Journal of Moral Education

ISSN: 0305-7240 (Print) 1465-3877 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjme20

Teaching about Homosexuality and

Heterosexuality

Michael J. Reiss

To cite this article: Michael J. Reiss (1997) Teaching about Homosexuality and Heterosexuality,
Journal of Moral Education, 26:3, 343-352, DOI: 10.1080/0305724970260308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305724970260308

Published online: 07 Jul 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 394

View related articles

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjme20

Download by: [University of London] Date: 08 February 2016, At: 06:48

 Journal of Moral Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1997 343

Teaching about Homosexuality and

Heterosexuality
MICHAEL J. REISS
Homerton College, Cambridge, UK
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

ABSTRACT Should schools teach about homosexuality and heterosexuality, and if so how? This
paper outlines arguments both in favour of, and against, such teaching and concludes that, on
balance, schools of 11-16/18-years-olds should teach about sexual orientation provided certain
specified conditions are met. The author then defends the notion that to teach about sexual
orientation is to teach about a controversial issue, but notes that few, if any, of the published
approaches to teaching in this area treat it as such. He goes on to examine both the specific aims
and possible approaches to teaching about homosexuality and heterosexuality. Good teaching in
this area should enable 14-16-year-old students to become better informed about people's sexual
orientations; it should help them better to understand each other's positions; and it should allow
them to clarify their own values and attitudes.

Introduction
There are few, if any, areas more problematic to deal with in a teaching environment
in the school curriculum than that of sexual orientation. This is presumably the
reason why many, almost certainly most, schools in most countries avoid teaching
about the subject. Here I begin by examining whether or not schools should teach
about homosexuality and heterosexuality and conclude that secondary schools
(those that teach 11-16/18-year-olds) should, provided that certain specified condi-
tions are met. I then go on to examine how teachers might teach in this area.
First, however, it is necessary to acknowledge that the very language of the
preceding paragraph is already problematic, for at least two reasons. For a start, it
apparently makes the implicit assumption that there exist two main states of sexual
being—namely, homosexuals and heterosexuals. This would be tantamount to the
adoption of an essentialist paradigm: that is, to the acceptance of the notion that
one's sexual orientation is given, rather than chosen or constructed. This point will
be returned to more fully later. However, to avoid the use of the words
"homosexuals" and "heterosexuals" results in language that is, at best, long-winded
and, more seriously, may obfuscate. A second, and less significant, objection to the
use of the terms "homosexual" and "heterosexual" is that such terms come laden
with an historical inheritance and so, unavoidably, resonate prejudice and inequali-
ties of power. Whatever the truth in this assertion, I neither believe that it is solved

0305-7240/97/030343-10 © 1997 The Norham Foundation

 344 M. J. Reiss

by the exclusive use of alternative terms (e.g. "gays and lesbians", which I here use
interchangeably for "homosexuals", or "queers", "dykes", "sissies" and "faggots",
which I eschew) nor that the aims of justice and well-being in this case are especially
well served by too exacting an insistence on the use or avoidance of particular words,
a practice whose main result may be to alienate or cause resentment among those
not already sensitised to such linguistic niceties.

Should Schools Teach about Homosexuality?

There are a number of reasons that can be adduced in favour of schools teaching
about homosexuality. First is the powerful argument that the absence of such
teaching is deeply hurtful to homosexuals. Adult gays and lesbians, when asked,
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

