Record: Gina Riley, “A Qualitative Exploration of the Experiences of Individuals Who Have Identified as LGBTQ and Who Have Homeschooled or Unschooled,” Journal of Educational Alternatives, Vol. 7 (2018): 3-17. ISSN 2049-2162 [Available here]
Summary: Riley is an educational psychologist and Clinical Professor of Adolescent Special Education at Hunter College. She has previously written about many other home education topics, including Educational Cooperatives, Unschooling in Hong Kong, and Types of Homeschool Environments. In her most recent study, Riley seeks to understand a population of homeschoolers who, up to this point, have been previously overlooked: LGBTQ students.
Riley began her study by posting a call for research on Facebook and Twitter to gather participants. The participants needed to be LGBTQ-identifying individuals over the age of 18 who had been either homeschooled or unschooled. The call yielded eighteen participants ranging from age 18-47, all of whom had been homeschooled or unschooled for at least four years.
The participants were given a questionnaire regarding their experiences as LGBTQ homeschooled/unschooled students. From the questionnaire, Riley was able to report four main benefits for LGBTQ individuals who were homeschooled/unschooled: increased freedom and autonomy, escape from traditional school culture, having time for education and exploration about sexuality and gender, and increased peer support. The greatest challenge she found was a lack of resources made available to these students.
LGBTQ identification was not a clear motivator for the participants’ decision to homeschool. When asked about the relationship between opting to homeschool and being LGBTQ, only two participants saw a direct link. Both of these participants reported a stronger sense of identity from being outside of the public sector. Most participants, however, did not see a relationship.
Riley also found that homeschooling does not necessarily prevent bullying. One of the major concerns regarding LGBTQ students is the bullying and harassment that can come from their peers due to their sexuality. Four of the participants reported being bullied while being homeschooled. This bullying usually came from other students in homeschooling co-ops, who would either tease or isolate the students identifying as LGBTQ.
Riley spends considerable time unpacking the four benefits mentioned above, two of which are especially noteworthy. Many of the participants expressed a sense of freedom associated with being homeschooled as an LGBTQ student. One participant was quoted saying that being unschooled “gave me the power to assert my identity” since the countercultural nature of unschooling provided the foundation to work outside of social norms (p. 9).
Another benefit many subjects discussed was the ability to escape from the heteronormative, traditional school culture. One participant mentioned the ability to escape a “really destructive environment” (p. 9). This participant claimed that remaining in the traditional school system, would have made the participant feel “extremely isolated at the least” (p. 9). Being able to connect with other queer teens and adults through an online platform helped this participant find positive role models and find the strength to live openly and authentically.
The greatest challenge discovered through this study was the lack of community resources for LGBTQ youth. This lack of resources created a sense of not belonging to either community: LGBTQ or residential. To conclude the questionnaire, Riley asked for any additional comments, and most participants included a call to action to provide more community based supports for LGBTQ youth.
Appraisal: Riley’s study provides a comprehensive picture of this often overlooked population of homeschoolers. Due to the small size of this population in general, it is not surprising that Riley was only able to obtain a small sample. That being said, I do think this is a good start in the research of homeschooled LGBTQ youth. Observers of the co-op scene will not be surprised by the finding that LGBTQ youth can feel bullied there. Given the dominance in many parts of the country of very conservative Christians in local homeschool organizations, and given the sensitivity of these conservatives to “the LGBTQ Agenda,” tensions are inevitable. Tensions about cultural issues have long been an issue wherever conservative and not-so-conservative homeschoolers rub shoulders.
Families who have pulled out of public education to keep their children from being exposed to things like gay rights are understandably not pleased when similar trends emerge in their sequestered world. But as many of the recent spate of homeschool “survivor” narratives have illustrated, sometimes parents who have fiercely resisted the global trend toward acceptance of homosexuality and other non-majoritarian sexual identities find that the enemy is one or more of their own children. Riley’s subjects don’t seem to have experienced the painful tension and sometimes rejection faced by LGBTQ children raised in conservative homes. Academic study of this group of LGBTQ homeschooler would likely be fruitful as well.
Marissa Donlevie, Messiah College