90 Sexual and gender diversity in schools: Belonging, in/ exclusion and the African child Abstract The school system in South Africa has only in recent years begun to more deeply grapple with issues of power and privilege along a number of axes of oppression including race, gender, class and recently, sexual and gender diversity. As a result, learners who embody sexual and gender diversity experiences spaces of belonging and exclusion in school settings. As a result, this paper asks: What needs to be done in the school system to reconstruct the “African child” to include sexual and gender diversity? Possibilities include inclusive policy implementation; inclusive learning and teaching resource materials; teacher preparedness to teach about and affirm sexual and gender diversity in the classroom and a clear rejection of homophobic and transphobic violence. The lessons learnt through the process of challenging racism in the school system – such as around essentialising, othering and systemic violence – have yet to be fully applied to sexual and gender diversity in schools. Key words: Sexual and gender diversity; belonging; exclusion; schools 1. Introduction This paper engages with some of the ways in which education continues to perpetuate marginalisation along one axis while fostering greater inclusion along another axis of historical exclusion. Sayed, Soudien and Carrim (2003) rhetorically ask if it is possible that education, in becoming more inclusive in one or more areas, becomes complicit in creating exclusion in others. This paper is also aware that social justice in education is a complex terrain with imbricated conceptual webs and understands schools as sites of inclusion and belonging as well as of exclusion, pain and alienation. In South Africa, the phenomena of poverty, inequality and exclusion are often rightly understood in terms of race, class and gender. As a result, education policy and practice flowing from these overarching frames tends to foreground particular areas of struggle and, either consciously or unconsciously, silences, obscures and marginalises other forms of difference. This dynamic of in/ exclusion leads to a situation in which schools function as Prof Finn Reygan Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC); Department of Educational Psychology, University of the Western Cape; Wits Centre for Diversity Studies (WiCDS), University of the Witwatersrand. Email: FReygan@hsrc.ac.za DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.18820/2519593X/pie. v36i2.8 ISSN 0258-2236 e-ISSN 2519-593X Perspectives in Education 2019 36(2): 90-102 © UV/UFS mailto:FReygan@hsrc.ac.za http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v36i2 http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v36i2 http://dx.doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v36i2 91 Reygan Sexual and gender diversity in schools sites of injustice and, as a result ,this paper focuses on the need for educational change and presents some concrete steps in that direction. This analysis of the education sector responses to difference is applied specifically to issues of sexual and gender diversity, which has generally been a troubling topic for many education stakeholders. The paper draws parallels between the essentialising, othering and systemic violence against the racialised other and the ongoing repression of sexual and gender diversity in education. However, within this context of enforced voicelessness and invisibility, there are also spaces of agency, belonging and inclusion and the paper asks: To what extent has education provision in South Africa been able to speak to the diverse realities and needs of young people who embody sexual and gender diversity? This raises a number of important questions such as: What does it mean to be a learner who embodies sexual and gender diversity in South African schools? To what extent are young people who embody sexual and gender diversity impacted by violence? How might young people who embody sexual and gender diversity be best educated keeping in mind the specific challenges and needs of children who are perceived to be different in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)? Finally, what needs to be done in the school system to reconstruct the “African child” to include sexual and gender diversity? The use of terminology in this paper also requires some level of explanation, as does the framing of the paper. In recent years, the “deficit model” has informed much of the scholarship as well as school-based interventions on sexual and gender diversity. This approach mirrors the long global interdisciplinary history of pathologising sexual and gender diversity by continuing to focus on what is not working, what is wrong, the challenges and the negative impacts of exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination on the educational pathways, academic success and mental and physical health and well-being of queer young people. For example, this has led to a strong focus in research writing, funding streams and at a programmatic level, on homophobic and transphobic bullying and violence in schools (notably UNESCO, 2016). While cognisant of the realities of violence and harassment faced by young people who embody sexual and gender diversity in schools, this paper also frames the focus around issues of belonging, inclusion, social justice and the value that different perspectives bring to the school system. In tandem with this focus on belonging and inclusion, there has been a shift in South African sexualities scholarship in education in recent years away from a focus on identity – as exemplified in the terms lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) – and towards a focus on sexual and gender diversity. The term “sexual and gender diversity” is employed in this paper because it reframes the issues in the broader context of human diversity and encompasses experiences not always included