often tell of the pain that they felt by their apparent non-existence at school; in the
structured silence that surrounds their sexual identity. Often, even explicit teacher-
controlled discussions on sexuality omit any reference to gay and lesbian orientation
and behaviour (e.g. Trenchard & Warren, 1984; Khayatt, 1994). There is also
evidence that lesbian and gay teenagers are several times more likely both to attempt
and to commit suicide than their heterosexual counterparts (Trenchard & Warren,
1984; US Department of Health and Human Services, 1986; Ruse, 1988), even
though lesbian and gay adults probably score at least as well as their heterosexual
counterparts on psychological measures of self-esteem (Ruse, 1988). It has been
suggested that sex education that explicitly addressed issues of sexual orientation
might help to reduce the incidence of teenage suicide (Reiss, 1995; Unks, 1995). It
is difficult to be certain, but a conservative estimate would suggest that around 4%
of adult males and 2% of adult females are exclusively or predominantly homosexual
(Johnson et ah, 1994; Laumann et al., 1994). In other words, while homosexuals are
undeniably a minority, they are a sizeable one—comparable, in the United King-
dom, to the number of Muslims or Roman Catholics. As such they deserve the
attention and curriculum space when teaching sex education that should be ac-
corded to religious minorities when teaching religious education.
A second argument in favour of teaching about homosexuality is that even if the
percentage of people who are exclusively or predominantly homosexual is not large,
several times this number have at least some homosexual tendencies and this may be
especially true of teenagers.
A third argument is that all of us, whether or not we are homosexual, need to
know about homosexuality in order, as citizens, to understand and be able to make
an informed contribution to such issues as "should homosexuals be permitted in the
Armed Forces?", "should the age of consent be the same for homosexuals and
heterosexuals?" and "should marriage be an option for homosexuals?".
A fourth argument is that such teaching may help to prevent homophobia and
reduce the incidence of physical violence experienced by gays and lesbians (Stafford,
1988). A 1994 survey of over 4200 lesbians, bisexuals and gay men from all over the
United Kingdom found that 34% of men and 24% of women who took part had
experienced violence in the last 5 years on account of their sexuality (Mason &
Palmer, 1996). Teenagers were especially at risk. Of the respondents under the age
 Teaching about Homosexuality and Heterosexuality 345

of 18, 48% had experienced violence, 61% had been harassed and 90% called names
because of their sexuality. While one cannot extrapolate quantitatively from the
results of such a survey (over 50,000 copies of the survey were distributed via Gay
Times and other lesbian and gay publications and databases with only 8% being
returned), the detailed personal accounts make harrowing reading (see also Epstein,
1994; Heron, 1994; Rivers, 1995).
On the other hand, there are arguments against teaching about homosexuality.
One is the belief that such teaching cannot be balanced. Just as Peace Studies and
Environmental Education promote peace and the responsible use of the environ-
ment so, it is believed, teaching about homosexuality is likely to lead to its advocacy.
A related fear is that teaching about homosexuality, unless simply to condemn
it, results in its implicit legitimisation. We do not teach at school in an even-handed
way about slavery, murder or child abuse. Indeed, to teach about such issues in a
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

"balanced" way is wrong, precisely because we hold such behaviours to lie outside
the moral pale. Similarly, it can be argued, we should not even help students to
consider the arguments in favour of homosexuality.
Further objections are that a significant number of parents do not want their
children to be taught about homosexuality, even though other aspects of sex
education are widely supported (Allen, 1987; Reiss, 1993) and that many teachers
feel uncomfortable teaching about homosexuality. A different objection is that
teaching in this area might even increase homophobia and prejudice. Halstead
(1992) argues that three types of controversial issue can be distinguished: (a)
situations where there is agreement over the existence of a particular moral impera-
tive, but disagreement over how to interpret it; (b) situations where there are
conflicting moral imperatives and uncertainty over which should take priority; (c)
situations where disagreement arises because groups do not share the same funda-
mental moral principles. It is not always easy to place any particular instance of
controversy into one of these three categories, but it seems likely that the issue of
homosexuality may, at least for some people, fall into type (c). The significance of
this is that discussion about type (c) controversies are especially likely to inflame the
situation rather than inform the participants. Such discussions may be counterpro-
ductive.
While these objections to teaching about homosexuality should not be dis-
missed I doubt that they are sufficient, always, to outweigh the arguments in favour
of teaching about homosexuality. However, to be acceptable, teaching about homo-
sexuality should (i) be balanced (what this means in practice is discussed more fully
below); (ii) be undertaken only by suitably trained teachers who wish to teach about
it; and (iii) be part, where possible, of the explicit curriculum so that parents do not
suddenly find that such teaching has been foisted on their children without their
being aware of it. In addition, (iv), it should perhaps be the case, as currently in
England and Wales, that parents have the right to withdraw their children from
school sex education (DfE, 1994). (Unlike its predecessor (Circular 11/87), Circular
5/94 makes no explicit reference to homosexuality, simply stating that:

