 1930s and 1940s, the popular image of the spinster teacher shifted away from that of peculiar individuals devoted to public service and toward one of sexual suspicion. School systems largely retained this increasingly tainted pool of workers, though, because single female teachers provided devoted and skillful service at little cost.
A New Teaching Cadre
However, when new categories of potential teachers appeared after World War II, namely married women and veterans, school districts quickly dropped their long-standing practice of hiring only single female teachers. Married women not only entered teaching in significant numbers during these years, but their representation in the classroom quickly outstripped that of single women. In fact, the proportion of married to single teachers rose sharply higher than the proportion of women in the general workforce. School officials, eager to rid their personnel of the taint of deviance, contributed to the postwar trend where teaching radically shifted to work for married women after having been spinsters’ work for more than a century.
If the years before World War II brought growing awareness of persons who desired others of the same sex, the years after produced outright fear, dramatic headlines, and nationwide efforts to stem this supposedly rising threat. The armed forces, in efforts to downsize after the war, identified and purged suspected homosexuals from their ranks. In the Cold War hunt for enemies in our midst, Senator Joseph McCarthy temporarily wielded enormous power by launching widely publicized hunts for communists in government; but after finding few, if any, he switched to a somewhat easier target: homosexuals. His efforts garnered national media attention and inspired similar efforts by state and local governmental agencies.
Then, a popular magazine in 1950 published what it called a groundbreaking piece of journalism describing the threat purportedly posed by homosexual teachers. The article, which opened by celebrating the work of Senator McCarthy, charged that “the homosexual is an inveterate seducer of the young of both sexes, and … presents a social problem because he is not content with being degenerate himself; he must have degenerate companions, and is ever seeking younger victims” (Major, 1950, p. 100). The author conveyed the impression that, as Senator McCarthy charged, homosexuality spread like a contagious disease, that youth were unable to resist its lures, and that homosexuals wanted nothing more than to corrupt as many youth as possible.
School officials rapidly responded by examining their personnel rosters for individuals with supposedly homosexual tendencies who might corrupt students by association or, worse, actively prey on them. School administrators examined male applicants for effeminacy, which seemed to connote homosexuality according to popular understanding that conflated same-sex desire with gender transgression. They inspected women, too, to ensure properly feminine attire; the presence of wedding or engagement rings; and commitment to upstanding, heterosexually oriented social activities.
Local and state education agencies pressed the matter further as well. California legislators enacted a law requiring local police to notify school officials whenever they caught teachers in sting operations aimed at snaring homosexuals. These teachers invariably lost their jobs regardless of the outcome of legal action based on such charges. Some investigators, having assisted McCarthy in finding and purging homosexuals from federal offices, traveled to Boise, Idaho, to investigate the existence of a supposed homosexual ring. Interrogations, stakeouts, intimidation, and campaigns of public humiliation were meted out as investigators spared no effort to find teachers and others who were rumored to prey on boys, even though few were ever found guilty.
The Florida legislature would not be outdone. In the late 1950s, a special committee, which initially sought to investigate the activities of civil rights workers and then communists but failed to find or successfully prosecute any, then moved on to identify and purge the state’s teaching force of homosexuals. Because of the national media attention netted by each of these campaigns and others, school-workers learned that they needed to conceal any trace of gender-transgressing behavior or appearance because these supposedly hinted at homosexuality. Once any teacher was suspected of homosexuality, regardless of the truthfulness or relevance of such a charge, she or he usually was summarily dismissed with little recourse.
For years, school-workers tolerated the heightened scrutiny faced by the profession. Licensed educators were particularly vulnerable because of their close association with young people and an ongoing supposition in the minds of many linking homosexuality with pedophilia. This supposition, largely trumped up by McCarthy and others who followed in his footsteps, was the notion that homosexuals, like Cold War enemies, would take over if only given a foothold. As Americans were warned to be ever vigilant about the supposed threat from within of communists, so, too, was the public admonished to be wary of gender-transgressing teachers who might convert the next generation into “practicing homosexuals.” These threats typically were accompanied by untraceable anecdotal evidence and high-flying rhetoric rather than verifiable facts.
