Free Education leadership Dissertation Example
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
Introduction of a new curriculum in Californian secondary schools is mandatory to respect the existence of the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful (FAIR) Act Education Law in California. The study centers on a new curriculum that includes students from the LGBT community. Expectedly, discrimination (and segregation) of these students have projected into bullying, enmity, and seclusion as the LGBT students experience uncontrollable instances of homophobia. With the FAIR Education Act, both heterosexual and homosexual students are covered in the bracket thus, reducing any chance(s) of seclusion. Implementation of the Act by law means that same-sex preferences are recognized. The study’s problem statement is precise and concise as it offers an understanding of this study, its scope, and general content. It is, in fact, a summarized version of the dissertation since it delves into 1) implementation of the FAIR law Education Act and 2) LGBT and controversial curriculums. Notably, this study requires a conceptual framework that looks into the theories involved in the topic’s evolution and development. The Queer Theory, Feminist Theory and Sigmund Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory will offer a theoretical base for the examination of this study’s topic. There is an incorporation of controversial curriculums such as Afro-American social science and Native American. These are implemented to extrapolate the impact(s) of prejudice, segregation, discrimination, and stereotypes in the society. Their development is supplemented by theories such as the Critical Race Theory (CRT), which attempts to destroy the idea(s) that normalizes racial segregation. To support both curriculums and the need for change, there is an exploration of Robert Evans’ theories and assertions in “The Human Side of School Change.” Observably, the study incorporates six research questions, each of which has different hypotheses due to the wide scope of its research. Finally, the study includes limitations and delimitations that are mandatory in facilitating this research process.
There is an exploration of education leadership in five secondary schools as well as the implementation of the FAIR law Education Act in California. To be precise, the focus is on an LGBT curriculum coupled with other curriculums (such as Afro-American and Native American) that are categorized as controversial.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to offer enlightenment about education leadership revolving around controversial issues such as the LGBT community in California. With the new curriculum, most schools will endorse diversity and accommodate students with different sexual preferences and orientation. It is important to carry out this study as most of the LGBT students feel left out and segregated from other Americans.
Overall, the study will contribute to the curriculum by not discriminating against any group of students merely because of their differences. Both public and private schools in California will adhere to this mandate by including all curriculums, regardless of controversy or lack thereof. Even the teachers in these schools will emerge more accommodating and tolerate with an inclusion of the FAIR Education Act in various Californian schools. The study offers a wider scope that looks into the elimination of bullying, homophobia, and violence that arises from interacting with diverse groups of students. Apart from the inclusion of a new all-inclusive curriculum, this study will work toward eradicating any form(s) of resentment and hate based on the different sexual preferences and orientations.
Having the Afro-American and Native American curriculums implemented in both private and public Californian schools works in favor of racial segregation. African-American studies depict that incorporation of these ‘controversial’ curriculums is useful in encouraging diversity and accommodation of different cultures. These students of different racial backgrounds should be supported in all sectors to avoid interference in their schoolwork and overall societal comfort. It is salient, therefore; that racial discrimination not only affects one’s inner person but also, their externalities.
Conceptual Framework for the Study
The queer theory covers the scope of LGBTs inclusive of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender individuals. Unlike the ‘random’ exploration of homosexuals, this queer theory is in-depth and offers an analysis on any sexual preferences that is classified out of the norm. It is a theory that looks into the ‘confusion’ involving sex, gender, and people’s desires. Widely, this queer theory also looks into the ambiguous nature of the LGBT community that is covered under the FAIR Education Act in California (Bush et al., 2010). Their inclination toward fairness, accuracy, inclusivity, and respect is necessary as it works to the favor of these students in the LGBT community (Fuller, 2013; Bush et al., 2010). Apart from bullying and seclusion, they undergo psychological issues such as depression, stress, and anxiety particularly because they do not have a sense of belonging. The idea(s) that public and private secondary schools should include LGBT and controversial curriculums is part of the discussion within this queer theory (Fuller, 2013). Again, the queer theory works toward deconstructing any systems that uphold marginalization and segregation of particular groups in the society. These members of the LGBT community, due to their sexual deviance, are categorized as marginalized beings. If at all some students are not treated equally due to their sexual preferences, there is evidence of bias and discrimination. Some of these LGBT students are excluded from lessons, sports or acquisition of textbooks. Delving into same-sex preferences, it is evident to realize that the LGBT community is indeed a social problem due to the constant debate(s) about legalizing their marriages. Some countries have taken the step and legalized sex marriages while others; especially in the African continent have remained unperturbed about the issue (Knox & Caroline, 2013). In Africa, only South Africa has given a chance to the LGBT community by offering them their right(s) to marriage. Living under such conditions affected an individual’s psyche forcing some of them to seek asylum in other countries that are more accommodative to homosexuality.
