Preschool selection considerations and experiences of school mistreatment among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.09.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We examine sexual minority and heterosexual adoptive parents of preschoolers.

  • We examine preschool selection factors and perceptions of school mistreatment.

  • Sexual minority parents are more likely to consider racial diversity.

  • Heterosexual parents are more likely to perceive adoption-related mistreatment.

  • Living in a homophobic area is linked to perceived sexuality-related mistreatment.

Abstract

The current study is the first to investigate the school selection considerations and school-related experiences of sexual-minority parents with young children. The sample consisted of 210 parents in 105 couples, including 35 lesbian couples, 30 gay male couples, and 40 heterosexual couples, all of whom had adopted a child three years earlier. We found that parents with less income were more likely to consider cost in choosing a preschool, and parents with less education were more likely to consider location. More educated parents tended to emphasize racial diversity and the presence of adoptive families, and, among sexual-minority parents, the presence of other lesbian/gay parents. Sexual-minority parents were more likely to consider racial diversity than heterosexual parents. In reporting on their experiences with schools, heterosexual parents were more likely to perceive mistreatment due to their adoptive status than sexual-minority parents, and sexual-minority parents living in less gay-friendly communities were more likely to perceive mistreatment due to their sexual orientation than sexual-minority parents living in more gay-friendly communities. Our findings have implications for early childhood educators and administrators seeking to create an inclusive learning community for all types of families.

Introduction

Despite advances in securing equal rights for sexual minorities and their families, sexual-minority (i.e., lesbian, gay, and bisexual; LGB) parents and their children encounter explicit and implicit forms of marginalization, exclusion, and stigma embedded in various societal institutions, such as the legal system and the schools (Byard et al., 2013, Goldberg, 2010). Within the school context, sexual-minority parent families may encounter teachers, school staff, and other parents who possess ambivalent or unsupportive attitudes toward families like their own (Gartrell et al., 2000). Such attitudes may manifest in either lack of acknowledgment or explicit stigmatization of children with sexual-minority parents. On a more subtle level, marginalization of these families may be embedded in the curriculum (e.g., by focusing entirely on the experiences of heterosexual people and families) and school paperwork (e.g., by failing to allow for representation of diverse family forms; Byard et al., 2013). Sexual-minority parent families who are “different” in additional ways, beyond parents’ sexual orientation, may also be vulnerable to bias and exclusion in school settings. Many sexual-minority parent families are adoptive and/or multiracial (Gates, Badgett, Macomber, & Chambers, 2007), introducing other dimensions of difference that may meet challenges in the school setting.

Little research has examined sexual-minority parents’ experiences in school settings. The little research that exists has focused primarily on their experiences in elementary school settings (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008), as opposed to their experiences in early childhood settings, where they may have more contact with teachers and staff (Beveridge, 2005), and thus may be more attuned to insensitivities directed at them and/or their child(ren). Indeed, we know little about the family–school interface of sexual-minority parent families with young children, including their school selection process and potential experiences of exclusion and mistreatment within their children's schools. Likewise, we know little about the school experiences of sexual-minority parents who have adopted their children, and how such experiences may be shaped by adoption- or race-related factors. The current exploratory study examines the experiences of lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents of preschool-age children with respect to their (a) school-related selection considerations; and (b) perceived experiences of mistreatment at school.

Research on the school-related concerns of sexual-minority parents of school-age children suggests that parents are often aware of the potential for homophobic bullying at school (Gartrell et al., 2000). Several studies further suggest that some sexual-minority parents purposefully seek out progressive and diverse schools and communities in an effort to decrease the stigma to which their children are exposed (Casper and Schultz, 1999, Kosciw and Diaz, 2008, Mercier and Harold, 2003). Such efforts may be particularly pronounced among sexual-minority parents of children of color (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). Parents who adopt children of color face the possibility that their children might be mistreated (i.e., confront stereotypes and ignorance) on the basis of their race; in turn, White sexual-minority parents of children of color recognize that their children might be mistreated on the basis of both their race and family structure (Goldberg, 2009). White parents who adopt children of color also confront the possibility that the multiracial makeup of their families – the fact that children look “different” from them – may render their children vulnerable to intrusive questions about adoption (e.g., “where are you from?”; “who are your ‘real’ parents?”; Vaschenko, D’Aleo, & Pinderhughes, 2012).