in the more specifically identitarian “LGBTI” label. This has included a greater focus on gender diversity, in terms of gender non-conforming young people and the realisation that communities, including school communities, name and make verbal reference to sexual and gender diversity in multiple ways and through multiple historical and contemporary lenses. A small but growing body of scholarship indicates that gender is the primary encoding lens for this form of diversity (Francis et al., 2017). Not all sexually and gender diverse people encode their ways of being in identitarian terms or using the particular linguistic strategies of the “LGBTI rights” movement. As a result broader conceptual categories, such as that of sexual and gender diversity, offer a greater scope for a multiplicity of worldviews, cultural norms and lived experiences, as well as being more sensitive to a variety of local contexts, including school realities. Furthermore, 92 Perspectives in Education 2019: 36(2) the term “queer” is employed in the paper and requires some interrogation. As McEwen and Milani (2014) point out, there is ongoing debate about the usefulness of the term queer, which emerged in western contexts, for pan-African realities. The term is helpful in maintaining the distinction between practices and identities. However, while Msibi (2014) points to the relevance of queer theory for the study of sexuality generally, he cautions against an uncritical application of this originally Western/Northern term in African contexts. The term cisnormativity is also used in the paper and refers to the assumption that all people are cisgender or rather that their gender identity matches the sex they were assigned at birth. The paper begins by briefly engaging with the broad topic of diversity in education in South Africa before engaging in a more detailed way with the issue of sexual and gender diversity in education. Avoiding a purely deficit approach to this topic, the paper explores educational spaces of inclusion and exclusion in relation to sexual and gender diversity before concluding with some thoughts on how best to reconstruct the school system and notions of African childhood in order to be more broadly inclusive. 2. Diversity in education Education in South Africa has always focused on diversity but often in a manner that cements and embeds inequality and oppression (Francis & Hemson, 2007). Under apartheid, the educational approach of Fundamental Pedagogics pivoted around the notion of “cultural groups” through which black South Africans were positioned outside of the notion of the “nation” which was closely tied to understandings of Western civilisation (Du Plooy, Griesel & Oberholzer, 1982). The apartheid philosophy and its essentialising impetus had a lasting impact on the structure and processes of South African education and conceptualised diversity primarily in relation to “race” and ethnicity, thereby largely avoiding other axes of oppression. The resistance to this oppressive, essentialising and violent approach to education was apparent (see Francis & Hemson, 2007) in the emergence of People’s Education and the philosophies of Paolo Freire (1970) and Steve Biko (2015). The comparison between apartheid education philosophy and People’s Education is stark given their diverging approaches to the notion of difference. The latter viewed difference as a mean to create unity and strive towards collective freedom while the latter foregrounded specific axes of difference to oppress and divide through a process of systemic violence. This paper critically analyses the realities and struggles of learners in schools who embody sexual and gender diversity and is positioned in the tradition of social justice education (see Adams et al., 2007; Ayers, 1998; Nieto, 2004), engaging as it does with issues of exclusion, inclusion, inequality and power as evidenced in and through the school system. Schools may challenge the reproduction of inequality and offer possibilities for social change. Social justice education is a process and a goal (Adams et al., 2007) that aims to support the full and equal participation of all learners, including learners who embody sexual and gender diversity. This social justice project requires halting the intergenerational transmission of outdated and oppressive heteronormative and cisnormative ideologies and knowledge forms. This is possible because, while the challenges of compulsory heteronormativity, cisnormativity, homophobia and transphobia in schools are real (Msibi, 2012), there is agency among LGBTI young people in speaking back to education structures and in advocating for full inclusion in education. This queer youth advocacy in education emerges at a time when there is an increasingly vocal call for a greater focus on issues of power, privilege and difference in South African education, as was evident in recent years with the tertiary #FeesMustFall movement. In a time of flux, change and pervasive violence, questions arise regarding the best ways to 93 Reygan Sexual and gender diversity in schools capacitate schools to embrace issues of diversity such as through teacher preparedness to confront issues of oppression, discrimination and the ways in which these manifest in schools. In response to these challenges, we also know that classroom pedagogies that challenge forms of oppression such as sexism, racism and heterosexism are not new (see Adams, Bell & Griffin, 2007; Francis & Hemson, 2007; Hemson, Moletsane & Muthukrishna, 2001; Kumashiro, 2000; Richardson, 2004). There is also a range of policy measures and legislation that provide for equality of opportunity regardless of difference, including sexual and gender diversity, and some of these are presented below. However, many schools and teachers appear either unwilling or unable to follow through on this mandate and to prepare learners and school communities to develop competence on issues of diversity (Moletsane, Hemson & Muthukrishna, 2004). As Reygan and Steyn (2017) point out, given the apartheid legacy in South Africa, policy makers and educators need a much greater focus on the “theoretical, epistemological, methodological and pedagogical underpinnings of diversity literacy in schools”. Reygan and Steyn (2017) argue that this is the case for all educators and not only for the Life Orientation (LO) subject area and that meanwhile the impetus towards essentialising the difference is an apartheid legacy that is perpetuated through the severe inequality in South African schooling. 