Furthermore, even Robert Evans’ theories support the need for a change (and alteration) in the school curriculums. He reiterates the desirability and feasibility of change as depicted by different teachers. The book is, however, quite precise as individuals understand the difficulties affiliated with change and any related processes (Evans, 2001). With this queer theory, individuals understand the conflicting nature of implementing an LGBT curriculum, particularly in a homophobic society. The ‘challenges’ and ‘difficulties,’ according to Evans, would include the destruction of any ideologies that are related closely to discrimination based on sexual preferences (Evans, 2001). If at all, the teachers and administrators in these Californian schools uphold homophobic ideologies; it becomes impossible to introduce the curriculum due to uncooperativeness. Understandably, particularly in a homophobic society, most individuals are bound to resist change by advocating for the non-implementation of an LGBT curriculum (Evans, 2001). Change(s) of such protocol(s) that involves acceptance of a given group of people requires the teachers, educators and school system to avoid being subjective. The idea(s) of involving one’s personal feelings may interfere with any form(s) of logic and rationality whilst advocating for curriculum change(s). Most of these Californian schools, however, do not assist in this course as teachers and administrators are often afraid of vocalizing issues of homosexuality and the LGBT community. Unfortunately, some book publishers also avoid including LGBT issues thus, reducing the chances of implementing this controversial curriculum. Their grasp of the queer theory is scattered as none of them realizes the place of equality in both private and public schools. As understood, the male homosexuals undergo worse homophobic treatment especially when they receive insults such as “faggot” or “homo.” With knowledge of the LGBT community, it is possible to control any form(s) of bullying that is associated with homophobia.
From Evans’ perspective, there is a requirement that teachers dispense same-sex education to children in schools (Evans, 2001; Russell & Horn, 2017). As part of the teaching certification, many schools require that teachers receive such education to deal with homophobic incidents in an according to manner. It is important to create a safe space for students to avoid bullying and harassment augured from homophobia. Like in England, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) implemented policies that demanded dissemination of positive ideas apropos of same-sex relationships and marriages. Teachers should also strive to castigate any form(s) of homophobic tendencies portrayed in the classrooms to ensure that LGBT members are comfortable in their skin. With such an education, it also becomes easier for homosexual parents to ‘come out’ and ensure that their children are not bullied or segregated because of the former’s sexual preferences. There are many cases where students have been bullied in schools because they have either two fathers or two mothers. Educative policies on same-sex unions make it possible for homophile to thrive within school settings without having to deal with hatred and backlash from their heterosexual counterparts (Russell & Horn, 2017). These policies will also allow LGBT teachers and other staff members to feel safe in the Californian private and public schools. A curriculum that exposes students to the different types of families that are that are existent today (McDevitt et al., 2012; Knox & Caroline, 2013). It is important for them not to be fixated on the ‘mother-father’ type of family since others such as 1) single mothers 2) single fathers 3) two mothers and 4) two fathers are existent in the society (McDevitt et al., 2012). Child upbringing and development requires that; two adults, regardless of their sex or gender handle all their children’s responsibilities. Offering such education at a tender age makes it easier for children to understand the prevailing diversities in different societies (Ross & Project, 2006). The implementation of change during the early stages, according to Evans, is influential as it assists individuals in understanding the future protocol(s).
