Adapted from Scott Sundstrom's forthcoming Creating Safe and Welcoming Classrooms for LGBTQ+ Students. Pre-order available now!
School curriculum, language, expectations, and practices both reflect and reinforce the values and policies that define what is considered “normal” in schools. These values and policies, in turn, shape and influence the curriculum, language, structures, and practices, creating a reciprocal relationship that sustains and perpetuates heteronormativity in the classroom. They work in tandem.
Values that appear neutral—developmental appropriateness, equality, fairness, and respect—can carry unspoken assumptions that subtly influence the classroom environment. Because these values are present in nearly every classroom and school in the country, examining how they can unintentionally perpetuate harmful heteronormative ideas is a significant task that is addressed throughout the book. To start, let’s explore some basic ways well-intended ideas can inadvertently reinforce heteronormative practices in schools.
The Myth of Age-Appropriate Expectations
Age-appropriate expectations are often defined as what is considered “suitable” for elementary-aged students, but this framing can inadvertently reinforce traditional gender norms and stereotypes. What is deemed “appropriate” to some may exclude LGBTQ+ perspectives, based on assumptions about what children can understand regarding gender and sexuality. This creates an environment where LGBTQ+ identities are overlooked or deemed irrelevant, marginalizing these students. For example, a teacher might avoid including books with queer characters, assuming that elementary-aged students are too young to understand LGBTQ+ identities, or that such discussions would be too complex. Similarly, a teacher might refrain from talking about trans or nonbinary identities, believing that these topics involve sensitive issues like “sex,” and assuming children are not ready to engage in those conversations, when in fact these topics can be addressed in age-appropriate and inclusive ways without focusing on explicit sexual content.
The Mistake of Valuing Equality over Equity
Equality, or treating all children the same in all ways, may seem positive, but it can overlook important differences that affect children’s daily lives, such as sexual orientation and gender identity. Equity, however, aims for a fair result. For example, equality might offer the same general rules or expectations for all students in the classroom, while equity would consider and acknowledge that LGBTQ+ students may face bullying because of their gender identity and sexual orientation. In a situation like this, teachers could promote equity by incorporating discussions about kindness, empathy, and inclusivity, highlighting how everyone, no matter their gender or who they love, deserves respect. If a student is struggling with gender identity or expression, offering individual support or connecting them with counseling resources would be an equitable response—it aims to ensure that all students feel that they belong and are safe in school. Similarly, while equality might mean treating all families the same, equity acknowledges the diversity of family structures and actively looks for ways to welcome and include diverse family members in classroom activities, ensuring that all families can be part of the classroom community. Without equity, equality fails to recognize diverse identities and misses its goals.
The Harm of Prioritizing Authority, Order, and Tradition
While seemingly neutral, respect for authority, order, and tradition often carries implicit messages about what is considered “normal,” which can marginalize LGBTQ+ students. When schools emphasize conformity—such as enforcing traditional gender expectations—they send the message that only certain identities are “normal,” discouraging students from exploring or expressing their true selves. Teachers and students alike uphold these norms—often unknowingly—and they surface in relation to topics such as dress codes, behavior expectations, and bullying. It’s not that authority, order, or tradition are inherently harmful, but they must be critically examined to avoid perpetuating exclusion. Traditions like daddy-daughter dances or Mother’s Day celebrations, though well-meaning, can alienate LGBTQ+ students by reinforcing binary gender roles and specific family structures.
The goal is not to discard tradition or authority, but to rethink practices to ensure they don’t unintentionally harm students. Instead, schools can prioritize inclusivity, reimagining traditions to reflect the full diversity of student identities and experiences.
The Danger of Labeling LGBTQ+ Issues and Topics “Controversial”
Labeling LGBTQ-related topics as “controversial” often leads to their exclusion from the curriculum, leaving LGBTQ+ experiences, histories, and identities absent. This limits not only students’ understanding of human diversity but also teachers’ opportunities to create an inclusive environment where all students feel seen, valued, and represented. For example, key components of LGBTQ+ history—such as the Stonewall Uprising and figures like Harvey Milk or Marsha P. Johnson—are often overlooked, framed as too politically charged or “difficult” for young learners. Similarly, discussions around gender identity are sometimes avoided, with concerns about bringing up issues like bathroom access, sports participation, and legal rights. Moreover, depictions of same-sex relationships, whether in literature, history, or current events, are frequently deemed controversial and excluded, further marginalizing LGBTQ+ students and their experiences. Omitting these topics from classrooms not only denies students a fuller understanding of history and society but also reinforces a culture of exclusion and silence, undermining efforts to create safe and inclusive spaces for all children.
