What does research tell us about the impact of a LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum?

There is little guidance for schools and teachers on creating a curriculum that is inclusive of LGBTQ+ identities, and because there are few directives about including this within the curriculum, there is limited practice in schools that researchers are able to draw on. However, the research literature does stress the benefits of making school curricula LGBTQ+ inclusive. Horton (2020) argues that increased visibility of trans figures in the curriculum helps to normalise the existence of this section of the LGBTQ+ community, whereas their exclusion, simply serves to marginalise this group. The issue of visibility is also raised by Page (2017), who stress the benefits of simply exploring LGBTQ+ issues through literature. This is because awareness of LGBTQ+ issues helps to address ignorance and prejudice (Flores, 2014). Antonelli and Sembiante (2022), in their study, suggest that making the school curriculum LGBTQ+ inclusive also had a positive impact on parents and their perceptions of the LGBTQ+ community.

A number of larger scale studies, that tend to draw on survey data, for example, Kosciw et al. (2020) and Snapp et al.’s (2015) work in the United States, equate an inclusive curriculum with greater numbers of LGBTQ+ students feeling safe in school. Given what is known about the challenges LGBTQ+ students face in terms of victimisation, non-acceptance by many peers and so forth, anything that can contribute to a sense of safety should be seen as an important benefit. Typically, LGBTQ+ issues tend to be covered, if at all, in the Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) curriculum. However, the coverage of LGBTQ+ related topics, can be problematic (Formby, 2011), and LGBTQ+ students have complained about the heteronormative and cisgendered presentation of RSE, where LGBTQ+ identities and experiences are often overlooked (Harris et al., 2021). Yet, as Kesler et al. (2023) found that where RSE is LGBTQ+ inclusive, it can have a significant positive impact in reducing levels of homophobia and transphobia. This study is particularly interesting as it uses a randomised control group approach, and compares students who experienced a different approach to teaching RSE, compared to a more traditional curriculum. However, as Schey (2023) highlights, there needs to be more nuanced in our understanding of how an inclusive curriculum works, who it benefits, when and under what circumstances. Schey warns of simply equating the existence of an inclusive curriculum with greater levels of safety. Drawing on a detailed ethnographic study, he highlights how other issues around class, socio-economic status and ethnicity, complicate the ways in which LGBTQ+ youth interact with and experience an inclusive curriculum. Although Schey argues that a LGBTQ+ curriculum can be affirming, he notes that ‘not all LGBTQ+ youth in the same classroom have the possibility to access and engage with affirmation in the same degree’ (p79).

A common theme in the research is around the positives of making the school curriculum more LGBTQ+ inclusive, with benefits identified for both LGBTQ+ students, through increased visibility, leading to greater acceptance by their non-LGBTQ+ peers and hence feelings of greater safety and belonging. Clearly further research would be beneficial about how best such a curriculum can be constructed and implemented, but doing nothing is unlikely to address the issues LGBTQ+ youth encounter in schools.