3. Sexual and gender diversity in education Grounded in the tradition of critical theory (Freire, 1970, 1972; Giroux 1980a, 1980b; McLaren, 2015), this paper necessarily looks at the ways in which gender, sexuality and schooling overlap with the field of education. A critical theory approach elucidates the ways in which structure and process in education regulate and police diversity, including sexual and gender diversity and the implications of this in terms of power, difference, privilege and oppression in and through schooling. While the literature, both global and South African, highlights how often heterosexuality is compulsory in school settings, advocacy and research around sexual and gender diversity in education has also elucidated strategies for reform and emancipatory change, some of which are presented in this paper. Around the world, the evidence base has clearly demonstrated that schools can be hostile and exclusionary spaces for learners who embody sexual and gender diversity (Ellis & High, 2004). Heteronormativity, or the presumption that heterosexuality is the right and natural way to be, characterises many school environments and is perpetuated in the everyday practices and processes of the everyday practices and processes of school life (DePalma & Atkinson, 2009, 2010; Epstein, O’Flynn & Telford, 2003). As recent research across Southern Africa has also found (UNESCO, 2016), schools function as sites for the policing and control of gender and sexuality. The global data (UNESCO, 2016) also points towards a pervasive gap in support services for learners who embody sexual and gender diversity, including a lack of support from friends, families and school communities. While schools are ideally sites of care and support in which educators make a positive difference in the lives of young people, this may not always be the case for young people who embody sexual and gender diversity (Bhana, 2012, 2014; Francis, 2017a; Francis & Reygan, 2016; Msibi, 2012). In South Africa in particular, heterosexual learners are privileged above sexual and gender minority learners and there is a pervasive culture of secrecy and silence in relation to sexual and gender diversity (Msibi, 2012; Potgieter & Reygan, 2012; Wilmot & Naidoo, 2014). This is generally accompanied by a lack of comprehensive, or any, education in relation to sexual and gender diversity (Potgieter & Reygan, 2012; Wilmot & Naidoo, 2014). 94 Perspectives in Education 2019: 36(2) Overall, the evidence base identifies factors that determine the daily realities of learners who embody sexual and gender diversity in schools. These include: the policy terrain; textbooks as well as learning and teaching support materials (LTSMs); teacher education and sensitisation and the obstacles created by homophobic and transphobic bullying and violence in schools. The confluence of the following exclude learners who embody sexual and gender diversity from full participation or indeed any participation in the school system: • silencing or exclusionary policies; • textbooks that render invisible or denigrate sexual and gender diversity; • teachers who are ill prepared and uncomfortable dealing with the topic of sexual and gender diversity in the classroom; and • hostile and violent, especially homophobic and transphobic, school spaces. • Conversely, the following support access to and completion of education for learners: • inclusive educational policies and guidelines in relation to diversity broadly and specifically in relation to sexual and gender diversity; • textbooks and related materials that affirm diversity and semiotically embrace sexual and gender diversity; • educators who are capacitated, skilled and comfortable with engaging issues of intersectional diversity in the classroom, including having reflected deeply on issues of sexual and gender diversity; and • school spaces that are safe, welcoming and inclusive of all young people. The sections below very briefly and in snapshot form analyse some of the determining characteristics of these spaces of belonging and exclusion. In the current context, the evidence base in South Africa in relation to sexual and gender diversity in schools is robust enough to make some tentative determinations of what the challenges are and what appropriate solutions might be. 4. Spaces of belonging Policy space A range of policies and frameworks have been developed in recent years in South Africa related to the inclusion of sexual and gender diversity in the process of teaching and learning. Such frameworks include Care and Support for Teaching and Learning (CSTL), which includes LGBTI learners as a vulnerable group. The CSTL Framework includes six key pillars that take a rights-based and inclusive approach to the school environment that focuses on fostering safe, protective and supportive schools as well as a “gender sensitive” approach to promote equity and equality throughout the school system. The first pillar rejects discrimination against any child or educator based on gender, race, colour, creed, physical/mental ability, economic status, HIV and AIDS status, health status, sexual orientation, nationality or ethnicity or culture. The national Department of Basic Education has also developed guidelines on the prevention of and response to bullying in schools. For example, the DBE’s School Safety Framework foregrounds the