Your search found 393850 results.

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Homosexuality; Citizenship; Sexual Orientation; Social Justice; Citizenship Education; Inclusion; Educational Environment; Controversial Issues (Course Content); Grade 7; Textbooks; Minority Groups; Educational Policy; Educational Practices; Curriculum Development; Case Studies

Abstract:
Over the past two decades, sexual citizenship has emerged as a new form of citizenship coupled with increased interest in the challenges to citizenship and social justice faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people and, in particular, by sexual minority youth within education systems. In South Africa, the rights of LGBTI people have been institutionalised in legislation, and research has begun to consider how educators may facilitate a more inclusive school environment for LGBTI youth. Given the focus of the Department of Education on social justice, the present study examines how selected Life Orientation (LO) textbooks for Grades 7 to 12 in South African schools represent and construct LGBTI identities. The study generally finds inconsistency in the representation of these identities. Gay male identities are represented in some instances, lesbian and bisexual identities rarely so, and transgender and intersex identities not at all. Two of the four series examined are almost entirely silent about LGBTI identities. This invisibility negates the different "ways of knowing" of LGBTI learners; tends not to facilitate students in critiquing the discrimination, prejudice and social injustices faced by many LGBTI people, and lessens the importance of social justice and citizenship education in this field in South Africa. (Contains 2 figures.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Homosexuality; Psychology; Asian Americans; North Americans; Males; Minority Groups; Self Esteem; Anxiety; Well Being; Predictor Variables; Adults; Social Discrimination

Abstract:
The present study investigated the direct and additive effects of racial minority stress and sexual minority stress on the psychological well-being among a community sample of 139 Asian American gay men. Self-esteem was tested to see whether it moderated or mediated the effects of perceived dual minority stress on psychological distress. Results revealed that sexual minority stress predicted self-esteem and both were predictors of psychological distress. Racial minority stress did not predict psychological distress. Contrary to the minority stress model existing in the current literature, the added disadvantages of racial/ethnic minority status did not increase Asian American gay men's psychological distress. Self-esteem did not mediate or moderate the relationships between minority stresses and psychological distress. These findings highlight the robust effects of stresses related to one's homosexuality on psychological well-being and suggest that self-esteem may not always protect against multiple discriminations for Asian American gay men. (Contains 4 tables and 1 figure.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Strategic Planning; College Students; Campuses; Needs Assessment; Drug Abuse; Program Effectiveness; Homosexuality; Sexual Identity; Minority Groups; Alcohol Abuse; Community Colleges; Correlation; Educational Policy; Program Implementation

Abstract:
Literature suggests that individuals who identify as LGBTQ may engage in more alcohol and other drug (AOD) use/abuse than others. Little data is available about these populations on college campuses where AOD use may be seen as part of the general campus climate and culture. This article will describe a qualitative needs assessment conducted on 10 community college campuses in Arizona to determine campus climate for LGBTQ students and perceptions of AOD use rates and correlates. Findings indicate wide variations in campus climate as well as policies, programming, and resources available for LGBTQ students. This needs assessment is part of a five-year project that includes strategic planning based on the needs assessments and beginning implementation of these plans. This article presents the initial findings of this project and recommendations to the field. (Contains 3 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Educational Environment; Homosexuality; Sexual Orientation; Sexual Identity; Student Experience; National Surveys; Incidence; Social Bias; Victims; Bullying; Violence; Academic Achievement; Well Being; Intervention; School Safety; Attendance; Academic Aspiration; Student Characteristics; Institutional Characteristics; Clubs; School Policy; State Legislation; Curriculum; Inclusion; Self Esteem; School Personnel; Social Discrimination; Extracurricular Activities; Athletics; Sex Education; Student School Relationship

