I’ve given the paper “Navigating Parental Resistance: Learning from Responses of LGBTQ-Inclusive Elementary School Teachers” a first read through.  I’m quite thoroughly shocked as to how this paper made it publication, and even more dismayed at its content.  My first reading response:

A Critique of Queer Pedagogy in Elementary Education

The article “Navigating Parental Resistance: Learning from Responses of LGBTQ-Inclusive Elementary School Teachers” by Jill M. Hermann-Wilmarth and Caitlin Law Ryan advocates for incorporating LGBTQ topics into elementary education, relying on critical theory and queer pedagogy. This approach, however, is fundamentally flawed. Teaching queerness—defined as opposition to societal norms—has no place in elementary classrooms, where the focus should be on factual learning rather than activism. The authors employ a motte-and-bailey strategy to conflate inclusiveness with queerness, misuse critical theory in an age-inappropriate manner, and dismiss parental concerns as mere resistance to be navigated. This essay will expose these weaknesses, demonstrating the destabilizing nature of queer pedagogy and the methods used to obscure its implementation.

Conflation of Inclusiveness with Queerness

The article repeatedly equates inclusiveness with queerness, a misleading comparison that masks its radical intent. For example, the authors quote a teacher, Linda, saying, “I like the language that [says] teachers … ‘teach inclusively.’ Because … it helps frame it for parents in a way that is more palatable for anybody who might have an issue” (p. 92). Here, “teaching inclusively” serves as a euphemism for introducing queer theory, which is not the same as general inclusivity. Inclusivity in education typically involves recognizing diverse backgrounds—such as race or disability—without delving into controversial topics like gender identity. By framing queer pedagogy as inclusivity, the authors retreat to a defensible position when challenged, while advancing a destabilizing agenda. Queer theory, as Britzman (1995) states, seeks to “disrupt the commonplace” (p. 95), a goal irrelevant to elementary students’ needs.

Inappropriate Use of Critical Theory

The reliance on critical theory, particularly critical literacy, further undermines the article’s approach. The authors describe critical literacy as involving “disrupting the commonplace” and “focusing on sociopolitical issues” (Lewison et al., 2002, p. 382), which they apply to justify their pedagogy (p. 91). They argue it allows teachers to “disrupt notions of deviance” and “lay bare” power relations (p. 91). Such concepts, however, are too abstract for young children, who lack the cognitive maturity to grapple with ideological frameworks. Elementary education should prioritize facts—reading, writing, and arithmetic—not activism. By embedding critical theory, the authors risk confusing students and diverting focus from foundational skills, revealing the activist intent behind their destabilizing pedagogy.

Dismissal of Parental Concerns

Most troublingly, the article sidelines parental concerns, portraying them as obstacles to overcome rather than valid objections. The authors note how teachers “invited parents into dialogue” but maintained their curriculum, offering only minor accommodations (p. 93). For instance, when a parent objected, the teacher allowed the child to work elsewhere but refused to alter the class curriculum (p. 93). The article suggests teachers justify their choices by “leveraging policy as a shield” (p. 92), a tactic that ignores parents’ worries about age-appropriateness and bias. This dismissal undermines parents’ role as primary stakeholders, reducing them to passive bystanders. The authors’ approach reveals a disregard for parental authority, a critical flaw in their framework.

Conclusion

In sum, Hermann-Wilmarth and Ryan’s advocacy for LGBTQ-inclusive teaching in elementary schools is misguided. By conflating inclusiveness with queerness, they obscure their radical aims. Their use of critical theory introduces inappropriate activism into a setting where facts should reign. Worst of all, they marginalize parental concerns, eroding the teacher-parent partnership. A balanced, age-appropriate education—one focused on foundational learning and respectful of parental input—is essential. Queer pedagogy, with its destabilizing goals, has no place in elementary classrooms.