possible role of schools in breaking the cycle of violence in South Africa in which many young people are caught. Part of the approach to making schools safer and more inclusive is through a whole school approach that the DBE urges be an integral part of schools’ mission statements and overall vision. In recent years, with the increased attention 95 Reygan Sexual and gender diversity in schools paid globally to bullying, harassment and School Related Gender Based Violence (SRGBV), schools are mandated to have an anti-bullying policy that includes all members of the school community, including LGBTI young people (see DBE, 2015): Homophobic bullying should always be challenged in the same way that racist or sexist behaviour is challenged. Normal anti-bullying strategies can be used when responding to homophobic bullying and these must have a clear place in the whole school preventative policy. These frameworks and guidelines sit squarely under the general governing legislation for the education sector such as the South African Schools Act of 1996 (Republic of South Africa, 1996) which was intended to create an education system that rejected all forms of unfair discrimination and intolerance. Teacher education The global and South African literature (see Kumashiro, 2000) continues to highlight the determining role of teacher positioning in social justice and anti-oppressive education. In terms of sexual and gender diversity, given the role of religion, patriarchy and cultural norms, Reygan and Steyn (2016) flag that the topic may elicit some level of discomfort and triggering from educators in comparison with issues of race, class and gender. For example, in terms of developing Critical Diversity Literacy (CDL) in relation to sexual and gender diversity, teachers may experience challenges in responding to certain questions. These questions include What are the “rules” for different groups of people (read LGBTI people)?; What is your school/family/ neighbourhood like for people who are different (read LGBTI people)?; What are the important words to talk about being different (read LGBTI people)?; and Where is power in society (especially in relation to sexual and gender diversity)? Such processes of self-reflection in teacher education require teachers to interrogate their experiences of marginalisation and privilege. For example, a black female South African may be asked to question her privilege in terms of heteronormativity and nationality among others as well as possible marginalisation in terms of gender or race. This approach to teaching and learning requires a sophisticated understanding not only of the ways in which the African child is constructed in and through schooling but also of the ways in which this child is socially positioned in terms of race, class, ethnicity, (dis)ability and sexual and gender diversity. The implications of this social positioning in terms of access to and completion of education is also part of this nuanced understanding of diversity in education. Taking this critical, anti-oppressive approach to education helps in elucidating the interconnections between race, class, gender and sexual diversity among others and assists in moving thinking away from essentialising identities to a more informed approach that is cognisant of a wider range of the oppressions, all as equally important (Francis & Le Roux, 2011). An optimal outcome of such processes of teacher education is the cultivation of a generation of teachers that see themselves as agents of change, capable of identifying and challenging racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia and transphobia in school settings. While teachers may often want to avoid taking on responsibility for confronting issues of power, privilege and oppression (Francis & Le Roux, 2011), often due to a lack of prior education and support, national policies and frameworks are clear in terms of duties and responsibilities in terms of creating schools that are caring, supportive, safe and non-discriminatory, including in relation to sexual and gender diversity. 96 Perspectives in Education 2019: 36(2) 5. Spaces of exclusion Homophobic and transphobic violence In South Africa, the national Department of Basic Education’s (DBE) School Safety Framework states that bullying is not something that educators should accept and rejects the notion that bullying is a normal part of growing up and includes homophobic bullying. The DBE (2015) defines homophobic bullying as a particular type of bullying that happens when motivated by prejudice against LGBTI people or people who are thought to be LGBTI. It can target young people and adults who are, or are perceived to be, LGBTI; teachers who are, or are perceived to be, LGBTI; learners who are perceived to be different in some way and learners who have an LGBTI parent or sibling. The DBE (2015) links homophobic violence and bullying as a school safety issue to sexual harassment and gender discrimination and can be either a single event or be repeated over time and that LGBTI young people who come out are more at risk of homophobic bullying. The DBE (2015) points out that homophobic bullying is widespread in South African schools, creates an unhealthy school environment, has a negative impact on learners and, given the linguistic diversity of South Africa, includes terms such as: isitabane in isiZulu; moffie in Afrikaans; faggot and queer in English; and the term ”gay” used in a derogatory way. Human Rights Watch (2011) found that overly strict dress codes that do not consider valid gender identity and expression exert excessive pressure on lesbian and transgender learners by creating a hostile environment that can ultimately lead to early school leaving: I gave up. I didn’t finish matric. If I can get a job this year, next year I can go back to finish school. (Suma: Human Rights Watch, 2011) Morrell (2002) found that learners exist on “a knife’s edge” and Butler, Alpaslan, Strümpher