Preparing LGBTQ-allies and combating homophobia in a U.S. teacher education program Caroline T. Clark * School of Teaching & Learning, College of Education and Human Ecology, The Ohio State University, 200 Ramseyer Hall, 29W.Woodruff Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA article info Article history: Received 9 May 2008 Received in revised form 22 June 2009 Accepted 1 October 2009 Keywords: Teacher education Sexuality Homophobia Heterosexism Diversity Social justice Cultural competence abstract Interns in a US teacher education program were surveyed regarding their attitudes towards diversity, particularly issues of sexuality, their feelings of ‘‘cultural competence’’ around diversity, and the reper- toires of practices and resources they feel prepared to draw on in their work with middle and high schools students (11–18 year olds). Analysis of course materials provided insight into distinctions between anti-homophobia and LGBTQ-ally stances among students. Extensive semi-structured inter- views with 7 students explored these issues in more depth, documenting their sense of preparedness and cultural competence, where locate and how they identify ‘‘useful experiences in learning how to teach LGBTQ youth, and the concerns they face in their work against heterosexism and homophobia in schools. Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Preparing teachers to work with diverse learners – particularly lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or questioning (LGBTQ) young people – remains a constant challenge in teacher education, worldwide. Internationally, there are movements to forward anti- oppressive teacher education (Kumashiro, Baber, Richardson, Ricker-Wilson, & Wong, 2004). And, in contexts as disparate as Canada, Australia, and South Africa, there are curricular and policy initiatives aimed at addressing the needs and experiences of LGBT people. In Toronto, Canada, for example, teachers have access to progressive district-approved and supported anti-homophobia curriculum materials such as Rainbows and Triangles, aimed at presenting K-6 students with inclusive representations of families and specific strategies for challenging homophobia and hetero- sexism (Kumashiro et al., 2004). Likewise, in Australia, teacher education students have access to full courses dedicated to anti- homophobia (Sykes & Goldstein, 2004). While South Africa does not have curriculum in place that directly addresses homophobia, as the only country in Africa to provide constitutional protection of same-sex rights (Morgan, 2005), the possibility to explicitly address homophobia and heterosexism in the K-12 curriculum exists (Chetty, 2005; Butler, Alpaslan, Stru ¨ mpher, & Astbury, 2003). While these international movements are hopeful, all bode the need for much more work on these issues in order to make schools safe and supportive for LGBTQ people. The situation in the US is somewhat different and in many ways worse. While teacher education aimed at issues of diversity is widespread and institutionalized through organizations such as the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), the needs of LGBTQ people are rarely addressed in this work. NCATE, for example, removed explicit discussion of sexual orien- tation and social justice from its standards for teacher education (Powers, 2006). And, teacher education curricular materials give similarly short shrift to LGBTQ people. ‘‘Recent US textbooks on multicultural education give gay and lesbian culture little if any attention.. Thus, a population of approximately 5–10% of all students has a very small amount of attention in the larger arena of multicultural education’’ (Mathison, 1998, p. 1–2). When LGBT topics are addressed in US textbooks and curricula, they are frequently framed as problematic (Young & Middleton, 2002) and presented with limited breadth or depth (Macgillivray & Jennings, 2008), framings with significant repercussions in K-12 classrooms. Supplied with little knowledge regarding sexuality and hetero- normativity, US teachers enter schools often misinformed and ill- prepared to support LGBTQ students – let alone, to work for social change (Sears, 1992; Mathison, 1998) – a gap that is shared by teacher education students in countries beyond the US (Sumara, 2007; Butler et al., 2003; Ferfolja & Robinson, 2004; Taylor, 2004). And, as both the US-based Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education * Tel.: þ1 614 688 5449. E-mail address: clark.664@osu.edu Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate 0742-051X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.006 Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (2010) 704–713