Literature review
Effects of Inclusive School Curriculum
The Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is a well-rounded national organization that is focused on ensuring that schools are safe for all students, whether if they identify as LGBTQ or Non-LGBTQ. This organization conducted a biennial survey on school experiences of LGBTQ youths. Students who identifies as LGBTQ can and will experience a hostile environment at school which can have a negative impact on their academic standing and well-being. In the survey that GLSEN conducted more than 7,000 middle and high school students participate. With the vast number of participants, GLSEN was able to conduct a diversity survey to have a better understanding of what each individual experience in school. GLSEN was able to uncover that, when schools include an inclusive curriculum, students will experience a less-hostile school environment. According to GLSEN (2011), students are less likely to feel unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation or gender expression. For example, less than half (42.1%) of LGBT students in schools with inclusive curricula felt unsafe because of their sexual orientation, compared to almost two thirds (63.6%) of students in schools without this resource.
The GLSEN organization also revealed that inclusive curriculum helps LGBTQ students feel more connected to their schools and reinforce peer acceptance for LGBTQ students. Fostering a safer environment by having an inclusive curriculum can promote a more positive environment and show that school officials are embracing the LGBTQ teens. They will feel a sense of comfort and connectedness in their school environment and with other students. GLSEN survey found that almost three-quarters (73.1%) of students with an inclusive curriculum felt comfortable talking to a teacher about LGBT-related issues, compared to half (50.1%) of students without this resource in school (2011). In fact, inclusive curriculum will educate non-LGBTQ students with medically acquire and age appropriate information and may reduce social stigmas, and discrimination among the LGBTQ teens. This will provide a welcoming school experience for LGBTQ students from educators or peers. The GLSEN research reported that LGBTQ teens are less likely to hear homophobic remarks, including negative use of the word ‘gay,’ the phrase ‘no homo,’ homophobic epithets (e.g., ‘fag’ or ‘dyke’), and negative comments about someone’s gender expression (2011).
Effects of Non-Inclusive School Curriculum
Sex education should be accessible to people of all sexual orientation and gender identities whether if they are heterosexual or homosexual. However, on the other hand, most sex education programs in schools are not created to be LGBTQ inclusive. For LGBTQ youths to feel safe and healthy in their environment, they need and deserve to learn in settings that are inclusive of their experiences that will give them the education. In order for LGBTQ youths to experience the same health benefits as those who are non-LGBTQ, all sex education programs have to be LGBTQ-inclusive.’The GLSEN 2013 National School Climate Survey found that fewer than five percent of LGBT students had health classes that included positive representations of LGBT-related topics. Among Millennials surveyed in 2015, only 12 percent said their sex education classes covered same-sex relationships’ (Jones & Cox). Inclusive programs should consist of age-appropriate and medically accurate information, the importance of condom usage and how to utilize it appropriately, provide positive role models of LGBTQ individuals and put at bay the myths and stereotypes about gender identities. Many LGBTQ teens do not have trusted adults that they can seek information from regarding sexual health; instead they will seek information about their sexuality from non-reliable online sources or peers. The information that they might get is neither medically accurate nor age-appropriate and/or their peers may be misinformed. Sex education will close this discrepancy among LGBTQ teens.
In the United States of America, only 22 states allow schools to have sex education as a part of their curriculum and out of the 22 states, only 12 states allow sex education teachers to discuss sexual orientation (Temblador, 2016). Few states require teachers to teach about the negative aspect of sexual orientation for example, Alabama. LGBTQ teens have to participate and listen to their teachers discriminate against their gender identity. Out of the 52 states, only 9 states have gender inclusivity in sex education. For the overall health of LGBTQ teens, these numbers are frightening and alarming. GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey found that LGBT students who reported receiving an abstinence-only sex education curriculum were less likely to feel safe at school, more likely to miss school because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable, less likely to feel comfortable talking about LGBT issues with school personnel, and less likely to be able to identify educators who were supportive of LGBT students (Kosciw, Diaz & Greytak, 2008). To most students, school is a safe environment that promotes social learning and development. However, it is not so for LGBTQ youths. These individuals are victimized daily about of their sexual orientation. Implementing a comprehensive sex education class that is LGBTQ inclusive will help to improve the school environment for this community.