Abstract:
In 1999, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) identified the need for national data on the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students and launched the first National School Climate Survey (NSCS). At the time, the school experiences of LGBT youth were under-documented and nearly absent from national studies of adolescents. For more than a decade, the biennial NSCS has documented the unique challenges LGBT students face and identified interventions that can improve school climate. The survey explores the prevalence of anti-LGBT language and victimization, the effect that these experiences have on LGBT students' achievement and well-being, and the utility of interventions in lessening the negative effects of a hostile school climate and promoting a positive educational experience. The survey also examines demographic and community-level differences in LGBT students' experiences. The NSCS remains one of the few studies to examine the school experiences of LGBT students nationally, and its results have been vital to GLSEN's understanding of the issues that LGBT students face, thereby informing the authors' ongoing work to ensure safe and affirming schools for all. In their 2011 survey, the authors examine the experiences of LGBT students with regard to indicators of negative school climate: (1) hearing biased remarks, including homophobic remarks, in school; (2) feeling unsafe in school because of personal characteristics, such as sexual orientation, gender expression, or race/ethnicity; (3) missing classes or days of school because of safety reasons; and (4) experiencing harassment and assault in school. They also examine: (1) the possible negative effects of a hostile school climate on LGBT students' academic achievement, educational aspirations, and psychological well-being; (2) whether or not students report experiences of victimization to school officials or to family members and how these adults address the problem; and (3) how the school experiences of LGBT students differ by personal and community characteristics. In addition, they demonstrate the degree to which LGBT students have access to supportive resources in school, and they explore the possible benefits of these resources, including: (1) Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) or similar clubs; (2) anti-bullying/harassment school policies and laws; (3) supportive school staff; and (4) curricula that are inclusive of LGBT-related topics. Given that GLSEN has more than a decade of data, they examine changes over the time on indicators of negative school climate and levels of access to LGBT-related resources in schools. GLSEN used two methods to obtain a representative national sample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth to participate in a survey: 1) outreach through national, regional, and local organizations that provide services to or advocate on behalf of LGBT youth, and 2) targeted advertising on the social networking site Facebook. The final sample consisted of a total of 8,584 students between the ages of 13 and 20. Students were from all 50 states and the District of Columbia and from 3,224 unique school districts. About two thirds of the sample (67.9%) was White, about half (49.6%) was female, and over half identified as gay or lesbian (61.3%). Students were in grades 6 to 12, with the largest numbers in grades 10 and 11. Results from the 2011 National School Climate Survey demonstrate the ways in which school-based support--such as supportive staff, anti-bullying/harassment policies, LGBT-inclusive curricular resources, and GSAs--can positively affect LGBT students' school experiences. Furthermore, results show how comprehensive anti-bullying/harassment state laws can positively affect school climate for these students. Therefore, the authors recommend the following measures: (1) Advocate for comprehensive bullying/harassment legislation at the state and federal levels that specifically enumerates sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression as protected categories alongside others such as race, religion, and disability; (2) Adopt and implement comprehensive bullying/harassment policies that specifically enumerate sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in individual schools and districts, with clear and effective systems for reporting and addressing incidents that students experience; (3) Ensure that school policies and practices, such as those related to dress codes and school dances, do not discriminate against LGBT students; (4) Support student clubs, such as Gay-Straight Alliances, that provide support for LGBT students and address LGBT issues in education; (5) Provide training for school staff to improve rates of intervention and increase the number of supportive teachers and other staff available to students; and (6) Increase student access to appropriate and accurate information regarding LGBT people, history, and events through inclusive curricula and library and Internet resources. Taken together, such measures can move us toward a future in which all students have the opportunity to learn and succeed in school, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. (Contains 9 tables, 82 figures and 186 notes.) [For "The 2011 National School Climate Survey: Key Findings on the Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our Nation's Schools. Executive Summary," see ED535178.] Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (8236K) |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Scholarships; Educational Policy; Higher Education; Secondary Education; Educational Philosophy; Immigrants; Equal Education; Public Policy; Social Discrimination; College Admission; Role of Education; Values; Citizenship Education; Minority Group Students; Access to Education; Policy Analysis; Social Action; College Students; Secondary School Students; Student Surveys; Social Behavior; Behavior Standards; Socialization; Social Environment; Social Integration; Equal Opportunities (Jobs)

Abstract:
This student survey was a response to the French youth unrest in 2005 and 2006. It considers the degree to which French higher and secondary education institutions create social cohesion. Focusing on three distinct higher-education institutions: "L'institut d'etudes politiques de Paris" (Sciences Po), "Ecole Normale Superieure," Paris 8, and a "lycee" in the outskirts of Paris, it asks students their opinions on pressing national issues. It reflects on how the French education system was developed to create French citizens and the post-war use of quotas created for Algerians in the employment and education sectors. It draws comparisons with the controversial 2001 separate-admissions policy at Sciences Po and the more recent agenda to institute 30% set-asides for higher-education scholarship students. (Contains 10 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Majors (Students); Higher Education; Social Class; Labor Market; Affirmative Action; Minority Group Students; Developing Nations; Educational Policy; Program Effectiveness; Followup Studies; Educational Status Comparison; Socioeconomic Status; Education Work Relationship; Social Discrimination; Employment Patterns; Equal Opportunities (Jobs); Academic Achievement; Achievement Gap; College Students