Besides morality and religion, there are educators who may oppose the LGBT community on the grounds of family and marriage. There is a stereotypical belief that marriage should be for the purpose of birth and procreation. Even with technological advancements such as In vitro fertilization (IVF) and surrogacy, some homophobes still castigate such births. They maintain the assumption that only natural ones yield healthy babies. Such mentalities are carried forth until marriage; whereby, people against homosexuality believe that children should only grow in an environment that has male and female parents (Knox & Caroline, 2013). Apparently, raising children in a home with two mothers or two fathers may be derogatory to their development and overall upbringing. Sexual preferences should not be involved in child upbringing since some homosexual parents raise children better than their heterosexual counterparts do. The creation of movements and laws (FAIR Act) for LGBT activism clearly indicates the problematic nature of this community in the society. Organizations in different parts of the world have taken the responsibility of catering to people within the LGBT community. Apart from resources, these organizations are supposed to offer emotional support to the community to ensure they do not languish in depression and other related psychological conditions. Students who have been bullied or oppressed due to their sexual orientation may easily seek escape in drugs, truancy, and crime. In addition to advocating for the community’s rights, it is the work of these LGBT activists to ensure that homosexuals are mentally stable. There is the need to continually research and explore the issue of LGBT individuals since most of them suffer in silence today. With such a directive, there will be an uprising of more and even heterosexual activists to fight for the rights of members in the LGBT community. Affiliating same-sex relationships with deviancy does not warrant for the society to assume their non-existence. It is essential to discuss the LGBT community, as a social problem, to avoid following the footsteps of countries such as Kenya in Africa. The President of Kenya has avoided talking about the issue(s) of homosexuality masquerading that the subject is a “non-issue.” Resorting to such actions only proves homosexuality is so immoral that nations avoid including them in their discussions about improving the country (Slootmaeckers et al., 2016). Such approaches and directives are only made known to individuals through the inclusion of an LGBT curriculum, regardless of the controversy.
Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory indicates that an exclusion of controversial curriculums (such as LGBT, Afro-American and Native American) have a specific role(s) to play in individuals’ overall physical, social and emotional development. Psychoanalytically, there is an understanding that human beings, regardless of their capacities, desire love, acceptance and long-lasting attachments. Freud looks into the idea(s) of a child’s attraction to the opposite sex parent as part of their growth. Again, often, a form of jealousy (and envy) ensues when the given parents pay more attention to their partner rather than the child (Levine, 2004). Issues of the implementation of LGBT, Afro-American and Native American curriculums have also been extrapolated from a psychoanalytic point of view. As expected, these minority groups do not belong in the ‘larger’ bracket of society; thus, they feel left out and abandoned. It is human to depend on other groups, as explained by Freud, for the purpose(s) of growth and development. Most times, racists seek satisfaction for their personal and individualistic emotional needs. Psychoanalysis explores the idea(s) that racial discrimination is often a personal vendetta between human beings (Levine, 2004; Graybow, 2017). For example, recently, on Facebook, there was a video featuring an old white man and Afro-American woman that went viral due to the instances of racism. Apparently, while the woman was parking her car, she was ‘too slow’ for the white man who started hurling insults and repeatedly referring to the woman as a “nigga.” In such a case, there is no evidence of group mentality as the old man makes a personal choice of attacking the woman from a racial perspective. Psychoanalysis concludes that racism is more aligned explicitly with motive rather than opinions.
Apart from the social and political affiliations with racism, psychoanalysis explores internalities and the relation(s) among different racial groups. The human psyche is often sensitive and encourages people to over think and harbor derogatory thoughts about the effects of racism (Graybow, 2017). If at all a neglect of the FAIR Act Education Law leads to biased curriculums in the California schools, the students are bound to examine the situation subjectively (Graybow, 2017). None of them, for example, will believe that the elongated implementation process is unrelated to any form(s) of segregation and discrimination. Psychologically, their fears and anxiety only force them to concur with the idea(s) that an incorporation of controversial curriculums is an overambitious endeavor(s). Evans’ book disputes the ‘propagation’ of such beliefs as he reiterates the difficulty of change due to complacency (Evans, 2001). According to Evans, these teachers and educators have a specific role(s) in slowing down the process of change, as they do not live in these realities. It is quite possible for teachers that are racially specific to dillydally and avoid hastening the change process in these Californian schools.