Parents of preschool-age children play a greater role in selecting their children's school environments than parents of school-age children. Whereas most children in elementary school attend their local public schools, most children in preschool attend private programs, although some public programs (which are funded by the city and/or state) are available (Magnuson & Waldfogel, 2005). In turn, parents – especially middle-class parents – typically play an active role in selecting preschool or day-care programs for their children (Cryer, Tietze, & Wessels, 2002). Research on heterosexual parents’ school selection process has found that parents tend to consider a range of factors in choosing schools and daycares for their young children, with frequently mentioned concerns including logistical/practical factors (e.g., cost, location), school quality considerations (e.g., the school curriculum or philosophy), and, more rarely, value-related considerations (i.e., the degree to which parents’ values match the schools’ values) (Galotti and Tinkelenberg, 2009, Glenn-Applegate et al., 2011). Working-class parents may be more likely to emphasize practical concerns such as cost and location in their selection process than middle-class parents, in part because of differing constraints on their choices (e.g., in terms of money, transportation, and time; Smrekar & Goldring, 1999); but also because of differing views of education (e.g., middle-class parents may be more likely to view education as a “calculated decision that matches the values and attributes of the family…and child…to the best-fitting school”; Goyette, 2008, Wells and Crain, 1997). Likewise, middle-class parents may be more likely to emphasize school quality in their selection process (Peyton, Jacobs, O’Brien, & Roy, 2001), perhaps in part because, as Larner and Phillips (1994) note, parents with more education tend to view the role of early childhood education as a key context for learning and preparing for grade school, and as a starting point for children's long-term educational success.

No known research has focused on whether and to what extent the above school selection considerations are endorsed by sexual-minority parents of young children. It is expected that, like parents of children with special needs (Glenn-Applegate et al., 2011) and parents of bilingual children (McClain, 2010), sexual-minority parents – as well as adoptive parents – may consider additional issues related to the inclusiveness of the school community. Understanding what factors sexual-minority parents consider in selecting early educational environments for their children is important, as it will provide crucial insight into the school-related concerns and values of sexual-minority parents, and can inform teaching and practice in early childhood education. Furthermore, knowledge of sexual-minority parents’ school-related considerations is of interest in that they may foreshadow what types of early childhood environments their children ultimately inhabit. Such knowledge is important, given that the early childhood educational environment impacts children's social, emotional, and cognitive development (Burger, 2010).

Research on school selection among sexual-minority parents with elementary school-age children can lend some insight into the school selection considerations of sexual-minority parents of preschoolers. Key data on this topic come from the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)’s 2008 survey of 588 LGBT parents, most of whom were women and had a child in elementary school (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). Although most parents reported that their children attended public schools (78%), this percentage was significantly lower than the national percentage (89%). Of the parents who sent their children to private schools, these schools were less likely to be religiously-affiliated schools (7%) and more likely to be independent schools (16%) than national percentages. Regarding LGBT parents’ reasons for selecting their children's schools, parents most often reported that they chose the local or neighborhood school (59%) and that they chose the school based on academic reputation (54%). Other common reasons cited were the diversity of the school population (31%), the school's reputation for valuing diversity (22%), they knew other families at the school (29%), the sports/arts/music reputation of the school (29%), they knew that there were other children with LGBT parents there (17%), the school's reputation for being welcoming of LGBT families (17%), the academic approach (e.g., Montessori) (13%), special education services (12%), and language programs (10%). Parents of children of color were more likely to choose schools based on the diversity of the school population (43%) than were parents with a White student (25%), regardless of the race/ethnicity of the parents (about 16% of the families represented had White parent(s) and a child of color, and 14% of the families represented were comprised of one White and one non-White parent; Kosciw & Diaz, 2008).

In addition to the GLSEN survey, several qualitative studies have examined the school-related experiences of lesbian parents; indeed, research on gay fathers’ school-related experiences is particularly sparse. Mercier and Harold (2003) interviewed 15 lesbian-parent families with children ranging from six months to 18 years. Similar to the GLSEN sample, the parents in this study often emphasized the importance of sending their children to schools that valued diversity, because they believed that “schools that value diversity of any type are more likely to respond well to lesbian-parent families” (p. 39). Consistent with this, Gartrell et al. (1999) interviewed 84 lesbian-parent families with toddlers about their plans for child care or preschool and found that 87% of mothers said that they planned to enroll their children in programs that included children and teachers of different social classes, genders, races, ethnicities, and cultures, out of a belief that “exposure to diversity was the most effective method of fortifying their children against homophobia” (p. 367). When the children in the study were five, 74% of the children's schools were described as multicultural and 33% had lesbian/gay staff members; by extension, under one-fifth (18%) of children had reportedly experienced homophobia from peers or teachers (Gartrell et al., 2000). Of note is that Gartrell et al. sample was drawn from metropolitan areas (e.g., San Francisco), which may have facilitated access to multicultural, gay-friendly school environments.

