“We Have No ‘Visibly’ Trans Students in Our School”: Educators’ Perspectives on Transgender-Affirmative Policies in Schools
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background/Context: In Ontario, and Canada more broadly, anti-discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression is enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which have required schools to address trans inclusion. However, the ways in which educators understand or enact these policies, and whether they are even aware of them, remain largely underexplored. Purpose/Research Question/Focus of Study: Our purpose was to learn more about educators' awareness and understanding of trans-inclusive policies in schools and the extent to which such policies were informing practice. Participants: While this research is based on survey data comprising 1,194 respondents, this article examines comments provided about trans-affirmative policy from 463 educators. Research Design: This study involves large-scale survey research conducted on 1,194 educators in Ontario K-12 schools; the survey was disseminated via social media and educational affiliates. We draw primarily on the qualitative data component of the survey, where educators provided detailed comments about and insights into trans-inclusive policies. We employed a reflexive approach to coding and thematic analysis to identify key themes. Findings/Results: Although our quantitative data depicted a favorable assessment of support for trans-affirmative policies-94% of respondents found their school's policy to be very or somewhat relevant-our findings highlight a discrepancy between policy and practice, and a lack of commitment to addressing cisgenderist, cisnormative, and cissexist systems. The themes that emerged from our coding and analysis of the qualitative data were: (1) educators' understanding of policy as accommodation; (2) individualized approaches to trans inclusion; (3) lack of administrative support and intervention; (4) the gap between policy and practice; (5) transphobic and cissexist resistance to supporting gender diversity; (6) the need for trans-affirming and gender-expansive curriculum, and (7) the problem of generalized approaches to equity and acceptance of diversity. In addition, we discuss several educator comments that raise important questions about race and the need for intersectional approaches to addressing equity and trans inclusion in schools. Conclusions/Recommendations: We advocate for a paradigm shift with respect to the necessity of employing a trans epistemological framework that addresses the need for gender-expansive education which focuses on the harmful effects of cisgenderism, cisnormativity, and cissexism in the education system. Central to addressing gender justice and trans marginalization in schools for all students, we conclude, is the need for policy makers to ensure accountability and budgetary allocation for the provision of resources and professional development for educators in schools.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,028 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,034 | 0,040 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,010 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».