Letting the Bullies Win?

The Politics of Educational Choice and the Politics of Social Stigma at the Intersection

of Queer Youth Catherine A. Lugg, Rutgers University

Background on presentation It’s based on a chapter in a forthcoming

edited book (2012) on “market-based educational reforms” for US public schools.

Truth in advertising--I’m HIGHLY skeptical of neoliberal policy panaceas.

Language-”Queer” is for LGBTTQQI2S. “Non-queer” is for gender conforming heterosexuals. Queer is normative. Non-queers use “queer” at their own risk.

Overview Queer identity remains HIGHLY

stigmatized in the US (see suicide rates, victimization rates, etc., etc.), with public schools often serving as sites of victimization.

Market-based/neoliberal educational reforms may unintentionally help queer K-12 students, if they can choose queer friendly schools.

Market-Based Educational Reform In the US, various “school choice” schemes

have existed since the 1950s. Economic notions, but also white supremacy.

“Choice” is part of NCLB/ESEA (2001). If a public school is deemed to be “persistently failing,” parents/guardians have the option of choosing another placement for their child.

Current options in US

Vouchers, tax credits for private schooling and homeschooling, and charter schools are all part of the menu of “choice” options--depending on the state in which one lives.

Examples of current options in US

In New Jersey, tax credits (for private schools only) and charters schools are options. Vouchers are on the political agenda (sold as a way to save urban Catholic schools).

In Alabama, no vouchers, no tax credits and NO charter schools (because of the potential for racial segregation and increased costs).

The lawyers fall in love with “school choice” Legal scholars begin to explore

“school choice” as a form of “escape” for queer students (see Bethard 2004; Kirkley 1997; Mayes 2006).

“Choice” becomes the mechanism to provide safety for queer students who experience homophobic violence and bullying in their current public school settings.

The lawyers fall in love

And their most FAVORITE example of successful “school choice”?

Harvey Milk High School, in NYC.

Harvey Milk High School (HMHS) Started in 1985 as a GED program for

the Hetrick-Martin Institute Became a state-approved public high

school in 2003. Admission is voluntary. Non-queer

students may attend. Students must be “at-risk” for

physical and emotional violence in their current schools.

Harvey Milk High School (HMHS)

Many of HMHS students come from low-income families, with about 20% of students being homeless--either from running away or being thrown out of their homes.

Many of HMHS students have experienced very little academic success prior to their arrival at HMHS.

According to HMHS:

95% of its students graduate. 60% go on to college.

BUT!! HMHS is embedded within a larger

organization offering extensive psycho-social-medical services.

Has substantial foundation and private donor support.

Has roughly 3 times the per-pupil costs as a typical NYC public high school.

HMHS ONLY served 75 students for 2010-2011.

BUT!!! The public school student population

of NYC is roughly 255,500 (grades 9-12).

Consequently, HMHS can only serve .00293% of the entire eligible student population.

If we accept Kinsey’s percentage, HMHS can only serve .0293% of the eligible queer student population.

BUT!! Queer students generally need to be “out”

to their parents and guardians to gain permission to transfer to HMHS.

But children who “come out” to their parents experience higher rates of family abuse and violence (see (D’Augelli 2002; Fedders 2006; Harris & Dyson 2004; Ruskola 1996).

Consequently, a central assumption that “choice=safety” isn’t true because of the costs involved with being out.

What about homeschooling as choice? State regulations are very idiosyncratic to

non-existent (see Lugg & Rorrer, 2009). Major finding? Convicted sex offenders can

legally homeschool in 48 out of 50 states. ANY data are non-existent. All we have are

“guestimates.” Pre-packaged curricula can be highly

problematic (e.g., A-BEKA, Bob Jones University. Both are Christian Dominionists--think all of the far-right Protestantism, all of the time).

What about homeschooling? Most states require no testing,

certifications, proof of academic program, heath & safety inspections, etc., so students might be academically disadvantaged.

There are no regulations regarding special education students who are homeschooled, either.

Where are the states and federal government??????

MIA

Letting the Bullies Win?

[The] . . . public school entrance is often reported as the occasion of stigma learning, the experience sometimes coming very precipitously on the first day of school, with taunts, teasing, ostracism, and fights. (Goffman 1963, p. 33)

School Choice as bad public policy for queer kids It ignores the homophobic violence

that targets queer kids and kids who are suspected of being queer.

There are no choices to be made. Today, there are the Harvey Milk HS and

1 Queer-friendly charter high school in Los Angeles. That’s it for a US high school population of roughly 16.5 million students (both private and public HS students).

And if there were 100,000 Joan Jett Blakk High Schools?

Homophobic bullying and violence are the means to eradicate queer identity from the public schools through force.

“Choice” sends a signal to the bullies that their coercive and violent efforts to remove queer-ness works. One result might be that bullying intensifies with bullies redoubling their efforts to eliminate any remaining suspected queers—because the bullies know they have real power to reshape the school’s climate.

School choice means the bullies win.

The segregation of queer students would also send a larger message to non-queer students that queerness is so threatening to the identity of the public school, and by extension, their own non-queer identities, that it must be erased.

School choice means the bullies win Consequently, the more recognizable queer

students would be “encouraged” to leave and those who could pass as non-queer would be silenced. There would be no need for GSAs, or anti-homophobia/heterosexist education. Homophobia and heteronormativity (the assumption everyone is non-queer, or should be) would continue to be reproduced by public schools.

School choice and the collapse of the common school ideal? Who still supports a US political institution

that brings diverse children together in hopes of shaping a greater democratic republic?

YET! There is growing evidence that public schools can be surprisingly queer-positive with the right policies, procedures, personnel and curricula in place (Biegel, 2010; Kumashiro 2001, 2002; Lipkin 2004; MacGillivray 2004).

Conclusion

Queer students would be better served if policy analysts and entrepreneurs focused their lenses on eliminating homophobic and heterosexist biases within established public schools

Thank You!

catherine.lugg@gse.rutgers.edu Blog, Thinking Queerly,

http://cath47.wordpress.com/