Nonetheless, countries in Africa have chosen to deal with the LGBT predicament in different ways with 1) African countries such as Kenya dismissing homosexuals as a “non-issue” and 2) African countries such as Uganda passing the Anti-Homosexuality Act and advocating for gay people’s deaths. The struggle of ‘pressuring’ heterosexuals to accept the LGBT community is a clear indication that homosexuality is; in fact, a problem that should be rectified. In schools and workplaces, for instance, students within the LGBT community may be bullied and segregated from their heterosexual counterparts. Such bullying may emanate from both homophobic students, teachers, and workmates whose aim is to desensitize the prevalence of the LGBT community. Consequently, these people feel ‘attacked’ and may even drown in psychological conditions such as depression, stress, and anxiety due to the emotional torture (Subhrajit, 2014; Mooney, 2014). Physical pain is not a myth when it comes to looking into the problematic nature of homosexuality. In prisons, for instance, gay people are often beaten brutally by the homophobic inmates. Some people do not condone any form(s) of homosexual acts, even if none of it is directed toward the former and their existence. Having thoughts of suicide which are propagated by depression and anxiety is wholly psychoanalytical as individual feel isolated from the heterosexuals.
According to feminist ethics; traditionally, women have been categorized as the ‘inferior’ sex, thereby, receiving uncouth treatment from their male counterparts. The introduction of feminist ethics works to the advantage of these women, as there is a rethinking of their moral experience and worth in the society. The feminist theory strives to eradicate the issue(s) of discrimination based on gender. Most of the ideologies in various societies are patriarchal and male-oriented; leaving out the possibility of allowing women to possess any form(s) of power or control. However, there should be an understanding that the goal of feminist ethics is to create equality between men and women. It should not be assumed that the approach; on placing women first, solicits for superiority apropos of the female gender. Again, feminist ethics castigates the idea(s) of risking the rights of women by giving priority to their male counterparts. The assumption that women can only engage in domestic or household duties while men delve into corporate world is extrapolated and rejected by the individuals vouching for feminist ethics (Mahon & Fiona, 2011). Apparently, only men are independent, dominant and autonomous and women are constantly affiliated with nurture, emotion, and care (Mahon & Fiona, 2011). Feminist ethics dismisses the idea(s) that women are incapable of performing duties are traditionally considered as masculine. Women should not undergo domestic violence, abuse or degradation simply because they are supposed to be the ‘weaker’ or ‘inferior’ sex.
However, there is a rejection of the view purported by feminist ethics because there should be a balance in society. Insofar as equality works for the betterment of people, there should be a ‘head,’ and ‘neck’ as not all parties can be placed on the pedestal of dominance. Upholding gender roles, however, should not drive individuals to disrespect one another simply due to the necessity of having a ‘superior’ gender. These feminists should ponder upon the ‘chaos’ that may ensue if at all men and women entirely received equal rights. Each person would be in constant competition, and no one of them would be in the space(s) of growth and development. It is my belief that feminist ethics is overambitious since; instead of growing together with men, it strives to replace these males with the female gender simply. These arguments are in-line with the idea(s) stating that feminist ethics uphold the rights of women. The feminist theory dismisses patriarchal ideologies by simply upholding the female gender. In fact, there are unexplainable double standards since from a deeper level; feminist ethics does not support equality. It only looks out for the rights of women while dismissing their male counterparts; instead of upholding both genders. There will be no change(s) if the society still resorts to having a superior gender. Simply because women have been traditionally degraded does not allow the approach to advocating for their rights at the expense of men.
However, there has been a criticism of the feminist theory due to its negligence of racism and related issues. The theory is highly bent on terming men as their arch ‘nemeses’ before focusing on the issue(s) of slavery that affected Afro-American women. It would have probably been embraced if Afro-American studies and curriculum were taken into proper consideration. With the incorporation of Afro-American curriculum, despite its controversial nature, individuals understand that such efforts lead to social justice. The feminist theory and its ‘upholding’ of women appear oblivious to the fact that racial oppression also affects the female gender. When there is so much focus on gender segregation, individuals realize that the feminist theory may be misinformed and confusing. The idea(s) that white feminists only focus on their experiences of ‘higher class’ is in itself discriminating as they avoid vocalizing the lives of Afro-American women. Through the curriculum, therefore, it is possible to learn and understand the origin(s) of these minority groups. The FAIR Education Act works to ensure that the school curriculums are not specific to only the “non-controversial” subjects but the controversial ones such as LGBT (Hillock & Mulé, 2016). An inclusion of the LGBT curriculum, according to feminist ethics, shows that the society is more inclined toward equality rather than segregation.