Finally, a qualitative study of 20 lesbian-parent families in Australia found that parents who could afford to send their children to private school often did so, in part because they seemed to believe that these schools would be more likely to accept and be inclusive of their families (Lindsay et al., 2006). Thus, in sum, the existing research suggests that lesbian mothers value diversity, broadly defined, as well as racial diversity, specifically (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008).

The early parent–school relationship is important, in that it can have positive implications for child development, and also lays the foundation for future parent involvement and school connection (Beveridge, 2005). In addition to playing an active role in the selection of preschools, parents of young children may also actively interact with their children's schools. Unlike parents of school-age children, parents of preschool-age children are usually in direct contact with the teachers and staff who are caring for their children, providing information about their children's personality and developmental stage, as well as recommendations about how best to support their children's growth (Beveridge, 2005, Rimm-Kaufman and Pianta, 2005). Parents of young children also often seek out more information from schools about what their children are learning, since their children may lack the cognitive or verbal skills to explain these details to them (Glover & Bruning, 1987) – although parents with more resources tend to have more communication with teachers (Bryant et al., 2000, Lareau, 1987). Parents of young children may also inquire about their children's social experiences at school; although negative peer behavior is less of a concern in early childhood settings than elementary school (Sawyer, Mishna, Pepler, & Wiener, 2011), teasing in these settings does occur (Kirves & Sajaniemi, 2012).

The early interactions between sexual-minority parents and early educational environments are of great significance, insomuch as these experiences can set the stage for parents’ expectations about and involvement in their children's school lives more generally (Casper & Schultz, 1999), and, in turn, parent school involvement is related to child developmental outcomes, such that children with highly involved parents demonstrate greater social and cognitive skills, and fewer behavioral problems (Powell, Son, File, & San Juan, 2010). Perceived experiences of marginalization or mistreatment in early childhood settings, then, are particularly important to attend to, as they may have profound implications for sexual-minority parents’ school connectedness and involvement (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). Some research has examined sexual-minority parents’ perceptions of exclusion and mistreatment in elementary school settings. More than half (53%) of the LGBT parents in the GLSEN survey described various forms of exclusion related to their sexual orientation from their children's school communities (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008). For example, parents were told that they could not be aids in their children's classrooms; that only one parent was allowed to attend a school event; and that their offers to assist with creating a more inclusive classroom were not welcome or needed. Further, 26% of LGBT parents reported being mistreated by other parents (e.g., being stared at or ignored). Not surprisingly, parents who reported higher levels of exclusion and mistreatment were less likely to be involved in volunteering at their children's schools (Kosciw & Diaz, 2008).

There is some evidence that sexual-minority parents with greater educational, financial, and geographic resources may perceive less exclusion in their children's schools. Casper and Schultz (1999) interviewed 17 lesbian and gay parents with children in preschool to 5th grade and found that parents who were middle-class, living in urban or “progressive” areas, and/or sent their children to private schools, reported more ease in being “out” and advocating for their children than parents with limited financial or geographic resources. In a rare study of working-class lesbian mothers, Nixon (2011) found that participants often felt like outsiders at their children's schools due to both their socioeconomic status (and, specifically, their own poor school histories) and also their sexual orientation. In turn, very few mothers discussed their concerns about bullying directly with their children's teachers, choosing instead to try to prepare their children to avoid, and if necessary cope with, bullying.