The law does not define the purpose and content of sex education other
 346 M. J. Reiss

than declaring that it includes education about HIV and AIDS and other
sexually transmitted diseases. In secondary schools sex education should, in
the Secretary of State's view, encompass, in addition to facts about human
reproductive processes and behaviour, consideration of the broader
emotional and ethical dimensions of sexual attitudes...(Department for
Education, 1994, p. 7)

Finally, (v), teaching in this area should be evaluated, particularly in terms of

its acceptability to those receiving it. If a sex education programme of any sort
proves highly devisive or unacceptable to a significant number, it needs amending.
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

Is the Subject of Homosexuality and Heterosexuality a Controversial Issue?

Although it may strike many as somewhat banal, it is worth formally posing the
question: "Is the subject of homosexuality and heterosexuality a controversial
issue?". Before answering it, we may note that whatever else it is, this is certainly a
sensitive issue. The skills required to teach about a sensitive issue—such as racism
or bereavement—are not identical to, although they overlap with, those required to
teach about a controversial issue—such as the use of animals in medical research or
the legalisation of marihuana. Teaching in a sensitive area requires a number of skills
beyond those expected of routine classroom teaching. These include insight and
empathy, an understanding of when to encourage a student to speak and when to
allow him or her to remain silent, a manner which allows trust to develop and an
awareness of how different people in a classroom are affected by what is being
discussed.
Precisely what is needed for an issue to qualify as "controversial" is itself open
to some debate. Indeed, the term itself only really has meaning within a specified
community and at a particular time—universal (adult) franchise is no longer a
controversial issue in the United Kingdom; it was, and in some countries still is.
However, in any useful sense of the term the subject of sexual orientation is
controversial and this is worth stressing precisely because so much of what is written
about homosexuality and heterosexuality treats the issue as though it were not. At
one pole are those who argue or presume that homosexuality is unacceptable or falls
short of the ideal (e.g. Scruton, 1986; Sarwar, 1989; Ashraf et ah, 1991; Danon,
1995). At the other pole are the increasing numbers of those who argue or presume
that homosexuality is perfectly valid and acceptable (e.g. White, 1991; Anon, 1994;
Epstein, 1994; Mole, 1995; Woog, 1995). Much writing about school sex education
avoids discussion about sexual orientation or treats it scantily (e.g. Perigo, 1993,
Catholic Education Service, n.d.).
Recently, however, more extensive and balanced discussions of how to teach
about sexual orientation are beginning to appear (see Ray & Went, 1995). However,
I have still to see any published set of suggestions for teaching about sexual
orientation that treats the issue as truly controversial. This contrasts markedly with,
for example, teaching about nuclear power where countless school textbooks treat
 Teaching about Homosexuality and Heterosexuality 347

the question as a genuine controversy, attempting fairly to put both sides of the
debate.
The explicit recognition and acceptance that the subject of sexual orientation is
controversial simplifies the educator's task because of the substantial literature that
exists on the teaching of controversial issues both in general (Deardon, 1984;
Stradling, 1984; Stradling et al, 1984; Bridges, 1986; Halstead & Taylor, 1996) and
with particular reference to sex/sexuality education (Morris, 1994; Ray & Went,
1995; Reiss, 1995).
This is not to give the impression that teaching about sexual orientation is easy!
For a start, few schools have a tradition of teaching well in this area, so most
teachers or schools teaching in this area have little to build upon. Then, as has
already been noted, there are still relatively few easily accessible teaching materials.
These two factors conspire to mean that there is no well established discourse for
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

good teaching about sexual orientation. Even more significant, perhaps, is the
acknowledgement that teaching in this area is especially challenging given the
significance with which virtually all of us imbue our sexuality. For most teachers,
teaching about nuclear power, for instance, for all that it may be important, is
unlikely to impinge on their core being. This is not the case when teaching about
homosexuality and heterosexuality. In the same way, for all that many teenagers may
feel passionately about nuclear power, the use of illicit drugs, or even animal rights
and welfare, such issues, although they may give rise to deeply held convictions and
arouse strong emotions, are rarely as personally significant as the issue of sexual
orientation.