Critical Race Theory (CRT)
According to the Critical Race Theory, there is an eerie normalization of racial discrimination with the assumption that it is part of the U.S. society. It reckons that racism has become so apparent in these societies that people have classified it as a ‘requisite’ phenomenon. In the theory’s exploration of race, it also delves into the inseparable relationship between society and culture. The Critical Race Theory’s focal point is on the relationship between white people and people of color but it has not impeded the theory from looking into other minorities (such as Native Americans) in America (Kendall, 2010; Bush et al., 2010).
In comparison with white people, individuals clearly understand the subordinate nature of Afro-Americans, which takes them back to the slavery days, when they labored for meager returns. An introduction to the Afro-American curriculum will make it much easier for students to understand their origin(s) and explain to their fellow white students about the same. They are, in fact, less susceptible to racial discrimination when others are aware of their culture(s) and tradition(s). The curriculum is not only supposed to influence the African-Americans students but also the American students to ameliorate the extent of racial segregation in these Californian schools.
Evidently, the CRT stretches to minorities in the U.S. and placates the oppressive systems that are directed particularly to African Americans. Theorists reckon that the superiority of white people requires the minorities such as African Americans and Native Americans to blend in the system without alteration(s) of the same. Unfortunately, encompassed under The Critical Race Theory, is the model-minority myth that separates these minority groups from one another and characterizes them independently, making the discrimination and segregation inevitable in a way (Shiao, 2005). Delving further into the model minority, there is a stereotype that impedes proper interaction between the minorities and majority groups in the U.S (Slattery, 2006). With such form(s) of profiling, it is possible for these Afro-American and Native-American minorities to succumb to psychological conditions such as depression and stress due to isolation. Truly and duly, it beats any form(s) of logic to pressure these controversial groups to only socialize with their fellow minority groups in the U.S. Insofar as it works to the advantage of some groups that may not be huge on assimilation, the idea is backward and non-developmental in all its depictions (Slattery, 2006). Numerous students resort to ‘rejecting’ assimilation to retain their identities in America. Obviously, resorting to adopt these American practices is a salient indication that white supremacy still reigns above other races. The issue of cultural hatred and nemeses may have been propagated by minorities that were nostalgic about being recognized amidst the Americans. It is, for such reasons that exist student groups and organizations to create awareness about racial discrimination. Even if most of the minority groups resort to seclusion and interaction within themselves, it is necessary to maintain ties with other groups.
However, there are concerns about the prevalence of racial marginalization in educational institutions. The CRT depicts that numerous public and private schools in the U.S. are run by stereotypical Americans that depict minorities and any foreigner(s) in a negative light. These discriminative policies may simply be controlled by having some minorities at the top positions in schools. It is evident that recognizing both the Afro-Americans and Native Americans, for instance, assists in ensuring they do not suffer by suppressing their emotive sides. Being born in America and ‘required’ to adopt the Western cultures while still maintaining one’s ethnic affiliation derails most of these minorities. For instance; in schools, there are numerous influences ranging from food, fashion to language that may cause one to ‘betray’ their cultures. Such instances lead to social inferiority that may cause 1) demoralization 2) truancy 3) hatred and 4) psychological and emotional torture. Subjecting the foreigners to such conditions beats the logic of “The American Dream” which all immigrants-as minority groups- are supposed to achieve in America. Like in the case of the African-American predicament with police brutality, the Native Americans have also experienced racial violence but in different capacities (Wu et al. 2010). It is important to realize that these hate crimes are not only physical but they may also be witnessed in a verbose manner. The CRT, as an information theory, attempts to show the relationship between race and power (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). In fact, the issue(s) of racial domination are all aligned to power since the whites desire to have control over other races. Realizing that some of the minorities may rise [and surpass] Americans economically requires the latter to maintain their ideas of superiority. Before the current U.S. President, for instance, America was ruled by Barrack Obama, an African-American. It was quite a struggle before some of the white people fully accepted Obama as their president. Even as minority groups such as Afro-Americans and Native Americans strive to achieve racial equality, their ‘plea’ for recognition may be associated with the need to be powerful and reign over other races in America. According to the CRT, privilege is also a great part of the race that should not be explored in oblivion (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). These ideas of social justice and racial equality may be superficially hidden under the face(s) of power and privilege in these societies (Fortune et al., 2013). Despite instigation of immigration policies and laws for the betterment of America, it is salient that such a directive may be a form of control to keep the immigrants away from achieving their dreams in America. There is an indisputable relationship between race and power since they cannot be separated.
