Pratiques enseignantes et diversité sexuelle : analyse des pratiques pédagogiques et d'intervention d'enseignants de l'école secondaire québécoise

In Québec and elsewhere, school climate surveys have documented since 2000 the prevalence of homophobic violence, especially in high schools, and its negative impacts of its victims— whether or not they identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or questioning (LGBQ). The dissemination of subsequent data, as well as similar observations made by various actors on the field, have resulted in calls for schools to be vigilant towards homophobic discriminations that could take place onto their premises. Many of these responsibilities have fallen onto the shoulders of teachers, partly because of their close proximity to students. However, despite the sheer number of sexual diversity awareness-building training sessions and publications available to them, teachers consistently report lacking the training, the abilities, the support, and the comfort needed to intervene against homophobia or to refer to sexual diversity in class. This doctoral thesis aims at understanding the pedagogical and intervention practices relative to homophobia and sexual diversity that Québec high school teachers of different sexual orientations report putting forth. Borrowing from sociology of education, gender studies, as well as gay and lesbian studies, we adopted an interdisciplinary lens that also incorporated literature on teaching practices and social intervention. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 22 high school teachers, and these findings were validated through an online questionnaire filled out by 243 teachers. Results detailed in three scientific papers allow a better understanding of teaching practices relating to sexual diversity, but also of the various mechanisms through which they come to be adopted or not by teachers. Teachers seem globally aware of the expectations that surround them in terms of intervening against homophobia. However, since their interventions appear to be guided by the limiting concept of homophobia, they can be unaware of the subtle mechanisms through which discriminations based on sexual orientation, but also atypical gender expressions, can operate. Furthermore, although most teachers claim condemning homophobia, they can nevertheless implement practices that can perpetuate heterosexism and feed into the very symbolic violence they try to put an end to. Aside from rare cases, teachers appear to understand gender and gender expression as essentialist and determinant factors they must learn to work with, rather than social norms they can come to influence as teachers. Identity management strategies advocated by LGB teachers influence the practices they report being capable of, or at ease of, implementing. Teachers opting for total or partial disclosure of their LGB identity can either choose to adopt inclusive practices or to keep at a safe distance from such initiatives. Those who choose to hide their sexual orientation can also consider that implementing practices that are inclusive of sexual diversity is not a viable option for them. Although LGB teachers have long been seen as the ones constrained by these injunctions regarding private life, heterosexual teachers declare having to explicitly state their sexual orientation when they undertake such practices. Our results suggest that teachers are held to different standards with regards to their personal lives. While heterosexual teachers do not hesitate to refer to their heterosexual status, perceived as normal sexual, LGB teachers must assess the most discreet allusion to their home life, in as much as the neutrality supposedly threatened by openly homosexual teachers constitutes a normative and heterosexist status quo. There appears to be strong normative prescriptions relative to gender and sexual orientation in schools. Teachers operate in this heteronormative environment and can come to play an important role in the propagation (for ex., by silencing informations regarding sexual diversity) or the contestation of these norms (for ex., by explaining to students that some of their opinions on LGB people are informed by stereotypes and therefore not empirically valid). The discourses of teachers suggest they themselves are influenced by these norms. They can decide to conform to the normative expectations that target them as teachers (for ex., by asserting their heterosexuality) or choose to resist to them (for ex., by coming out as non-heterosexuals to their students, or by avoiding to explicitly reinforce the expectations that target them) at the risk of being consequently penalized. This influence of gender norms varies from one teacher to another, but seems to be at play for both heterosexual and LGB teachers. The teachers who choose to contest, either explicitly or implicitly, some of these norms report looking for formal signs supporting their initiatives. In this context, their quest of legitimization (whether it is referring to policies against homophobia, calling to mind the similarities between homophobia and racism, or mobilizing the subject in relation to the contents that are prescribed by school authorities) should be understood as a quest for tools to support their normative contestation. Teacher training on homophobia and sexual diversity is another of these tools. As Québec teachers continue to be identified as key actors in the creation and preservation of school environment that are non-discriminatory and inclusive to sexual diversity, it is imperative that they be able to lean on tangible formal signs supporting their actions (ie. explicit policies against homophobia and heterosexism, curriculum that is inclusive of these topics). Our results call for mandatory training sessions on homophobia and sexual diversity for pre-service teachers. In-service teachers would benefit from an improved accessibility of available tools and training rather than mandatory training sessions. Considering the long-term limits that are inherent to a cumulative approach to teaching training – suggesting teachers ought to receive specific trainings on each type of oppression (homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.), we argue for an model based on anti-oppressive education. In this model, students would be taught to consider that knowledge is always situated and that various types of oppressions can operate at once. They would also learn about the social mechanisms through which various groups come to be privileged, normalised or marginalised.

Keyphrases: intervention, formation, coming out, teaching practice, teacher, sexual orientation, sexual diversity, intervention, homophobia, heterosexism, anti-oppressive education, teacher training