and Astbury (2003) found that participants experienced discrimination, isolation and non-tolerance within their high school contexts. The 18 sexual and gender minority youth experienced harassment inflicted by peers, teachers and school administrators as well as avoidance, rejection and isolation. Wells and Polders (2005) found victimisation based on sexual orientation was widespread, including verbal and physical abuse and even rape. Richardson (2009) found that, because of homophobia in schools, youth suffer from stress, loneliness, identity crisis, depression, high levels of anxiety, isolation, and self-hatred. Kowen and Davis (2006) found that lesbian youth experienced isolation and marginalisation due to homophobic attitudes within school and the broader social context: …in the South African context, coming out means confronting a range of punitive social controls, including, among others, abandonment, rape, physical violence, censorship and accusations of witchcraft. (Kowen & Davis, 2006: 82–83) Bhana (2014) explored the way in which school leaders, including principals and heads of departments, engaged with issues of sexual and gender diversity. Her findings point to the absence of management-level expertise and know how in relation to sexual and gender equality in South African schools. Heterosexist discourses as well as the idealised notion of heterosexual marriage and norms pervaded the reports of school managers. Bhana (2014) found that heterosexuality was the norm while homosexuality was associated with sexual desires, excess and discomfort in a general context that silenced and obscuredsexual and gender diversity. Msibi (2012) found negative experiences of schooling among LGBT young people derogatory language to hate speech and violence perpetrated by teachers: 97 Reygan Sexual and gender diversity in schools I am used to it now ... Mr Mncube dragged me by my neck and told me to stop bothering them in the staffroom. He had done this to me before. He likes pushing me and shouting at me in front of other teachers whenever I go to the staffroom. He always says he doesn’t like “izitabane”. Other teachers just laugh and do nothing. (Msibi, 2012: 525) DePalma and Francis (2014) report on religious discourses and the conviction that homosexuality can be cured or prevented, which gives way to an additional religious discourse of intolerance. Some of the teachers, in their study, expressed ambivalence over curative or conversion methodologies, even when they had expressed an understanding of homosexuality as a sin or disorder. For example, one teacher described a poster that she had put on her wall that depicted the Christian’s choice: two roads, a narrow one leading to heaven and a broad one leading to hell, with a bible verse advocating violence towards homosexuals. The DBE (2015) affirms that all actors in the school community have roles and responsibilities in terms of addressing bullying: principals; the SGB; the school safety committee; educators; parents and caregivers and peer leaders. However, DePalma and Francis (2013) conclude that there is a strong disconnect between progressive legislation and education policy. In short, in the broader context of School Related Gender Based Violence (SRGBV), homophobic and transphobic bullying and violence compromises learners’ right to a quality education in a safe school environment (UNESCO, 2016). 6. Textbooks In the South African context, the Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) indicates that the National Curriculum is grounded in values of “social transformation; ensuring that the educational imbalances of the past are addressed” (DoE, 2011: 4). CAPS is also intended to support “human rights, inclusivity ... and social justice; infusing the principles and practices of social and environmental justice and human rights as defined in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa” (DoE, 2011: 4). In this broader context, textbooks play a key role in the construction of norms, values and identities (Wilmot & Naidoo, 2014) and serve to convey national policies and guidelines as well as forming one of the bases for classroom practice. Textbooks have an ideological function in terms of selecting knowledge, in communicating the “thinkable”, erasing the “unthinkable”, and in reproducing the epistemic and ontological values underpinning curriculum policy (Issitt, 2004). In their critical analysis of South African LO textbooks in relation to sexual and gender diversity, Wilmot and Naidoo (2014) found that heteronormativity and heterosexism determine the representation of sexualities broadly in LO textbooks through a range of techniques. First, there is little mention of sexual and gender diversity in textbooks. Second, the presumption of heterosexuality informs content on marriage, family, sex and dating, and there is a generally inaccurate representation of sexual and gender diversity. Third, there is an overly simplistic reduction of the variety and nuance of sexuality and diversity. Finally, heterosexuality is reified by normalising judgements and exclusion. Wilmot and Naidoo’s (2014) findings develop on the findings of Potgieter and Reygan (2012) who found a pathologising and obscuringimpetus in the general (non)representation and silencing of sexual and gender diversity in LO textbooks. Overall, textbooks generally fail to provide adequately informed and nuanced knowledge about sexual and gender sexuality in a manner that is accessible, useful and interesting for young people. 