Moreover, ignorance or oblivion of the CRT interferes with individuals’ ability to realize the harmful nature of racial segregation. Living in a society that does not address the prevalence of racism makes it difficult to either control or eliminate the same. The CRT gives room for open-mindedness and the understanding of racism as a potential threat in America (Fortune et al., 2013). Logically, it is quite impossible to work around racism without acknowledging its existence in the society. There is an idea that CRT supports equality by denouncing the progress of white Americans who are particularly affiliated with tendencies that assume superiority. Again, it is understandable that the theory is more inclined toward the progressive nature of minority groups (such as Afro and Native Americans) in the U.S. Most importantly, people should examine the downsides of the CRT even if the theory works in favor of minority groups. The idea that the groups should be upheld is in itself racially uncouth since it purports that white supremacy is unpalatable. Indirectly, the CRT still condones the idea(s) of racism by professing that a particular race is better. Using Evans’ analogies, it is factual that some systems have remained racially affected due to the ‘long’ process of change (Evans, 2001). It is important for leaders to adopt a leadership model that functions in the implementation of cooperation between them and individuals. When they work hand in hand, it becomes ‘less hectic’ to facilitate the process of changes in different systems and parts of the society (Evans, 2001). There is the need to understand that stalling the process of change implementation is highly affiliated with regrettable consequences (Evans, 2001). For instance, an in-depth look at the scope(s) of CRT is an indication that exclusion of individuals based on racial differences has an inescapable effect on minority groups in the U.S. The ‘higher’ powers and leaders, also, have a role(s) to play discussing the necessity of these racially controversial curriculums.
Implementing a Native American curriculum, according to the CRT, works to the advantage of Native American students as it heightens their sense of belonging in the American society. The endeavor(s) should be thorough, however, to avoid incorporating the curriculum in schools that do not have Indian and these Native American students. Encouraging an implementation of this curriculum requires the educators to implement Native American culture(s), thought(s) and ideas. A proper discussion of Indian and Native American culture(s) works well in ensuring that all the subjects are examined, accordingly. California’s implementation of Native American curriculum may be supported by the 2016 demand for the curriculum in Washington. According to Michael Vendiola, this program’s supervisor, “The goal is not only to address the needs of tribal youth but to address the understanding of tribal culture.” The idea(s) was to ensure that the presence of these 29 Native American tribes was recognized in Washington’s schools. An implementation of this curriculum, therefore, inevitably attempts to reduce the prevalence of racial discrimination (and segregation) in America. As witnessed, incorporation of this new curriculum is a form(s) of innovation that; as Evans iterates, requires focus and clarity for implementation purpose(s) and success (Evans, 2001). If there are administrators or teachers who do not endorse the scope(s) of Native American curriculums, they are bound to slow down this process of change(s). Evans asserts that all the participants in a ‘change process’ are supposed to have an in-depth understanding of the particular reformation and innovation.
Major research question:
What is the role(s) of education leadership, implementation of FAIR Act Education Law and inclusion of LGBT and controversial Afro-American and Native American curriculums in Californian Secondary schools?
What is the place of education leadership in facilitating the implementation of FAIR Act Education Law in Californian secondary schools?
How has the FAIR Act Education Law influenced equality and inclusion in California?
What is the importance of including all American students regardless of their sexual orientation and preferences?
What is controversial about including an LGBT curriculum in both public and private schools in California?
How important is it to accommodate Afro-American and Native American students in public and private California schools? What role(s) does the FAIR Act Education Law play in such a case?
What is the role of racial discrimination in developing or destroying the value of education?
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
In this qualitative study, some limitations include:
Inadequate prior research on this topic:
Expectedly, due to the scope of this topic, there is little to no past studies on this study. It, therefore, becomes impossible to have a foundation for the development of this particular topic. It would be helpful to borrow from others while supplementing the already existing material(s) in my research. Unfortunately, the limitations of prior research also interfere with my capability of realizing this topic’s future research.
Lack of available data:
The topic of endorsement and inclusion of LGBT students often has little to no data. In this case, controversy is shunned thus, making it impossible to acquire helpful data about the LGBT community and students, in particular. Most of the students that are openly homosexual or gay are also quite a few, and this limits the process of acquiring data. Debates about Afro-American and Native American students have led to a growth of numerous critics hence little to no data.
