The UNESCO (2021) stresses in its paper about the inclusion of LGBTI students on the vital role of teachers to create a safe atmosphere for all students, regardless of their gender identity, gender expression, variation of sex characteristics or sexual orientation. Although training programmes for teachers are essential to translate policies into reality, in many countries of the European Union pre- and in-service training with reference to this topic is still missing. Germany, for example, offers information, guidelines, support systems and inclusive national curricula; but there doesn’t exist any mandatory teacher training on LGBTQI awareness (IGLYO 2018). Therefore, many teachers lack knowledge regarding the current nature of (in)equalities of genders and sexualities. Moreover, they lack confidence to address questions of gender and sexual diversity in their classrooms. Educational research on LGBTIQ youth and teachers is increasing in Europe and Germany, but it is still in the beginning (Fahie2017; Siemoneit 2021). Studies so far stress on LGBTIQ youth in school, on heteronormativity in the classroom (Kleiner 2015; Kosciwet al. 2019; FRA 2020), the imbalance of ‘to want and to can do’ (Klocke et al. 2018) or it describes school as a place where nobody is responsible for LGBTIQ topics (Schmidt/Schondelmayer 2015).

In our educational research project on Queer Professionality we analyse the ‘want and can’ of teachers at German schools who stand in between progressive policies and conservative realities. We ask how teachers understand and address – what we would call – ‚the many ways of living gender and sexual diversity‘ (Hartmann 2002) in the classroom. With this term we emphasize that we try to ‘think diversity from a diverse perspective’ - instead of just adding LGBTIQ colours to an already existing binary picture. In recent years a huge change happened in the political and social discourse about gender (identity) and sexuality in Germany. Heteronormative power relations faltered and became more flexible, simultaneously initiating processes of pluralisation and normalisation of gender and sexual diversity. Teachers are part of these discursive negotiations: they are challenged and struggle with responsibility.

In our study we are interested in teacher’s interpretation patterns concerning gender and sexual diversity. To understand these interpretations pattern, we use a hybrid fusion of pedagogical theories connecting critical theory, deconstructivism and intersectionality, to evaluate the narratives teachers told us in an episodic discursive interview study (see below). The theoretical framework we refer to is threefold. Critical Pedagogy (Kritische Bildungstheorie, Heydorn 1972) stresses on the contradiction of education (Bildung, Hartmann 2013; Messerschmidt 2009) and power structures. Education is understood as a tool to adjust students to the power structures of society and at the same time to support students to develop a critical attitude against it. Queer Subject Theory (Discurs Theory, Foucault 1992; Butler 2009) deconstructs power relations and stresses on the paradoxes of submission, resistance and empowerment in the sexed and gendered subjectivation process. Intersectionality (Riegel 2016) considers the interconnectedness of concepts of sociocultural divide such as heteronormativity, classism, ableism and racism, affecting social individuals. These connected concepts unfold at school between structures and organisations, discourses and practices of subjectivation. In using this hybrid theoretical framework we can update the concept of maturity (“Mündigkeit”, Heydorn 1972) and develop and unfold the perspective of the many ways of living gender and sexual diversity. Within this framework we can study collective orientations and interpretation patterns of teachers dealing with and theming gender and sexual diversity in the classroom. We can answer the research question how these teachers negotiate and realize institutional responsibilities and pedagogical competences related to LGBTIQ topics.

Our research design is a hybrid fusion of three methodological traditions. We take into account (a) the intersectional approach of difference in education (Walgenbach 2007), (b) the qualitative research style of the grounded theory methodology (Clarke 2012) and (c) an interpretation pattern analysis (Bögelein et al. 2019). Intersectionality is a concept that, on one side, considers the differences between individual identities such as gender, race, class and (dis)ability. On the other side, intersectionality takes into account power structures and social inequalities resulting from these differences. Grounded Theory Methodology is a general methodology for developing a theory that is grounded in data systematically gathered and analysed. In our case we created a theory of social interpretation patterns developed from teachers facing LGBTIQ topics at school out of empirical date. Social interpretation patterns can be understood as “over-individual schemes of sense” drawn from shared everyday knowledge. These interpretation patterns shape the perceptions and arguments of legitimation and are practiced in not-reflected performances in everyday life. These collectively shared structures of sense determine how subjects find solutions (keys) for reference problems (locks). We are interested to find out more about the solutions teachers find to bridge the gap between progressive policies of LGBTIQ and conservative realities in school. We carried out 15 episodic discursive interviews (Ullrich 1999) with cis, trans and divers as well as hetero, lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers in the years 2015 to 2020. These teachers serve in 10 different schools, covering a wide spectrum from comprehensive to grammar schools, from primary to vocational schools. Moreover, the schools are located in different areas such as big cities and small towns. The teachers themselves cover a variety of subjects such as language, social science, STEM fields, practical subjects and vocational training. Our research design gains insides and results while attentively avoiding essentialism.