School-workers mostly endured these conditions. Those who desired others of the same sex or who wished to transgress gender norms knew that retaining their jobs required acquiescence. However, with the rise in the late 1960s and early 1970s of a full-fledged, grassroots gay liberation movement, conditions for school-workers slowly began to change. The Stonewall Rebellion, during which patrons of a gay bar in Greenwich Village openly and brazenly resisted police harassment in a three-day riot, sparked a collective shift in consciousness among self-identified gay men and lesbians. The movement was born as individuals decided to stand up against the oppression directed at them for so long.
Some teachers who desired persons of the same sex and/or who transgressed gender bounds joined the many activist organizations that proliferated in the years after Stonewall, in the process learning the politics of gay liberation. Eventually, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and then transgender school-workers formed their own associations. Such LGBT organizations appeared in New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, and Boston, among other cities, during the mid-1970s. Organizers sought to provide social support to members as well as to engage in activities to increase their collective visibility and employment rights. Virtually all of these LGBT school-worker associations marched in local gay pride parades, an act that flew directly in the face of the requirement that they be invisible. They began to fight back when school administrators sought to fire or demote them on account of their status. They brought employment discrimination lawsuits and staged media events designed to highlight their plight. And they successfully leveraged their growing clout into policy shifts by larger teacher associations, even, in time, the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, both of which went on record as supporting the employment rights of teachers regardless of their sexual orientation.
The larger gay liberation movement scored some impressive early political victories as several metropolitan areas passed nondiscrimination ordinances protecting individuals against discrimination in housing and employment on account of sexual orientation. However, in time, the growing visibility, flamboyance, and political power of the fledgling gay movement would trigger a vigorous backlash. That backlash specifically would target the most vulnerable members of the LGBT community: those who worked with youth, especially teachers, because of an imagined threat of child molestation or their “homosexual influence.” Such fears were confirmed in a nationwide poll conducted in 1977 that found that although most believed homosexuals should enjoy freedom from employment discrimination, this belief did not extend to school-workers. In fact, 65 percent objected to the presence of homosexual elementary teachers.
It was at this moment that Anita Bryant, the former Miss America and singer for evangelical ministries, took on as her mission the elimination of homosexuals in school employment. She rallied fellow conservative Christians in the Miami-Dade area to overturn a new nondiscrimination ordinance offering protection against employment and housing discrimination on account of sexual orientation. She attacked the ordinance not by going after all members of the LGBT community, however, but by narrowing her focus strictly to school workers. She appeared on nationally syndicated conservative Christian television shows such as the PTL Club and 700 Club, arguing that the presence of homosexual teachers would encourage more pupils to become homosexuals, that youth may come to regard it as an acceptable lifestyle, that children might begin to cross gender-appropriate bounds, and that such teachers would molest children. She triggered public outrage when she conjured the spectacle of male teachers wearing skirts or cavorting with children. Initially, gay liberation activists ignored Bryant, writing her off as a second-rate performer with limited social impact. When Bryant’s campaign to “Save Our Children” started receiving hundreds of thousands of checks from around the country, though, her growing political might became clear. Even though polls indicated that the majority of Miami-Dade voters supported retaining the ordinance, most supporters failed to show up to vote. In contrast, busloads of Bryant’s supporters poured into polling places, eventually scoring a lopsided 2 to 1 victory and bringing the ordinance down.
Among those attending Bryant’s victory party was John Briggs, a California state legislator with gubernatorial ambitions. Briggs jubilantly told a reporter that night that he would capitalize on this political groundswell by launching a referendum aimed at ridding schools of homosexuals. He described how this campaign would ignite his quest for the governorship. Shortly afterward, he succeeded in obtaining enough signatures to place the referendum on the ballot, partly with the help of Bryant, who flew to California to assist. Proposition 6, as it came to be known, would have required school districts to rid their ranks of any employees who either were lesbian or gay or who supported the employment rights of those who were. The referendum read:
The state finds a compelling interest in refusing to employ and in terminating the employment of a schoolteacher, a teacher’s aide, a school administrator or a counselor, subject to reasonable restrictions and qualifications who engages in public homosexual activity and/or public homosexual conduct directed at, or likely to come to the attention of, schoolchildren or other school employees. This proscription is essential since such activity and conduct undermines that state’s interest in preserving and perpetuating the conjugal family unit.