Any form(s) of data or material acquired through self-reports is often limited [and inadequate] due to their susceptibility to bias and subjectivity. Self-reported data is associated with limitations because 1) it depends on one’s selective memory 2) it is affected by hyperbole [and exaggeration] and 3) it only upholds positive events and does not count for the negative ones. Conclusively, self-reports in my study are categorized as inaccurate ways of acquiring research material(s).
Culture, tradition, and bias:
Due to the stigmatization of LGBT persons and minorities [Afro-American and Native American students], most studies have tackled arguments that are against support and equality of this group. The researchers that do not support my opinion of legalizing same-sex unions and acceptance of minorities are bound to limit the study. My role as a researcher is to avoid including any form(s) of bias that leads to the limitation within my study.
The scope of this study requires access to different individuals and organizations for the acquisition of data. Unfortunately, my study is limited because most people shy away from delving into matters of homosexuality and race. If I cannot interact with a diverse group of homosexuals, minority students, therefore, the study is bound to have a limited scope.
Additionally, the delimitations of this study include:
Choice of the study’s problem:
The topic about the inclusion of an LGBT and controversial curriculum(s) is indicative of the delimitative nature of my choice of the problem. I could have chosen other topics for this study, but I resorted to narrowing it down to the issue(s) of the LGBT community, the inclusion of controversial Afro-American and Native American curriculum and implementation of the FAIR Act Education Law in California.
Choice of objectives:
The objectives of this study are covered under its purpose (and significance). I have narrowed down my objectives and depicted them in a precise manner. Here, I had the choice of picking my purpose and objectives hence making it easier to delimit the study.
The research questions
Apart from the main research question, I had the choice of picking six different sub-research questions that cover the scope of this study.
Variables of the study
There are both independent and dependent variables of this study. In this case, the independent variables are education leadership and FAIR Act Education Law that support the dependent variables, LGBT and controversial Afro-American and Native American curriculums.
Theoretical and/or conceptual framework
I had the choice of settling on four workable theories: The Queer Theory, Psychoanalytic Theory, the Feminist Theory Critical Race Theory (CRT) to look into this study’s theoretical framework.
Bush, T., Bell, L., & Middlewood, D. (2010). The principles of educational leadership & management. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Evans, Robert. (2001). The human side of school change: Reform, resistance, and the real-life problems of innovation. Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers.
Fuller, K. (2013). Gender, identity, and educational leadership. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kendall, D. E. (2010). Sociology in our times: The Essentials. Australia: Wadswoth Cengage Learning.
Knox, David, and Caroline Schacht. (2013). Choices in Relationships: An Introduction to Marriage and the Family. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Print.
Fortune, A. E., Reid, W. J., & Miller, R. L. (2013). Qualitative research in social work. New York: Columbia University Press.
Graybow, S. (2017). Progressive psychoanalysis as a social justice movement. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hillock, S., & Mulé, N. J. (2016). Queering social work education. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Levine, M. P. (2004). Racism in mind. Ithaca: Cornell University.
Mahon, R., and Fiona R. (2011). Feminist Ethics and Social Policy: Towards a New Global Political Economy of Care. Vancouver: UBC Press. Print.
McCoy, D. L., & Rodricks, D. J. (2015). Critical race theory in higher education: 20 years of theoretical and research innovations. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass, 2015.
Mooney, Linda (2014). Understanding Social Problems. Cengage Learning, Inc. Print.
Ross, E. W., & Project Muse. (2006). The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems, and possibilities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Russell, S. T., & Horn, S. S. (2017). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The nexus of research, practice, and policy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Shiao, J. L. (2005). Identifying talent, institutionalizing diversity: Race and philanthropy in post-civil rights America. Durham [u.a.: Duke Univ. Press.
Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. Taylor & Francis.
Slootmaeckers, K., Touquet, H., & Vermeersch, P. (2016). The EU Enlargement and Gay Politics: The Impact of Eastern Enlargement on Rights, Activism, and Prejudice. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Subhrajit, Chatterjee. (2014). “Problems Faced by LGBT People in the Mainstream Society: Some Recommendations.” International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies. 1, (5), 317-331.
Do you need an original paper?
Approach our writing company and get top-quality work written from scratch strictly on time!