Khalili, Leung, & Diamant conducted a 15-minute internet- based survey to evaluate the current programs, policies and training to measure the culturally competent care for the LBGTQ individuals. They discovered that over half of physician education programs have no training in LGBTQ health, and only 16% of programs address LGBT health in a comprehensive manner (2015). The LGBTQ community face individual and systemic level barriers that prevent them from receiving high-quality of care and attaining the best possible health care outcomes. According to Krehely (2009), ‘LGBTQ individuals are documented to be significantly more likely to delay or avoid necessary medical care compared with heterosexuals’29% versus 17%, respectively.’ Meanwhile Khalili, Leung & Diamant (2015) discovered that bisexual girls have higher pregnancy rates than heterosexual girls and are more likely to be tested for and diagnosed with STIs transmitted through male or female partners. Goodenow, Szalacha, Robin, & Westheimer (2008) revealed that bisexual girls have higher rates of many HIV-related risk factors, including a history of coerced sex, injection drug use, and multiple lifetime and recent sexual partners. Physicians preparation in the LGBTQ community health care needs improving that will evolve with the growing numbers of individuals who identifies as LGBTQ. A physician needs to be culturally competent in the health care system in order to provide the best quality of care to these individuals.
Additional Sources of Data
One source of primary data that would conduct a broader community health assessment is a focus group. A focus group can be described as a group of individuals who shares a common interest or goal. This form of primary data will accurately evaluate respondent’s feelings, beliefs, experience and reaction which would not be achievable using other methods. Surveys or questionnaire can be useful, but it fails to apprehend what a person is thinking or feeling at that given moment. Within a focus group, open-ended questions are asked to fully encourage a meaningful answer while in a survey of questionnaires closed-ended questions are asked which encourages a short word answer. Open-ended questions can be followed by probing questions that will dig much deeper than the surface. Another form of data that would conduct a broader community health assessment is a literature review. A literature review is a secondary source of data. A literature review incorporates books, scholarly articles, various researches and critical evaluation. This data collection provides accurate understanding of the subject and significance. It also compares other sources of information to identify potential areas of research and highlight the flaws in others. This will help educators or researchers to identify gaps with other analysis to prevent duplication to fill these gaps and refocus the topic.
PRECEDE-PROCEED Model
References
GLSEN (2011). Teaching Respect: LGBT-Inclusive Curriculum and School Climate (Research
Brief). New York: GLSEN.
Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L. A., Robin, L. E., & Westheimer, K. (2008). Dimensions of Sexual
Orientation and HIV-Related Risk Among Adolescent Females: Evidence From a Statewide Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 98(6), 1051’1058. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.080531
Khalili, J., Leung, L. B., & Diamant, A. L. (2015). Finding the Perfect Doctor: Identifying
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender’Competent Physicians. American Journal of Public Health, 105(6), 1114’1119. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302448
Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., and Greytak, E. A. (2008). 2007 National School Climate Survey:
The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.
Krehely J. (2009). How to close the LGBT health disparities gap. Center for American Progress.
https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/12/pdf/lgbt_health_disparities.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2013.
Jones, R. P. & Cox, D. How Race and Religion Shape Millennial Attitudes on Sexuality and
Reproductive Health Findings from the 2015 Millennials, Sexuality, and Reproductive Health Survey. Public Religion Research Institute. Washington, D.C.
Temblador, A. (2016). Why is LGBTQ- inclusive sex education still so taboo? Retrieved
from Huffpost: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/07/lgbt-inclusive-sex-education-_n_6819854.html