Schools in the UK are currently at a disjuncture with regards to LGBT inclusion. In England, ‘LGBT content’ has been added to the curriculum for Relationships and Sex Education (RSE). Within this, government advice is tenuous, with notions of age appropriateness and parental consultations dominating guidance. These polices are also framed within a neoliberal climate, where structural inequalities are masked, and individualised solutions are favoured (Woolley, 2017). The resulting implementation of LGBT practices, and policies has been variable, both within and between schools (Llewellyn & Reynolds 2021). This picture sits alongside a rise in opposition to LGBT inclusion in schools (Nash & Brown, 2021).

In light of these contending notions, it is important to be sceptical of universal and linear narratives of progress which permeate modernity (Brown, 2001), education and research (Facer, 2023). However, linear narratives are only one of several possible “temporal framings” (Lazar, 2019) that are experienced. Indeed, education itself is often caught between competing conceptions of progress and conservatism. Both advocate a desired future, but each has a different relationship to the past, the former to discard and the second to preserve (Decuypere & Maarten, 2020). These ideas are adjoined to discourses of the desired child through a projected future (Lesko & Talburt, 2012). Arguably, nowhere are the lines between progress and conservativism more keenly drawn than with regards to LGBT inclusion in schools. Within this, conceptions of the desired child are used to advocate for, and notably against, LGBT inclusion. The moral rhetoric of “let kids be kids” (Bialystok & Wright, 2019) regularly appears in campaigns against LGBT inclusion, which can be seen more globally.

One group of people who are at the centre of these contestations are LGBT teachers, who are, to some extent, living their identities, and responding to the presence (or absence) of LGBT within their workplace. Identity formation in general has a relationship to time (du Gay, 2007). For teachers, they operate with the present, yet their work is centred around educational narratives of progress, and of their children’s future. However, teachers have a relationship to schooling through their own experiences, thus there is a recollected past that may impact their practices, perceptions, and identity formation. More broadly, for any individual, a “perception of their past, present and especially their future(s), is inextricably connected to psychological well-being” (Clancy, 2014, p. 36).

For LGBT teachers temporalities have even more significance, as often their own schooling has been harmful. UK schools have historically operated a homophobic relationship to LGBT content and people, with particular significance placed upon the legacy of Section 28 - this stated local authorities shall not “intentionally promote homosexuality” (DES, 1988). The impact of Section 28 has arguably led to decades of silence around sexuality in UK schools. Whilst present day schools may be less overtly homophobic, the inclusion of LGBT content, and treatment of LGBT people is variable, with emphasis often placed upon antibullying strategies, which construct a limiting victim narrative (Monk, 2011). Within this, schools are places that overwhelmingly reproduce heteronormativity; therefore, it is possible, LGBT inclusion is largely present through a “discourse of accommodation” (Omercajic and Martino, 2020). Alongside this, ‘LGBT people’ are also bounded by narratives of inevitable progress. This is demonstrated through public discourses such as the “it gets better” campaign, launched in 2010 in the US, and popularised through celebrities and online video content (West et al. 2013). Whilst these videos offer examples of hope and resistance, it is also possible that that they create a singular hero narrative, that streamlines an acceptable LGBT experience. Again, there is a separation into hero and victim.

This article thus asks, what is the work done by dominant narratives of time and progress, when LGBT teachers begin to experience LGBT inclusion in (heteronormative) schools. Furthermore, what does this mean within a neoliberal education system where there is expectation upon the entrepreneurial self, and structural inequalities are concealed (Woolley, 2017). This discursive study aligns to feminist standpoint theory, where personal experiences are foregrounded and positioned as “the starting point in the production of knowledge about the structures that perpetuate privilege” (Neary, 2013, p. 587). Hence, to explore these ideas, the article draws from data with 50 LGBT teachers past and present, who conducted individual online interviews during July and August of 2020. Teachers were recruited via social networks, through a combination of targeted, snowball, and respondent-driven sampling, which is commonplace in critical LGBT research (Bell, 1997). The online interview topics were broad in scope, but purposefully active (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004). Hence, there was some attempt to disrupt any asymmetrical interview relationship. Interviews lasted on average for 67 minutes. Intended topic areas included: being out or not; inclusion; the participants role; school curriculums and change. Further topics that arose included: being a parent; Section 28 and intersectionality. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Conceptions of time was not a specific question, but instead a salient theme that arose from the analysis. This analysis was conducted through multiple readings and immersion in the data. Moreover, there was a movement between codes and interviews, thus avoiding fragmentation of the data (Hollway & Jefferson). A further level of reflexivity was employed as, to some extent, I was an insider within the project, being both LGBT and a former schoolteacher. Each participant was given consent forms, privacy notices and information sheets – they were informed of their rights to withdraw from the project at any stage, The research was also given ethical approval by my institution. The 50 participants varied in age experience, gender, phase, and teaching role. The majority taught in English schools, six in Scottish schools, three had experience of teaching in Wales and two had experience in Northern Ireland. The majority identified as homosexual (gay/lesbian) with some preferring queer, with a small number as bi/pansexual; four identified as non-binary and/or trans. The vast majority were white British or Irish, whilst a small number identified themselves with further intersectional categories, such as disability, ethnicity, and religion.