Proposition 6 captured national headlines as it highlighted a showdown between a new and vigorous lesbian and gay rights movement, on one hand, and religious/political conservatives on the other. Although Proposition 6 particularly focused on school-workers, grassroots lesbian and gay rights workers understood it as a much broader attack on the larger movement. Lesbian and gay school-workers (and their allies) needed the assistance of activists across the movement because they were quite vulnerable themselves: If they openly campaigned against Proposition 6 and it passed, then they would lose their jobs. Nonetheless, many lesbian and gay teachers risked their chosen profession by coming out and working hard to defeat the referendum. Soon, labor, coalitions of persons of color, women’s liberation activists, and others joined them. Engaging in this work proved daunting in other ways, though. Although volunteers eagerly signed on to help, most felt safe giving only their first names. Because campaign contributions over $50 required public reporting, the movement received large numbers of contributions of $49. Fund-raising events, including high-profile celebrity fetes, quickly dissipated when media cameras arrived. Despite these challenges, momentum to defeat Proposition 6 increased steadily, culminating in a decisive victory for lesbian and gay movement activists.
The conservative backlash, if temporarily slowed, did not abate, however. Through the remainder of the 1970s and into the 1980s, a wide variety of local, state, and national groups sought to resist the larger lesbian and gay rights movement by concentrating their political efforts on ridding schools of visible LGBT persons. Oklahoma legislators resoundingly passed a law similar to Proposition 6. However, this law eventually was struck down when the Supreme Court deadlocked on the case. Legislation introduced in Missouri would have required all lesbians and gay men who worked with youth under 21 years old to be listed on a Division of Health registry, which would be consulted for personnel decisions. All of the conservative efforts such as these had in common at least two assumptions: Lesbian and gay school-workers would, through their influence, make children transgress the bounds of sexuality or gender norms; and lesbian and gay school-workers were thought highly likely to molest students, even though this assumption could not be substantiated with evidence. In fact, evidence consistently indicated instead that lesbian and gay school-workers were less likely to molest children than heterosexual men.
Around this time, the AIDS pandemic first emerged in national reporting. AIDS, which in the United States quickly became known as a disease that disproportionately afflicted gay men, caused public alarm. Communities feared the presence in schools of anyone infected with the virus, which translated into a fear of gay male school-workers. Soon, though, it became clear that AIDS might directly affect youth who became sexually active while possessing minimal knowledge of the dangers. Ignoring the existence of gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth became equated in the minds of concerned school-workers and parents with simply allowing such youth to die. Furthermore, school communities increasingly became mindful of the plight of sexuality and/or gender nonconforming or queer youth, who claimed their identities at ever younger ages and who typically faced brutal emotional and physical abuse at the hands of their peers at school. School-workers and parents learned about the profound self-loathing experienced by some, but certainly not all, queer youth and their particularly difficult transitions to adulthood. The NEA Delegate Assembly decided in 1988 to support youth counseling programs geared toward helping queer youth accept and adjust to their same-sex desires. This development stood in stark contrast with the then-prevailing practice of counseling such youth to become heterosexual, or even committing them to programs or institutions aimed at ensuring their heterosexuality. A few model LGBT affirming counseling programs emerged soon afterward, most notably Project 10, started by Los Angeles counselor Virginia Uribe.
Efforts to ensure the welfare of queer youth received explosive growth of support in 1991 with the release of a federal report describing alarmingly high suicide rates among lesbian and gay youth. The report, initially withheld from public release for years because of conservative political concern about its findings, declared that
A majority of suicide attempts by homosexuals occur during their youth, and gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people. They may comprise up to 30 percent of completed youth suicides annually. .. Schools need to include information about homosexuality in their curriculum and protect gay youth from abuse by peers to ensure they receive an equal education. Helping professionals need to accept and support a homosexual orientation in youth. Social services need to be developed that are sensitive to and reflective of the needs of gay and lesbian youth. (Gibson, 1989, p. 110)
The eventual release of the youth suicide report triggered strong responses from both the political left and right. LGBT rights activists and their allies contended that the report demonstrated the necessity of attending to the unique concerns of LGBT youth that, at root, schools must foster a climate of acceptance and support for LGBT persons. No doubt, some activists found that working on behalf of youth was considerably less controversial than seeking rights for school-workers, whom the public still regarded with suspicion. On the political and religious right, however, critics charged that the report contained erroneous data that exaggerated the phenomenon of high suicide rates among LGBT youth. They fundamentally questioned the purpose of any counseling that led to acceptance of same-sex desires or gender transgression, arguing instead that such youth needed skillful counseling geared toward making them heterosexual, gender-conforming adults. Furthermore, they contended that any tax-supported programs encouraging acceptance of LGBT persons directly conflicted with their religious values, which held that homosexuality was a sin.