In our empirical study we could identify the teacher’s problem as the ambivalence of professionality in a post-heteronormative setting. All teachers we interviewed were struggling with the task to act professional in relation to LGBTIQ topics. While they agreed on acting in a professional way, they developed different interpretation patterns to find solutions (keys) for the problem (lock). They differed in their assessment who is responsible for LGBTIQ questions in the institution and who carries a pedagogical responsibility. Teachers who are committed staff and take responsibility for inclusive learning environments struggle with the post-heteronormative double bind: to be responsible for all LGBTIQ topics, but at the same time not to peddle LGBTIQ topics. We found three interpretation patterns to ‘solve’ the ambivalence of professionality in a post-heteronormative school setting. - Dethematisation is a strategy to avoid talking about LGBTIQ topics. Teachers following this pattern argue that it is not necessary to talk about it because the (cis and hetero) students already know and are tolerant, because queer students are seen as or should be understood as ‘normal’, or because discursive violence is downplayed. - Fragmentation is another strategy to cope the situation. The LGBTIQ topic is understood as a private problem, something critical only for youth in puberty, for students from immigrant families or people with working class background. - Responsibilisation (feeling responsible) is the third interpretation pattern we could reconstruct. Here the topic is particularly or fully addressed. The teachers feel responsible for a safe atmosphere for all students. They position themselves, stand up for diversity in the classroom and teach gender and sexual diversity. Finally, we outline what these findings mean for pre-service and in-service teacher training.

Bögelein, Nicole/Vetter, Nicole (Hrsg.) (2019): Der Deutungsmusteransatz. Einführung -Erkenntnisse -Perspektiven. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa. Butler, Judith (2009): Die Macht der Geschlechternormen und die Grenzen des Menschlichen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Clarke, Adele E. (2012): Situationsanalyse. GroundedTheory nach dem Postmodern Turn. Interdisziplinäre Diskursforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Fahie, Declan (2017): Faith of our fathers–lesbian, gay and bisexual teachers’ attitudes towards the teaching of religion in Irish denominational primary schools. In: Irish Educational Studies 36, 1, 9–24. Foucault, Michel (1992): Was ist Kritik? Berlin. FRA Report (2020): A long way to go for LGBTI equality. Link: https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2020/eu-lgbti-survey-results accessed 29th January 2022 Hartmann, Jutta (2002): Vielfältige Lebensweisen. Dynamisierungen in der Triade Geschlecht –Sexualität -Lebensform. Opladen: Leske u. Budrich. Hartmann, Jutta (2013): Bildung als kritisch-dekonstruktives Projekt -pädagogische Ansprüche und queere Einsprüche. In: Hünersdorf, B. (Hrsg.): Was ist und wozu betreiben wir Kritik in der Sozialen Arbeit. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, 253–278. Heydorn, Heinz-Joachim (1972): Zu einer Neufassung des Bildungsbegriffs. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. IGLYO (The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Intersex Youth and Student Organisation) (2018): LGBTQI Inclusive Education Report 2018. https://www.iglyo.com/resources/lgbtqi-inclusive-education-report-2018/ accessed 29th January 2022 Kleiner, Bettina (2015): Subjekt Bildung Heteronormativität. Rekonstruktion Schulischer Differenzerfahrungen Lesbischer, Schwuler, Bisexueller und Trans*Jugendlicher. Opladen, Berlin und Toronto: Barbara Budrich. Klocke, U., Salden, S. & Watzlawik, M. (2018): Vielfalt in der Schule fördern: Wie Lehrkräfte dazu bewegt werden können, sexuelle und geschlechtliche Vielfalt sichtbar zu machen und konsequent gegen Diskriminierung einzuschreiten. DJI impulse, (2), 26-29. Kosciw, Joseph G./Clark, Caitlin M./Truong, NhanL./Zongrone, Adrian D. (2019): The 2019 National School Climate Survey. The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in Our Nation's Schools. New York. Messerschmidt, Astrid (2009): Weltbilder und Selbstbilder. Bildungsprozesse im Umgang mit Globalisierung, Migration und Zeitgeschichte. Frankfurt am Main: Brandes Apsel Verlag. Riegel, Christine (2016): Bildung -Intersektionalität -Othering. Pädagogisches Handeln in widersprüchlichen Verhältnissen. Pädagogik. Bielefeld: transcriptVerlag. Schmidt, Friederike/Schondelmayer, Anne-Christin/Schröder, U. B. (Hrsg.) (2015): Selbstbestimmung und Anerkennung sexueller und geschlechtlicher Vielfalt. Lebenswirklichkeiten, Forschungsergebnisse und Bildungsbausteine. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Siemoneit, Julia (2021): Schule und Sexualität. Pädagogische Beziehung, Schulalltag und sexualerzieherische Potenziale. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. Ullrich, Carsten G. (1999): Deutungsmusteranalyse und diskursives Interview. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 28, 6, 429–447. UNESCO (2021): Don’t Look Away. No Place for Exclusion of LGBTI Students. https://en.unesco.org/gem-report/LGBTIdontlookaway accessed 29th January 2022. Walgenbach, Katharina (2007): Gender als interdependente Kategorie. Neue Perspektiven auf Intersektionalität, Diversität und Heterogenität. Opladen, Berlin und Toronto: Barbara Budrich.