Many sexual-minority parents adopt their children (Gates et al., 2007), creating additional dimensions of difference that they may consider in choosing school environments for their children. Of note is that a range of practical resources are available for adoptive parents of young children (e.g., that provide guidance on how to talk to teachers about their children's adoptive status as well as how to educate teachers about adoption in general; Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2012, Gilmore and Bell, 2006). However, little empirical work has examined adoptive parents’ considerations in selecting schools for their children, or navigating and responding to adoption bias (e.g., the use of adoption-insensitive language by teachers and/or in curricula). The absence of this work is concerning, given that misinformation and stigma related to adoption – particularly transracial adoption – are still pervasive in the broader society (Goldberg, Kinkler, & Hines, 2011) and may trickle down into the attitudes and practices of teachers and other school personnel. Teachers may fail to understand or attend to the multiple dimensions of difference that may impinge upon the identity or experiences of adopted children (Enge, 1999). They may also neglect to discuss racial or family diversity in the classroom, perhaps because they believe that young children are too young to understand these issues (Husband, 2012, Robinson and Ferfolja, 2002), despite evidence to the contrary (Park, 2011).

Few studies have assessed adoptive parents’ experiences related to their children's school environments. In a study of racial socialization practices among heterosexual parents who had adopted transracially, Vonk, Lee, and Crolley-Simic (2010) found that 54% of parents reported that they had chosen child care providers, teachers, or other role models similar to their children's race or ethnicity. Other studies (Goldberg, 2009, Mercier and Harold, 2003) have also observed that White parents who adopt transracially sometimes describe efforts to move to an area that is racially diverse, so that their children will grow up around, and attend schools with, other people who look like them. These studies suggest that for parents who adopt a child of a different race, the racial diversity of teachers and schools may take on heightened importance.

Speaking to issues of inclusion versus exclusion in schools, Nowak-Fabrykowski, Helinski, and Buchstein (2009) surveyed 23 heterosexual foster parents and found that most respondents reported their children's teachers and classrooms did not have any materials related to adoption, and felt that teachers should make more of an effort to assign lessons about adoption (e.g., during Adoption Month). Thus, respondents demonstrated a general sense that schools could be doing more than they were to incorporate the experiences and needs of adopted individuals and their families into their materials and curricula.

The research discussed thus far is limited by the fact that it has rarely included parents of young children, is primarily qualitative, and, when it includes sexual-minority parents, has tended to focus on lesbian mothers, not gay fathers. Despite these limitations, it provides insights into (a) the type of criteria that sexual-minority adoptive parents may value in choosing schools for their children; and (b) the possibility for sexual-minority adoptive parents to perceive mistreatment by their children's schools. First, the literature suggests that sexual-minority parents may be particularly likely to value school diversity (e.g., with regard to family structure and race). Second, it suggests that sexual-minority parents may perceive mistreatment at their children's schools, although such experiences may be mitigated by sending one's child to a private school (Kosciw and Diaz, 2008, Lindsay et al., 2006), and, indirectly, by the presence of financial and educational resources, as well as living in a “progressive” or gay-friendly area (Casper & Schultz, 1999).

This exploratory study examines a sample of 210 parents in 105 couples – 35 lesbian two-parent families, 30 gay two-parent families, and 35 heterosexual two-parent families – all of whom had adopted a child three years earlier. Both partners in each couple were surveyed. At the time of assessment, children in the sample were between 3.0 and 5.5 years (M age = 3.47) and enrolled in a preschool. Based on the literature, we proposed the following exploratory research questions.

Research Question 1: Does the frequency by which parents consider school selection factors such as cost, location, educational philosophy, religion/language, racial diversity, and the presence of adoptive families vary according to parent sexual orientation, child race, family income, and parent education level?

We hypothesize that sexual-minority parents will be more likely to consider racial diversity and the presence of other adoptive families; parents of children of color will be more likely to consider racial diversity; and higher levels of financial/educational resources will be related to greater consideration of “quality” factors such as educational philosophy and religion/language offerings, greater consideration of diversity factors such as racial diversity and the presence of other adoptive families, and lesser consideration of “practical” factors such as cost and location.

Research Question 2: Among sexual-minority parents, does the frequency by which parents consider the presence of other lesbian/gay-parent families and school gay-friendliness vary by parent gender, child race, family income, or parent education level?

These are exploratory questions, and we do not have hypotheses about the role of gender or race. We expect higher levels of financial/educational resources to be related to greater consideration of lesbian/gay-parent families and greater consideration of school gay-friendliness.

Research Question 3: Do parents’ perceptions of mistreatment related to adoptive status vary by parent sexual orientation, child race, family income, parent education level, or school type?

We do not have hypotheses about the role of parent sexual orientation. We hypothesize that parents of children of color will perceive more mistreatment; parents with fewer financial/educational resources will perceive more mistreatment; and parents whose children attend public preschools will perceive more mistreatment.