98 Perspectives in Education 2019: 36(2) 7. Conclusion The lessons learnt through the process of challenging racism in the school system – such as around essentialising, othering and systemic violence – have yet to be fully applied to sexual and gender diversity in schools. School community members, textbooks and pedagogical practices continue to essentialise sexual and gender diversity in individual learners, thereby avoiding turning the gaze back on a system that continues to experience deep-seated discomfort in relation to multiple forms of difference. However just as adult LGBTI people continue to push back against patriarchal notions of gender and sexuality in society in general, so too are the education system itself and LGBTI young people themselves creating spaces for belonging and inclusion. While the media is saturated with stories of school violence, we also know that schools can and do function as sites of belonging and inclusion for young queer people (see http://www.newnownext.com/south-african-gay-boys-kiss-valentines- day/02/2018/). It is also increasingly apparent that the SOGI issues cannot be understood outside an intersectional approach that takes into account issues of race, class and disability among others. The school experiences of sexual and gender minority learners are complex and extend beyond SOGI issues such as concerns over being outed, discrimination and oppression. Sexual and gender minority learners embody a broad range of other identities grounded in race, class, religious belief, linguistic differences, disability and so on. As a result, it is imperative to understand the ways in which multiple identities and social positions are imbricated and to develop a clearer understanding of the ways in which the processes of teaching and learning are influenced by the overlapping experiences of privilege and marginalisation. For example, the lived experiences and social positioning of a black, upper middle class, cisgender female learner with a disability will differ from the school-based experiences of an able bodied, white, transgender male from a disadvantaged background. A focus on sexual and gender diversity problematises the single notion of the “African child” by considering the ways in which responses to sexual and gender diversity determines the experiences of youth in schools. To be LGBTI identified also means holding deeper more nuanced understandings of the ways in which power operates and the ways in which experiences of class, race, age and SOGI intersect, overlap and co-construct each other. To be queer identified in schools means to hold a vision for a more inclusive future and to seek out communities of belonging, often online, where many sexual and gender minority youth find connections to other likeminded individuals and to communities of support. To be LGBTI identified in schools means to experience possible violence, bullying and harassment and to be required to develop strategies of resilience and perseverance in the face of systemic violence. To visibly embody sexual and gender diversity in school settings means to require school systems to confront the sometimes-troubling notions of childhood sexuality and diversity of gender expression. All of the above asks of schools to question desexualised, non-agentic visions of youth sexuality, desire and identity. In terms of the best way to educate the African child who embodies sexual and gender diversity, one effective approach is to bring sexual and gender diversity in from the margins and position diversity as a core aspect of the curriculum, practice and culture in schools. Some steps have been taken toward creating a school system that is safe and inclusive for sexual and gender minority learners, which have been presented in this paper. A socially just education system will facilitate learners who embody sexual and http://www.newnownext.com/south-african-gay-boys-kiss-valentines-day/02/2018/ http://www.newnownext.com/south-african-gay-boys-kiss-valentines-day/02/2018/ 99 Reygan Sexual and gender diversity in schools gender diversity to feel a sense of safety, inclusion, belonging and visibility in education. This is because the inclusion of sexual and gender minority learners requires a robust engagement with issues of power, privilege and oppression in and around education. In this regard, there is a growing recognition of the constitutive role of privilege and power in perpetuating inequality, including the transmission between generations of exclusionary epistemologies in and through education processes. 8. Recommendations This paper began by asking what needs to be done in the school system to reconstruct the “African child” to include sexual and gender diversity. From the foregoing analysis of education policies and processes, some possibilities include: • inclusive policy implementation, such as the development of school policies in relation to the inclusion of transgender learners especially in relation to school dress codes; • inclusive learning and teaching resource materials and especially those that mainstream some of the robust materials developed by civil society organisations such as GenderDynamix; • teacher preparedness to teach about and affirm sexual and gender diversity in the classroom, including pre-service through all Schools of Education in South African universities as well as in-service interventions such as delivered by organisations such as LoveLife; and • a clear rejection of homophobic and transphobic violence. References Adams, M., Bell, L. A. & Griffin, P. 2007. Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203940822 Ayers, W. 1998. Popular education: Teaching for social justice. Teaching for social justice, ed. W. Ayers, J., A. Hunt and T. Quinn, T. New York: Teachers College Press. Bhana, D. 2012. Understanding and addressing homophobia in schools: A view from teachers. South African Journal of Education, 32, 307–318. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v32n3a659 Bhana, D. 2014. Managing’ the rights of gays and lesbians: Reflections from some South African secondary schools. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi. org/10.1177/1746197913497663 Biko, S. 2015. I write what I like: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Butler, A., Alpaslan, A., Allen, J. G., & Astbury, G. 2003. Gay and lesbian youth experiences of homophobia in South African secondary education. