LGBTQ+ Inclusive Curricula

In November 2023, the Movement Advancement Projectopens in new window reported six states explicitly require LGBTQ inclusion in curricular standards. One state, Connecticut, requires the state education department to develop LGBTQ-inclusive model curricula, but does not require the schools to use it. Four states restrict how ”homosexuality” can be discussed in curricula. Five states require advance parental notification of any LGBTQ-related curricula and that seven states censor discussion of LGBTQ people and issues throughout all school curricula. Data on the status of book banning was not available as this is a more recent and growing development that primarily plays out at the district and community level.

Inclusive school curriculum standards legislation would require the inclusion not only of LGBTQ+ people, history, and culture, but also Black, Native, and Indigenous people and people with disabilities. School environments with inclusive curricula are safer learning environments for all youth and have better educational outcomes (GLSEN, 2020).

Anti-LGBTQ+ curriculum legislation would restrict or prohibit discussing LGBTQ+ people or topics. Rosky (2017) suggests that there are five types of anti-LGBTQ+ curriculum legislation: “don’t say gay,” “no promo homo,” “anti-homo,” “promo hetero,” and “abstinence until marriage.” While these laws stem mostly from HIV-epidemic-era homophobia, they also center narrow views of sexual and reproductive health that have been used to systematically discriminate against poor people, people of color, and people with disabilities (see Barcelos, 2020; Betts, 2021). Taking this a step further are laws that allow for discriminatory content in curricula. For example, Florida is allowing PragerU content to be used in schools, which includes transphobic content.

While anti-LGBTQ+ curriculum laws and legislation are often intended to apply only to a single aspect of educational curriculum—most often sexual health—their vague nature can be misapplied to limit inclusive education, programs, and policies.

• LGBTQ+ youth are not often taught about LGBTQ+ history, culture, and people. The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (2019) found that only 19.4% of schools taught positive representations of LGBTQ+ history, culture, and people to youth; further, 17% of schools taught negative representations, which reinforced negative stereotypes. Only 21.4% of Black youth were taught positive representations of LGBTQ+ history, culture, or people at school (GLSEN, 2020).
• LGBTQ+ youth do not have school-based access to LGBTQ+ history, culture, and people. GLSEN (2019) reports that only 48.2% could find LGBTQ+ relevant content at the school library, and only 55.9% could access LGBTQ+ content from school computers.
• School environments which are inclusive of LGBTQ+ history, culture, and people are safer learning environments for LGBTQ+ youth and have better educational outcomes. Students at schools with inclusive education reported hearing fewer slurs, lower levels of victimization, felt safer, missed fewer days of school, and had a higher GPA in comparison to students whose schools did not cover LGBTQ+ topics in education (GLSEN, 2019). LGBTQ+ students whose schools had inclusive curricula also reported feeling safer and more accepted in their community (GLSEN, 2019). Similar patterns have been found for Black LGBTQ+ youth (GLSEN, 2020); further, Black LGBTQ+ youth who attend schools with LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum also felt their race or ethnicity was more supported at school (GLSEN, 2020). Similarly, Snapp et al. (2015) found that LGBTQ+ youth who attend schools which included LGBTQ+ youth in anti-harassment curricula reported lower harassment, less victimization, and felt more safe and supported in their school.

Anti-LGBTQ+ curriculum laws rely on outdated information and harmful stereotypes that not only create hostile environments for LGTBQ+ people, but also limit access to cutting-edge information intended to promote public health. These laws are problematic because they are intended to discourage minors from developing same-sex attraction, being in same-sex partnerships, or identifying as LGBTQ+ (Rosky, 2017).

• Very few LGBTQ+ youth have access to inclusive sex education. A 2019 study by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found that only 8.2% of LGBTQ+ youth had access to inclusive sex education at school. A systematic review of the literature found that LGBTQ+ youth perceive their sex education as inadequate (Pampati et al., 2020). Gay and bisexual adult men (Currin & Hubach, 2020) and trans people (Hobaica, Schofield, & Kwon, 2019) both retrospectively report a desire for more comprehensive and inclusive sex education.
• LGBTQ+ youth experience more negative sexual health outcomes, which sex education seeks to mitigate. LGBTQ+ youth are more likely than their heterosexual and cisgender peers to engage in risky sexual activities such as having a younger age at first intercourse and multiple partners (Bodnar & Tornello, 2019; Institute of Medicine, 2011). As a result, LGBTQ+ youth are at increased risk for experiencing unplanned pregnancy (Herrick et al., 2010) or contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV/AIDs. LGBTQ+ youth are also at increased risk of experiencing dating and intimate partner violence (Kann, 2016).
• Sex education promotes heteronormative stereotypes that exclude and marginalize LGBTQ+ youth (Bible et al., 2020; Gowen et al., 2014; Hobaica, 2017). In some instances, sex education that is not inclusive of LGBTQ+ youth’s needs is associated with increased reports of sexual violence and risky sexual behaviors among LGBTQ+ youth (Hobaica, 2017) as well as increased risk of pregnancy among lesbian and bisexual women (Bodnar & Tornello, 2019).
• There is broad public support for inclusive sexual education. Eisenberg et al. (2018) found that regardless of religious identity, regional demographics, or political affiliations, there is huge public support for comprehensive and inclusive sexual education. One study found that most parents (89.3%) support comprehensive sexual education (sexual education that includes both abstinence and contraception, STI education, consent, healthy relationships, etc.), with 66.6% of parents supporting sexual orientation education being taught in sexual education courses (Eisenberg et al, 2008). Another study found that among likely voters in 2018, 69% of people believed that sexual orientation education should be taught in middle schools, and that 79% believed that sexual orientation education should be taught in high schools (SIECUS, 2018). Additionally, inclusive sex education is supported by the American Medical Association, the National Education Association, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
• Inclusive sex education benefits all youth, including but not only LGBTQ+ youth. Research finds that schools which offer sex education that is inclusive of LGBTQ+ people subsequently have improvements in school climate, in part because youth are more likely to intervene when witnessing bullying (Baams et al., 2017; Proulx et al., 2019). LGBTQ+ youth who attend schools with inclusive sex education curriculum have lower levels of depression and suicidality (Proulx et al., 2019). And because cisgender and heterosexual youth can be targets of anti-LGBTQ+ bullying, the improvements to school environments which inclusive sex education brings are beneficial for all students (Fisher et al., 2012; McCarty-Caplan, 2013). Finally, sex education that is inclusive of LGBTQ+ people helps prevent dating and intimate partner violence, fosters the formation of healthy intimate relationships, helps prevent child sex abuse, improves social and emotional learning, and improves media literacy (Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021).