Research Question 4: Among sexual-minority parents, do parents’ perceptions of mistreatment related to sexual orientation vary by parent gender, child race, the perceived gay-friendliness of one's community, family income, parent education, or school type?

We have no hypotheses about parent gender. We hypothesize that parents of children of color will perceive more mistreatment; parents who live in less gay-friendly areas will perceive more mistreatment; parents with fewer resources will perceive more mistreatment; and parents whose children attend public preschools will perceive more mistreatment.

Section snippets

Description of the sample

Data were taken from a longitudinal study of the transition to adoptive parenthood. All 105 couples had adopted their first child three years earlier, and in all cases it was a single child. Respondents’ data were included in the current study if their adopted child was in preschool.

Descriptive data for the full sample, and by family type, appear in Table 1. ANOVA revealed that the average family incomes for lesbian-, gay-, and heterosexual-parent families differed significantly, F(2,103) = 5.29,

School selection factors: descriptives

Table 2 presents the percentage of parents who endorsed considering each factor in selecting a school for their child, for the full sample and broken down by family type, child race, and school type (private versus public school: 75% of the sample had their child enrolled in a private school). As Table 2 reveals, educational philosophy was the most frequently endorsed consideration (82%), for the full sample and for each group. Cost was the second most frequently cited consideration, for the

Discussion

The current exploratory study is the first that we know of to examine school selection considerations and perceived mistreatment among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents of preschool-aged children. The findings hold implications for early childhood educators.

In considering our descriptive data regarding the frequency by which parents considered each of the various school criteria, we found that educational philosophy was the most frequently named consideration for the full sample

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by several grants, awarded to the first author: Grant# R03HD054394, from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; the Wayne F. Placek award, from the American Psychological Foundation; and a grant from the Spencer Foundation.

References (52)

  • E. Byard et al.

    Schools and LGBT-parent families: Creating change through programming and advocacy

  • V. Casper et al.

    Gay parents/straight schools: Building communication and trust

    (1999)
  • Child Welfare Information Gateway

    Adoption and school

    (2012)
  • N. Enge

    “Do I belong here?” Understanding the adopted, language-minority child

    Childhood Education

    (1999)
  • N. Gartrell et al.

    The National Lesbian Family Study: 2. Interviews with mothers of toddlers

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (1999)
  • N. Gartrell et al.

    The National Lesbian Family Study: 3. Interviews with mothers of five-year-olds

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (2000)
  • G. Gates et al.

    Adoption and foster care by gay and lesbian parents in the United States

    (2007)
  • G. Gates et al.

    The gay and lesbian atlas

    (2004)
  • K.M. Galotti et al.

    Real-life decision making: Parents choosing a first-grade placement

    American Journal of Psychology

    (2009)
  • D.P. Gilmore et al.

    We are family: Using diverse family structure literature with children

    Reading Horizons

    (2006)
  • K. Glenn-Applegate et al.

    Parents’ selection factors when choosing preschool programs for their children with disabilities

    Child Youth Care Forum

    (2011)
  • J. Glover et al.

    Educational psychology

    (1987)
  • A.E. Goldberg

    Lesbian and heterosexual preadoptive couples’ openness to transracial adoption

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (2009)
  • A.E. Goldberg

    Lesbian and gay parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle

    (2010)
  • A.E. Goldberg et al.

    Perception and internalization of adoption stigma among lesbian, gay, and heterosexual adoptive parents

    Journal of GLBT Family Studies

    (2011)
  • A.E. Goldberg et al.

    Stigma, social context, and mental health: Lesbian and gay couples across the transition to adoptive parenthood

    Journal of Counseling Psychology

    (2011)
  • Cited by (32)

    • Adoptive parenting

      2017, Current Opinion in Psychology
    • Predictors of school engagement among same-sex and heterosexual adoptive parents of Kindergarteners

      2014, Journal of School Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Perhaps other factors were simply more salient to same-sex parents, and thus had more of an influence on their relationships with teachers. For same-sex parents, the cultural sensitivity of the school may be less important or pressing than how open and affirming the school is specifically regarding sexual orientation (Goldberg & Smith, 2014). The effect of perceived adoption stigma on parent involvement also varied as a function of sexual orientation, although it was unrelated to parents' reported relationships with teachers or school satisfaction.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text