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(2), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v01n02_02 DePalma, R. & Atkinson, E. 2009. Interrogating heteronormativity in primary schools: The work of the No Outsiders Project. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham. DePalma, R. & Atkinson, E. 2010. The nature of institutional heteronormativity in primary schools and practice-based responses. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1669–1676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.018 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203940822 https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v32n3a659 https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197913497663 https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197913497663 https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v01n02_02 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.018 100 Perspectives in Education 2019: 36(2) DePalma, R. 2013. Choosing to lose our gender expertise: Queering sex/gender in school settings. Sex Education, 13(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.634145 DePalma, R. & Francis, D. 2014. South African life orientation teachers: (Not) teaching about sexuality diversity. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(12), 1687–1711. https://doi.org/10.1080/009 18369.2014.951256 Department of Education (DOE). 2011. Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement Life Orientation Further Education and Training Phase Grades 10–12. Republic of South Africa, Department of Basic Education. Du Plooy, J. L., G. A. J. Griessel & M. O. Oberholzer. 1982. Fundamental pedagogics for advanced students. Pretoria: HAUM. Ellis, V. & High, S. 2004. Something more to tell you: Gay, lesbian or bisexual young people’s experiences of secondary schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000195281 Epstein, D., O’Flynn, S. & Telford, D. 2003. Silenced sexualities in schools and universities. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Francis, D. 2012. Teacher positioning on the teaching of sexual diversity in South African schools. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 14(6), 597–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2 012.674558 Francis, D. 2013. ‘You know the homophobic stuff is not in me, like us, it’s out there.’ Using Participatory Theatre to challenge heterosexism and heteronormativity in a South African school. South African Journal of Education, 33(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15700/201412171338 Francis, D. 2017a. Homophobia and sexuality diversity in South African schools: A Review. Journal of LGBT Youth. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2017.1326868 Francis, D. 2017b. ‘I think we had one or two of those, but they weren’t really’: Teacher and learner talk on bisexuality in South African schools. Journal of Bisexuality, 17(2), 1–19. Francis, D. & Hemson, C. 2007. Rainbow’s end: Consciousness and enactment in social justice education. Perspectives in Education, 25(1), 99–112. Francis, D. & Le Roux, A. 2011. Teaching for social justice education: the intersection between identity, critical agency, and social justice education. South African Journal of Education, 31(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v31n3a533 Francis, D. A., & Reygan, F. 2016. Let’s see if it won’t go away by itself. LGBT microaggressions among teachers in South Africa. Education as Change, 20(3), 180–201. https://doi. org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/1124 Francis, D., & Reygan, F. (2016). Relationships, intimacy and desire in the lives of lesbian, gay and bisexual youth in South Africa. South African Review of Sociology, 47(3), 65–84. https:// doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2016.1163290 Francis, D., Reygan, F., Brown, A., Dlamini, B., McAllister, J., Nogela, L., Mosime, S.T., Muller, M. & Thani, G. 2018. A five country study of gender and sexuality diversity and schooling in Southern Africa. Africa Education Review, DOI: 10.1080/18146627.2017.1359637 Freire, P. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Freire, P. 1972. Education for critical consciousness. New York: Continuum. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2011.634145 https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.951256 https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.951256 https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192042000195281 https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2012.674558 https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2012.674558 https://doi.org/10.15700/201412171338 https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2017.1326868 https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v31n3a533 https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/1124 https://doi.org/10.17159/1947-9417/2016/1124 https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2016.1163290 https://doi.org/10.1080/21528586.2016.1163290 101 Reygan Sexual and gender diversity in schools Gavin, M. 2013. 16 Days of Activism at University of Botswana. Available at http://botswana. usembassy.gov/ remarks_november_18_2013.html [Accessed 02 July 2016]. Giroux, H. 1980a. Critical theory and rationality in citizenship education. Curriculum Inquiry, 10(4), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1980.11075229 Giroux, H. 1980b. Gramsci, hegemony, and schooling. Journal of Sociology, 13(3), 215–225. Hemson C., Moletsane, R. & Muthukrishna, N. 2001. Transforming racist conditioning. Perspectives in Education, 19, 85–98. Human Rights Watch. 