Possible Aims When Teaching About Sexual Orientation

What might be considered intellectually and morally acceptable aims when teaching
about sexual orientation? I suggest there are three main ones. These are outlined
here and then explicated in the next section on "Possible approaches to teaching
about sexual orientation".
First, to enable students (and from now on I shall have 14-16-year-olds in
mind) to become better informed about homosexuality and heterosexuality, for
example with regard to what causes each of us to become attracted sexually either
to males or to females or to both sexes. Such teaching would help to counter
unhelpful myths and stereotypes.
Secondly, to enable students to understand each other's positions. At its more
basic level this simply means enabling a student to appreciate that a different point
of view may be held. At a deeper level it may engender empathy as a student gains
a genuine insight and appreciation of what it might be like to live another's life. For
instance, a heterosexual student might gain some idea of what it is like to be
homosexual in a society where most people assume you are not, while a homosexual
student from an agnostic background might gain some idea of what it might be like
to be brought up in a family with strong religious beliefs which include the view that
homosexual behaviour is completely unacceptable.
Thirdly, to help students clarify their own values and attitudes. Such
 348 M. J. Reiss

clarification may, of course, lead to changes in values, attitudes or behaviours.

Indeed, many teachers might, perfectly validly, have as one of their aims "an
increase in tolerance", which would include the aim of reducing homophobia.
However, I cannot see this as a necessary aim of teaching in this area for all that it
might be, and I hope is, a probable consequence.

Possible Approaches to Teaching About Sexual Orientation

Treating Homosexuality and Heterosexuality Even-handedly
It is important that teaching in this area neither problematises nor stigmatises either
homosexuality or heterosexuality. In most cases, of course, it is more likely that
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

homosexuality will be discriminated against. A teacher may unwittingly use "them"

to refer to homosexuals and "us" to refer to heterosexuals when a more neutral
approach is to use phrases such as "someone who is homosexual" and "someone
who is heterosexual". Such an approach may strike some as long-winded and
unnecessarily "politically correct". However, a generation or more of familiarity with
non-sexist and non-racist language, now regarded as de rigeur in classrooms, has
helped to sensitise teachers and students to the advantages of non-prejudicial
language. Equally, the point of view that "homosexuality is a phase through which
many heterosexuals pass" is acceptable, but needs to be examined alongside the
complementary point of view that "heterosexuality is a phase through which many
homosexuals pass". Notable publications which theorise heterosexuality in a way
analogous to the way in which homosexuality has been theorised include Kitzinger
et al. (1992) and Richardson (1996).

Examining the Extent of Homosexuality and Heterosexuality

Examining the extent of homosexuality and heterosexuality is hardly the most
important question to consider. However, it can provide a relatively straightforward
route into discussions about sexual orientation. Points to emerge may include:
• Most people grow up to be heterosexual, although dispute exists as to precisely
what proportion of people are homosexual/heterosexual. To a very considerable
extent, this depends on precisely what is meant by the terms, for example
whether "heterosexual" is used to mean "predominantly heterosexual" or
"exclusively heterosexual".
• Little, if any, ethical significance can be attached to the empirical observation
that a state or behaviour is uncommon. It is uncommon to be a concert
musician and it is uncommon to murder someone. One of these activities is
acceptable, the other not.
• Sexual orientation is not identical to, but generally correlates with, sexual
behaviour. However, many homosexuals marry and have heterosexual relation-
ships.
 Teaching about Homosexuality and Heterosexuality 349

Asking "What Causes a Person's Sexual Orientation?"