The LGBT Movement
As adults across the political and religious spectrum debated, growing numbers of students who identified as LGBT or queer decided to take matters into their own hands. The first gay–straight student alliance was formed in 1989 in Massachusetts with the sponsorship of Kevin Jennings, a gay teacher in an independent school who later led in the formation of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Gay–straight alliances in schools endeavored to bring queer and allied youth together with supportive adults in an effort to improve school climate for all queer persons. Led largely by student initiative, the movement to establish gay–straight alliances in schools spread with astonishing speed, growing to more than 900 such groups within the first decade—and the pace of growth shows no signs of slackening. In Massachusetts, one of the earliest coordinated efforts across gay–straight alliances was a statewide lobby day in 1993 where queer and allied youth traveled to the capital to convince legislators that a state law was necessary for the elimination of discrimination against queer youth in schools. Their lobbying succeeded, and not only did lawmakers enact protections for queer youth in schools, but they also allocated funds to create and offer training programs to help members of school communities respect their queer members.
Despite these early and impressive successes, students usually confronted stark and overwhelming resistance. When Kelli Petersen organized a gay– straight alliance in her Salt Lake City high school, the state legislature responded by passing a law requiring schools to forbid student clubs that discussed issues related to sexuality. Petersen, undaunted, continued her activism to secure the creation of her high school’s gay–straight alliance and, in the process, attracted considerable national attention and support. Eventually, Petersen’s principal resisted the authority of school board members—and state legislators—by not only supporting the gay–straight alliance, but also enacting policies protecting queer youth from discrimination. And finally, in a precedent-setting court decision, Jamie Nabozny won a million-dollar judgment against his former school administrators who either did nothing or even encouraged homophobic verbal and painful physical abuse against him when he was a student. School districts around the country took notice and immediately began studying how to address the issue of LGBT discrimination against students so that they might avoid similar legal judgments.
The Current Situation
Although concern about sexuality and gender transgression in schools centered on school-workers for most of the twentieth century, more recently, self-identified queer students and their allies have recentered discussions and taken up the cause of winning rights for queer persons in schools. This may be in part because the larger queer-rights movement has shifted from the margins to the mainstream and, in the process, increased awareness of queer issues. Students may recognize and claim queer identities at earlier ages than in the past. Queer youth also may have organized their own support networks because queer adults largely have been reluctant to assist them, mainly out of concern that their efforts would be viewed as predatory.
The old stereotype of queer adults as child molesters dies hard even though evidence repeatedly has refuted it. Through the 1990s and early twenty-first century, queer youth also have enjoyed new means of connecting with each other electronically and thereby resisting what previously had been an inherently isolating experience. They have forged vibrant new forms of culture and actively insisted on determining their own individual and collective identities rather than passively accepting identities foisted on them by others, such as the early 1990s stereotype of the helpless, hopeless suicidal gay youth. Queer youth, then, are on the front lines of the ongoing effort to make schools safe places for all people.
- Blount, J. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school work in the twentieth century. Albany: State University of New York Press.
- Gibson, P. (1989). Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Youth Suicide, Vol. 3. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services.
- Harbeck, K. (1997). Gay and lesbian educators: Personal freedoms, public constraints. Malden, MA: Amethyst.
- Irvine, J. M. (2002). Talk about sex: The battles over sex education in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.
- Lipkin, A. (1999). Understanding homosexuality, changing schools: A text for teachers, counselors, and administrators. Boulder, CO: Westview.
- Major, R. H. (1950, September). The new moral menace to our youth. Coronet, pp. 100–108.
- Moran, J. P. (2000). Teaching sex: The shaping of adolescence in the 20th century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Rofes, E. (2005). A radical rethinking of sexuality and schooling: Status quo or status queer. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Sears, J. (Ed.). (2005). Youth, education, and sexualities. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
This example Sexuality, Gender, and Education Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.