2011. ‘We’ll show you you’re a woman’. Violence and discrimination against black lesbians and transgender men in South Africa (No. 1-56432-834-1). New York: Human Rights Watch. Available at http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ southafrica1211.pdf Issitt, J. 2004. Reflections on the study of textbooks. History of Education, 33(6), 683–696. https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760042000277834 Kowen, D. & Davis, J. (2006). Opaque young lives: experiences of lesbian youth. Agenda, 20(67), 80–92. Kumashiro, K. 2000. Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 25–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070001025 McLaren, P. 2015. Life in schools: An introduction to criticalpedagogy in the foundations of Education. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315633640 McEwen, H. & Milani, T. 2014. Queer & trans Articulations: Decolonising gender and sexualities in the global South. Agenda, 28(4), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2014.993832 Moletsane, R., Hemson, C. & Muthukrishna, A. 2004. Educating South African teachers for the challenge of school integration: Towards a teaching and research agenda. In Reflections on school integration: Colloquium proceedings, ed. M. Nkomo, C. McKinney and L. Chisholm. 61-77. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council. Morrell, R. 2002. A calm after the storm? Beyond schooling as violence. Educational Review, 54(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120110866 Msibi, T. 2012 I’m used to it now: Experiences of homophobia among queer youth in South African township schools. Gender and Education, 24(5), 515–533. https://doi.org/10.1080/09 540253.2011.645021 Msibi, T. 2014. Is current theorising on same-sex sexuality relevant to the African context? The need for more African voices on same-sex desire in Africa. Pambazuka News, Issue 667. Msibi, T. 2016. “Bitter knowledge.” In M.N. Rodriguez, J.W. Martino, C.J. Ingrey & E. Brockenbrough (Eds). Critical concepts in queer studies and education: An international guide for the twenty-first century, edited by, (pp.23–33). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi. org/10.1057/978-1-137-55425-3_4 Nieto, S. 2004. Affirming diversity. Boston, MA: Pearson. Potgieter, C. & Reygan, F. 2012. Lesbian, gay and bisexual citizenship: A case study as represented in a sample of South African Life Orientation textbooks. Perspectives in Education 30(4), 39–51. http://botswana.usembassy.gov/ http://botswana.usembassy.gov/ remarks_november_18_2013.html https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1980.11075229 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/southafrica1211.pdf http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/southafrica1211.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/0046760042000277834 https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070001025 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315633640 https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2014.993832 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120110866 https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2011.645021 https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2011.645021 https://doi.org/10.1057/978 https://doi.org/10.1057/978 102 Perspectives in Education 2019: 36(2) Potgieter, C., Reygan, F. & Msibi, T. 2014. Teaching about sexual diversity and challenging homophobia/ transphobia in the South African school system: Curriculum resource pack for teacher-educators. Durban: UKZN Press. Reygan, F. 2016. Making schools safer in South Africa: An anti-homophobic bullying educational resource. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(1-2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/19 361653.2015.1088814 Reygan, F. & Francis, D. 2015. Emotions and pedagogies of discomfort: Teachers’ responses to sexual and gender diversity in the Free State, South Africa. Education as Change, 19(1), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2014.943259 Department of Basic Education (DBE). 2015. Safer schools for all: Challenging homophobic bullying. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education. Republic of South Africa (1996). The South African Schools Act, Act 84 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printer.Reygan, F. & Steyn, M. 2017. Diversity in basic education in South Africa: Intersectionality and Critical Diversity Literacy. Africa Education Review, DOI: 10.1080/18146627.2017.1280374 Richardson, E.M. 2004. A ripple in the pond’: Challenging homophobia in a teacher education course. Education as Change, 8(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/16823200409487084 Richardson, E. 2009. Considering the lives of LGBTI youth in HIV & AIDS education efforts. In C. Mitchell & P. Pithouse (Eds.). Teaching and HIV & AIDS in the South African classroom. Johannesburg: Macmillan. Sayed, Y., Soudien, C., & Carrim, N. 2003. Discourses of exclusion and inclusion in the South: Limits and possibilities. Journal of Educational Change, 4(3), 231–248. https://doi. org/10.1023/B:JEDU.0000006162.07375.aa UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). 2016. Out in the Open: Education Response to Violence Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender and Gender Identity/Expression. Paris: UNESCO. Wells, H. & Polders, L. 2005. Lack of empowerment among gay, lesbian, bisexual transgender (GLTB) people in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa. Pretoria: Joint Working Group. Wilmot, M. & Naidoo, D. 2014. ‘Keeping things straight’: The representation of sexualities in Life Orientation textbooks.” Sex Education, 14(3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/1468181 1.2014.896252 https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2015.1088814 https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2015.1088814 https://doi.org/10.1080/16823206.2014.943259 https://doi.org/10.1080/16823200409487084 https://doi.org/10.1023 https://doi.org/10.1023 JEDU.0000006162.07375.aa https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2014.896252 https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2014.896252 _GoBack