Students could be introduced to the following ideas:
• Some people argue that a person's sexual orientation is a result of their
upbringing. For example, the classical Freudian position is that the relation-
ships a child has with its parents in the first few years of life determine its future
sexual orientation. The same conclusion is reached both by social learning
theory and by Kohlberg's cognitive development theory (see Ruse, 1988, for a
detailed discussion of these three positions).
• Others hold that genetic and/or hormonal influences are crucial in the determi-
nation of a person's sexual orientation (again, the clearest review is by Ruse,
1988).
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

• Many people argue that there is a spectrum of sexual orientation, with extreme
(or "pure") homosexuality at one pole and extreme (or "pure") heterosexuality
at the other. Some of us unambiguously find ourselves at one or other pole;
others of us, however, sit between the two extremes. On this point of view, a
bisexual is someone close to the middle of the pole.
• A different point of view is that rather than finding ourselves somewhere along
this spectrum, we position ourselves on it. In other words, our sexuality is not
entirely a "given"; it is, at least to some extent, something we determine for
ourselves.
• A related point of view, deriving from Foucault in his 1976 La Volonte de saviour
(e.g. Foucault, 1990), is that what we now see as "homosexuality" and
"heterosexuality" are social constructions, terms whose meanings are contin-
gent on their historicity (cf. Wittgenstein's language games (Wittgenstein,
1953)).

Introducing Students to a Range of Views About Sexual Orientation

The main questions which would need to be discussed with students are perhaps the
following.
• How do we decide what is ethically permissible and what is not? This is
obviously a huge question. One might expect that, as a subset of education,
education about sexual orientation would promote such values as personal
autonomy, respect for persons, impartiality and pursuit of truth (Peters, 1966;
Wilson, 1990; Reiss, 1996; Taylor, 1996). One might hope that it would
examine more recent questions such as the extent to which sexual, indeed any,
ethics exist in absolute form or need to be invented or constructed (cf. Bauman,
1993; Weeks, 1995). With specific reference to human sexual behaviour, one
might envisage that teaching in this area would help students to look at issues
such as sexual fidelity, sexual exploitation, the age of consent and the institution
of marriage.
• What do religions teach about sexual orientation? This is not, of course, to
make absolute what any one religion teaches. Rather it is to acknowledge that
 350 M. J. Reiss

for a significant percentage of people, perhaps even the majority, what religion
teaches is relevant. It would certainly be desirable for students to realise the
variety of routes by which religions claim to have authority (natural law,
scriptures, tradition and individual conscience) and to appreciate that within
most religions considerable diversity of opinion exists as to the legitimacy of
different forms of homosexuality (discussed in some detail by Reiss, 1990;
Thomson, 1993; Lenderyou & Porter, 1994).
• Is there a valid distinction between the public (civic) and the private sphere of
morality (cf. Haydon, 1995; McLaughlin, 1995)? For example, does it make
sense for an individual to disapprove of homosexuality yet campaign against
discrimination by the Armed Forces against lesbians and gays?
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

Helping Students to Explore What it Would be Like to Have a Sexual Orientation

Different From Their Own
Helping students to explore what it would be like to have a sexual orientation
different from their own can be a powerful way of promoting learning. The precise
approach is likely to vary depending on the classroom situation (e.g. the subject, if
any, being taught) and the teacher's experience and confidence at using particular
teaching methods. Teaching approaches can range from reading through discussion
to creative writing and role play. Students can also be helped to explore possibilities
of friendship and celibacy.
In English, a variety of approaches can be used including the analysis of texts
(Harris, 1990; Garber, 1994; Martino, 1995). More can be done in other subjects
(including history, science and religious studies) than is often the case (Thomson,
1993; Garber, 1994; Lenderyou & Porter, 1994; Givens & Reiss, 1996). In addition,
PSE/PSHE (Personal and Social Education/Personal, Social and Health Education)
and the whole atmosphere/ethos/approach of a school to issues of sexuality are of
great importance (cf. Mac an Ghaill, 1994, 1996).

Conclusions
It is clear why teaching in this area is so difficult. Our ideal, fantasised, teacher of
sexual orientation might be someone knowledgeable about developmental psy-
chology, sociology and moral philosophy, not to mention epistemology, theology,
genetics and endocrinology. She would also be able ensure a classroom ethos
prevailed in which differences of opinion, within certain limits, could safely be
voiced while her character would be such that she would be respected by students,
parents and community leaders. Such teachers are not ubiquitous, nor are they
always backed up by administrators and elected officials—whether at local or
national level—anxious to pursue truth, well-being and justice.
One solution is simply to continue to avoid teaching in this area. Indeed, I can
imagine a time when schools may have no particular need to teach in this area. At
the present time, however, in most countries there are strong arguments for school
 Teaching about Homosexuality and Heterosexuality 351

teaching about sexual orientation. Such teaching is increasingly desired and can do
significant good.

