Article Critique: Educational Administration and Queer Educators:  Building Relationships of Inclusion and Diversity

Introduction

This paper critiques a research collection written by Tonya Callaghan and Robert C. Mizzi (2015) titled: “Educational Administration and Queer Educators:   Building Relationships of Inclusion and Diversity”. In their collection, the authors highlighted the need for the school administration to build relationships of inclusion and diversity by ensuring effective policies to safeguard the rights of queer educators. The collection is a collection of works from various authors on the subject, which incorporate, among other things, the rights of LGBTQ members in the education sector. All essays that add up to this study agree that policy-makers and education administrators are responsible for creating learning environments that adhere to sexual and gender diversity for all students and staff. According to the authors of the collection, educational leaders are paramount in developing administrative decisions and educational policies that impact teachers’ work culture and work conditions (Callaghan & Mizzi, 2015). The critique of the collection focuses on the weaknesses and strengths which are evident within the study.

The title of the collection sufficiently relates to the existing theme of the study. It explores the role of educational administration in building the relationships of inclusion and diversity for queer educators. Within the text, the authors have emphasized the responsibility of educational leaders in developing and implementing policies that safeguard the rights of teachers who are vulnerable because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. The introductory part of the collection is very descriptive. It asks the question, ‘what can one education administrator or policy-maker do about homophobia or transphobia directed toward educators in scholastic settings? (Callaghan & Mizzi, 2015)’.  This question explores the statement of the problem in an informative manner. In addition, the authors go ahead to pinpoint the gaps in the federal  Canadian  Charter of  Rights and Freedoms  (Charter) (1982) and provincial human rights legislation for failing to safeguard the rights of LGBTQ  educators in Canada. Canadian LGBTQ educators are still subjected to oppression and discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation (Callaghan & Mizzi, 2015). It is thus the role of administrators and educational policy-makers to reverse the discriminatory practices meted on these minority groups (Tompkins et al., 2019).

The collection does not explicitly state the aim of the study; however, through reading, one can imply the primary purpose of the study; it explores the role of educational administration in creating relationships of inclusion and diversity for queer educators. The implied purpose of the study is related to the question stated in the introductory part because it provides significant elements reflected throughout the study. The study also provides a concise comparison of the number of countries which have enacted laws to protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation. This is compared to other countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, which have outlawed gender and sexual diversity and expression (Callaghan & Mizzi, 2015).

However, the collection fails to offer adequate knowledge in the current studies on the role of educational administration in creating relationships of inclusion and diversity for queer educators. This scenario is evident in the ineffectiveness of laws to adequately safeguard the rights of LGBTQ educators. Some of the essential details, objectives, findings and recommendations of the study have been left out. The theoretical framework provided by the collection is implicit as the theory within it is not clearly defined. The study does not offer a conceptual map to establish the connections between various variables; however, it is informative, providing knowledge on the inclusion and diversity for LGBT members in the education sector. The authors provided only one question to the study. Compared to other collections on the same topic, the current study should, under normal circumstances, incorporate various study questions in tandem with the purpose of the study.

Throughout the collection, the authors provided in-depth, clear, and factual accuracy of the accounts revealed by the various essays. The collection is one of its kind in social science literature as most of the details deal with queer educators in a Canadian context. It is built on the works of Didi Khayatt, Tonya Callaghan, Jan Buterman, Kaela Jubas, and Robert Mizzi (Callaghan & Mizzi, 2015). The various essays used to build the collection provide authenticity and credibility of the information gathered, promoting trustworthiness. When building upon the collection from various essays, the authors maintained the exactness of documentation. They documented the feedback from literature reviews and later used the elements while explaining the various scenarios in-depth concerning the inclusion and diversity of sexual orientation and gender identities in the education sector. This scenario can be seen when the researchers provided sufficient data, detailed notes, and excellent articulated questions. However, the author failed to provide an adequate and explicit explanation of the various essays used in the remarkable collection.

The collection has its share of shortcomings as it does not provide a conceptual map, detailed concepts, and significant images of the dimensions explained within the study. Additionally, the theoretical schema is unclear throughout the study. Another shortcoming of the study is its inability to provide a clear theoretical significance; it fails to pinpoint the suitable recommendations to developing learning environments that take care of the inclusion and diversity for queer educators and students. However, the study is significant in describing educational leaders’ role in implementing administrative decisions and educational policy geared towards reversing discriminatory practices on queer educators and LGBTQ students.

Conclusion

The adequate knowledge provided throughout the collection is essential in establishing the relationship between the known and unknown facts. Educational leaders should play their role in ensuring there are educational policies and administrative decisions to safeguard the rights of LGBTQ members in the education sector. The Charter of Rights protects all individuals, and thus educators and students should be discriminated against based on sexual orientation and gender identities. This collection is essential in providing a critical understanding of how educational administration can work with the various stakeholders to ensure inclusion and diversity for queer educators and students. This strategy can only be achieved by enacting policies to safeguard LGBTQ members in educational institutions.