Overall, I demonstrate that notions of linear and singular time, and an inevitable progress, are vital to the present neoliberal project of LGBT inclusion – however they are also problematic, regulating and restricting. Specifically, for LGBT teachers it is the relationship to the past and future that drives and justifies their conception of inclusion. Namely, that their work on LGBT inclusion is able to fix their harmful pasts and simultaneously project a more hopeful future for their students. However, these past experiences are not readily acknowledged within school communities or institutions. Instead, the LGBT teacher is expected to use their knowledge and wisdom yet be neutral. This can lead to uneven practices and expectations in schools, where the LGBT teacher is often the “gay tsar” yet also experiences added emotional labour (Llewellyn, 2023). Throughout this, expectations of the professional neoliberal teacher are embedded. These findings reflect that “temporal frames that disconnect narratives of the future from stories of the past are a prime source of conflict around the world” (Facer, 2020, p. 61). The highlighting of LGBT teachers (and LGBT content) is novel within research concerning temporalities. Moreover, these findings are important as for LGBT inclusion in schools to succeed, there needs to be a reconsideration of the relationships with time, and with the allure of an ‘inevitable’ progress. Furthermore, that neither time nor teachers are neutral in their practices, and this has consequences for all, including schools and LGBT practices. There are particular consequences for LGBT teachers who are caught within projects of temporalities, and within expectations of the neoliberal self.

Bialystok, L., & Wright, J. (2019). ‘Just say no’: Public dissent over sexuality education and the Canadian national imaginary. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(3), 343–357. Bell, D. (1997). Sex lives and audiotape: Geography, sexuality and undergraduate dissertations. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 21(3), 411–417. Brown, W. (2001). Politics out of history. Princeton. Clancy, C. (2014). The Politics of Temporality: Autonomy, Temporal Spaces and Resoluteness. Time & Society, 23(1), 28–48 Decuypere, M. & Maarten, S. (2020). Pasts and futures that keep the possible alive: Reflections on time, space, education and governing, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 52(6), 640-652, Du Gay, P. 2007. Organizing identity: Persons and organizations after theory. Sage. Facer, K. (2023). Possibility and the temporal imagination. Possibility Studies & Society, 1(1-2), 60-66 Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association, narrative and the interview method. Sage. Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. F. (2003). Active interviewing. In J. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Postmodern Interviewing (pp. 67-80). Sage. Lazar, N. C. (2019). Out of joint: Power, crisis, and the rhetoric of time. Yale. Lesko, N., & Talburt, S. (2012). Enchantment. In N. Lesko & S. Talburt (Eds.), Keywords in youth studies: Tracing affects, movements, knowledges (pp. 279–289). Routledge. Llewellyn, A. & Reynolds, K. (2021). Within and between heteronormativity and diversity: Narratives of LGB teachers and coming and being out in schools. Sex Education, 21(1), 13-26. Llewellyn, A. (2023). “Because I live it.”: LGB teacher identities, as professional, personal, and political. Frontiers in Education. 8, 1-12 Monk, D. (2011). Challenging homophobic bullying in schools: The politics of progress. International Journal of Law in Context, 7, 181–207. Nash, C. J. & Browne, K. (2021). Resisting the mainstreaming of LGBT equalities in Canadian and British Schools: Sex education and trans school friends. EPC: Politics and Space, 39(1), 74-93. Neary, A. (2013). Lesbian and gay teachers’ experiences of ‘coming out’ in Irish schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(4), 583-602. Omercjic, K., & Martino, W. (2020). Supporting transgender inclusion and gender diversity in schools: A critical policy analysis. Frontiers in Sociology, 5, 27. West, I., Frischherz M., Panther, A., & Brophy, R. (2013). Queer worldmaking in the “It Gets Better” campaign. QED: a journal in GLBTQ worldmaking 1, 49-86 Woolley, S. W. (2017). Contesting silence, claiming space: Gender and sexuality in the neo-liberal public high school. Gender and Education, 29(1), 84-99.