Correspondence: Revd Dr Michael J. Reiss, Senior Lecturer in Biology, Homerton

College, Cambridge CB2 2PH, UK; e-mail <mjr1000@cam.ac.uk>.

REFERENCES
ALLEN, I. (1987) Education in Sex and Personal Relationships: research report no. 665 (London, Policy
Study Institute).
ANON (1994) Canadian Guidelines fdr Sexual Health Education (Ottawa, Division of STD Control,
Bureau of Communicable Disease Epidemiology, Laboratory for Disease Control, Health Protec-
tion Branch and Health Service Systems Division, Health Services Directorate, Health Programs
and Services Branch).
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

ASHRAF, S.A., MABUD, S.A. & MITCHELL, P.J. (Eds) (1991) Sex Education in the School Curriculum: the
religious perspective--an agreed statement (Cambridge, Islamic Academy).
BAUMAN, Z. (1993) Postmodern Ethics (Oxford, Blackwell).
BRIDGES, D. (1986) Dealing with controversy in the curriculum: a philosophical perspective, in: J. J.
WELLINGTON (Ed.) Controversial Issues in the Curriculum, pp. 19-38 (Oxford, Basil Blackwell).
CATHOLIC EDUCATION SERVICE (n.d.) [1994] Education in Sexuality: some guidelines for teachers and
governors in Catholic schools (London, Catholic Education Service).
DANON, P. (Ed.) (1995) Tried but Untested: the aims and outcomes of sex education in schools (Oxford,
Family Publications).
DEARDEN, R.F. (1984) Theory and Practice in Education (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul).
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION ( D F E ) (1994) Circular 5/94, Sex Education in Schools (London, Depart-
ment for Education).
EPSTEIN, D. (Ed.) (1994) Challenging Lesbian and Gay Inequalities in Education (Buckingham, Open
University Press).
FOUCAULT, M. (1990) The History of Sexuality: an introduction--translated from the French by Robert
Hurley (Harmondsworth, Penguin).
GARBER, L. (Ed.) (1994) Tilting the Tower (New York, Routledge).
GIVENS, P. & REISS, M. (1996) Human Biology and Health Studies (Walton-on-Thames, Nelson).
HALSTEAD, J.M. (1992) Ethical dimensions of controversial events in multicultural education, in: M.
LEICESTER & M. TAYLOR (Eds) Ethics, Ethnicity and Education, pp. 39-56 (London, Kogan Page).
HALSTEAD, J.M. & TAYLOR, M.J. (Eds) (1996) Values in Education and Education in Values (London,
Falmer Press).
HARRIS, S. (1990) Lesbian and Gay Issues in the English Classroom (Milton Keynes, Open University
Press).
HAYDON, G. (1995) Thick or thin? The cognitive content of moral education in a plural democracy,
Journal of Moral Education, 24, pp. 53-64.
HERON, A. (Ed.) (1994) Two Teenagers in Twenty: writings by gay and lesbian youth (Boston, Alyson).
KHAYATT, D. (1994) Surviving school as a lesbian student, Gender and Education, 6, pp. 47-61.
KITZINGER, C., WILKINSON, S. & PERKINS, R. (1992) Special issue: heterosexuality, Feminism & Psychol-
ogy, 2, pp. 293-509.
JOHNSON, A.M., WADSWORTH, J., WELLINGS, K. & FIELD, J. (1994) Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles
(Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications).
LAUMANN, E.O., MICHAEL, R.T., GAGNON, J.H. & MICHAELS, S. (1994) The Social Organization of
Sexuality: sexual practices in the United States (Chicago, Chicago University Press).
LENDERYOU, G. & PORTER, M. (Eds) (1994) Sex, Education, Values and Morality (London, Health
Education Authority).
MAC AN GHAILL, M. (1994) The Making of Men: masculinities, sexualities and schooling (Buckingham,
Open University Press).
 352 M. J. Reiss