Abstract:
Affirmative action policies in higher education are used in many countries to try to socially advance historically disadvantaged minorities. Although the underlying social objectives of these policies are rarely criticized, there is intense debate over the actual impact of such preferences in higher education on educational performance and labor outcomes. Most of the work uses U.S. data where clean performance indicators are hard to find. Using a remarkably detailed dataset on the 2008 graduating class from the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in Delhi we evaluate the impact of affirmative action policies in higher education on minority students focusing on three central issues in the current debate: targeting, catch up, and mismatch. In addition, we present preliminary evidence on labor market discrimination. We find that admission preferences effectively target minority students who are poorer than the average displaced non-minority student. Moreover, by analyzing the college performance of minority and non-minority students as they progress through college, we find that scheduled caste and scheduled tribe students, especially those in more selective majors, fall behind their same-major peers which is the opposite of catching up. We also identify evidence in favor of the mismatch hypothesis: once we control for selection into majors, minority students who enroll in more selective majors as a consequence of admission preferences end up earning less than their same-caste counterparts in less selective majors. Finally, although there is no evidence of discrimination against minority students in terms of wages, we find that scheduled caste and scheduled tribe students are more likely to get worse jobs, even after controlling for selection. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Intervention; Homosexuality; Educational Experience; Educational Environment; School Safety; Social Isolation; Social Discrimination; Social Bias; Aggression; Bullying; Teacher Education Programs; Consciousness Raising; Literature Reviews; Preservice Teacher Education; Attitude Change; Sexual Orientation

Abstract:
As educators, we strive to provide a safe and accepting environment for our students in which to learn. We want our students to feel comfortable so their academic and social success is not hindered. However, as far as we have come in this pursuit, there is still room for growth as there are students who still long for their guarantee of feeling safe and accepted in the classroom. Students who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered and Questioning (LGBTQ) are still largely left marginalized, and their needs and concerns often are left unnoticed. Much of the research shows LGBTQ adolescents "live in social environments in which they may be exposed to negative experiences, including social rejection and isolation, diminished social support, discrimination and verbal and physical abuse" (Almeida et. al., 2009, p. 1002). Our LGBTQ students may be in K-12 situations in which they must navigate homophobia in their day-to-day lives and manage the feeling of shame, as well as being positioned as deviant, abnormal, dirty, and disgusting (McDermott, Roen, Scourfield, 2008). It appears that higher education must help preservice K-12 educators move beyond a sympathetic response for LGBTQ youth. Despite good intentions, such forms of sympathy do not pinpoint specific challenges and related intervention needs that this population of students needs, as delineated in the literature to-date. Thus, a need exists for preservice curriculum to incorporate this literature and guide future educators in formulating purposeful intervention responses for LGBTQ youth in our schools. This paper outlines findings from the literature that should constitute the response. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

 ERIC Full Text (123K)

Descriptors:
Minority Groups; Bullying; Sexual Identity; Homosexuality; School Districts; Student Behavior; Victims; Educational Environment; Middle School Students; High School Students; School Safety; State Legislation; Political Issues; Cultural Influences; Social Influences

Abstract:
Student bullying is one of the most frequently reported discipline issues in schools. Members of minority groups are the typical targets. These days, that most often means students whose sexual orientation or gender identity attracts the ire of others. In a school climate survey of 7,261 middle and high school students conducted by the advocacy group Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, almost all lesbian, gay, bi-sexual or transgender students reported having been harassed in school. Two-thirds said they felt unsafe on campus because of their sexual orientation. At last count, 48 states have anti-bullying laws on their books, most mandating some kind of response or action from school districts. The two exceptions are Montana and South Dakota. But clarity and direction from state legislators is hardly a given. The subject of bullying is fraught with political, social and cultural complications, and school districts often must find their own way through the inevitable, fractious controversies. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Student Attitudes; Homosexuality; College Students; Educational Objectives; Sexual Identity; Gender Issues; Attitude Measures; Gender Differences; Educational Environment; Learner Engagement; Outcomes of Education; Student Experience; Comparative Analysis; Social Bias; Sexual Orientation; Social Discrimination; Peer Relationship; College Faculty; Self Efficacy; Leadership; Social Responsibility

Abstract:
We explored transgender students' perceptions, engagement, and educational outcomes across 17 dimensions of the collegiate experience. Data were collected as part of a national study and represent a total of 91 transgender-identified college students as well as matching samples of nontransgender LGB and heterosexual peers for comparative purposes. Results suggest some variation within the transgender student population (i.e., male to female, female to male, intersexed) as well as significant differences in perceptions of campus climate and educational outcomes between transgender students and their nontransgender LGB and heterosexual peers. (Contains 5 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Intervention; Social Environment; Homosexuality; School Safety; Social Bias; Bullying; Social Justice; Secondary School Students; Educational Environment; Program Effectiveness; Educational Policy; Victims; Literature Reviews; Social Support Groups; Student Diversity; Faculty Development

Abstract:
Research indicates lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth are a vulnerable population--a status that can be attributed to a hostile social climate at school. Intervention strategies, such as educational policies, programs, and a supportive environment, improve the social climate for LGBT students in secondary schools and universities. Yet, no studies have compiled and synthesized existing research to show the exclusively positive effect safe school interventions and supportive environments have on LGBT youth. This article presents a summary of the various intervention strategies, examines the strengths and limitations of the existing body of knowledge, and makes recommendations for future research. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website