MAC AN GHAILL, M. (Ed.) (1996) Understanding Masculinities (Buckingham, Open University Press).
MARTINO, W. (1995) Deconstructing masculinity in the English classroom: a site for reconstituting
gendered sexuality, Gender and Education, 7, pp. 205-220.
MASON, A. & PALMER, A. (1996) Queerbashing: a national survey of hate crimes against lesbians and gay men
(London, Stonewall).
MCLAUGHLIN, T.H. (1995) Liberalism, education and the common school, Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 29, pp. 239-255.
MOLE, S. (1995) Colours of the Rainbow: exploring issues of sexuality and difference--a resource for teachers,
governors, parents and carers (London, Health Promotion Service, Camden & Islington Community
Health Services NHS Trust).
MORRIS, R.W. (1994) Values in Sexuality Education: a philosophical study (Lanham, University Press of
America).
PERIGO, B. (1993) Sex Education: a guide for school governors and teachers (Oxford, Oxfordshire LEA).
PETERS, R.S. (1966) Ethics and Education (London, George Allen & Unwin).
RAY, C. & WENT, D. (1995) Good Practice in Sex Education: a sourcebook for schools (London, National
Downloaded by [University of London] at 06:48 08 February 2016

Children's Bureau).
REISS, M. (1990) Homosexuality: sense and sensibility, Crucible, 29 (April-June), pp. 66-74.
REISS, M.J. (1993) What are the aims of school sex education? Cambridge Journal of Education, 23,
pp. 135-136.
REISS, M.J. (1995) Conflicting philosophies of school sex education, Journal of Moral Education, 24,
pp. 371-382.
REISS, M.J. (1996) Food, smoking and sex: values in health education, in: J. M. HALSTEAD & M. J.
TAYLOR (Eds) Values in Education and Education in Values, pp. 92-103 (London, Falmer Press).
RICHARDSON, D. (1996) Theorising Heterosexuality: telling it straight (Buckingham, Open University
Press).
RIVERS, I. (1995) The victimization of gay teenagers in schools: homophobia in education, Pastoral Care,
13, pp. 35-41.
RUSE, M. (1988) Homosexuality: a philosophical inquiry (Oxford, Basil Blackwell).
SARWAR, G. (1989) Sex Education: the Muslim perspective (London, Muslim Education Trust).
SCRUTON, R. (1986) Sexual Desire: a philosophical investigation (London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson).
STAFFORD, J.M. (1988) In defence of gay lessons, Journal of Moral Education, 17, pp. 11-20.
STRADLING, R. (1984) Controversial issues in the classroom, in: R. STRADLING, M. NOCTOR & B. BAINES
(Eds) Teaching Controversial Issues, pp. 1-12 (London, Edward Arnold).
STRADLING, R., NOCTOR, M. & BAINES, B. (1984) An overview, in: R. STRADLING, M. NOCTOR & B.
BAINES (Eds) Teaching Controversial Issues, pp. 103-116 (London, Edward Arnold).
TAYLOR, M. (Ed.) (1996) Journal of Moral Education: 25th anniversary issue. Moral education: from the
20th into the 21st century, Journal of Moral Education, 25, pp. 5-133.
THOMSON, R. (Ed.) (1993) Religion, Ethnicity & Sex Education: exploring the issues (London, National
Children's Bureau).
TRENCHARD, L. & WARREN, H. (1984) Something to Tell You (London, Gay Teenagers' Group).
UNKS, G. (Ed.) (1995) The Gay Teen: educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay, and bisexual
adolescents (New York, Routledge).
US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES (1986) National Institute of Mental Health: task force
on youth suicide, 11-13 June, Oakland, California.
WEEKS, J. (1995) Invented Moralities: sexual values in an age of uncertainty (Cambridge, Polity Press).
WHITE, P. (1991) Parents' rights, homosexuality and education, British Journal of Educational Studies,
39, pp. 398-408.
WILSON, J. (1990) A New Introduction to Moral Education (London, Cassell).
WITTGENSTEIN, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations--translated by G.E.M. Anscombe (Oxford, Black-
well).
WOOG, D. (Ed.) (1995) School's Out: the impact of gay and lesbian issues on America's schools (Boston,
Alyson).