ACCEPTABILITY AND PROBLEMS ON HOMOSEXUAL TEACHERS AMONG

SECTARIAN SCHOOLS

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty

of the School of Advanced Studies
Pangasinan State University
Urdaneta City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the

Degree Master of Arts in Education
Major in Social Studies

JHOBET P. ORDOÑEZ

April 2019
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE i

APPROVAL SHEET ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii

DEDICATION iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS v

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF TABLE ix

ABSTRACT x

CHAPTER

1 THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study 1

Statement of the Problem 3

Research Hypothesis 4

Significance of the study 5

Scope and Delimitation of the Study 5

Definition of Terms 6

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Literature 7

Related Studies 10

Theoretical Framework 17

v
 Conceptual Paradigm 19

Synthesis of the Study 21

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design 22

Respondents of the Study 22

Research Instrument 23

Methods of Data Collection 24

Statistical Treatment 24

4 PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND ANALYSIS

Profile of the Respondents 26

Level of Acceptability on Homosexual Teachers 30

Perceived Problems on Homosexual Teachers 33

Significant Relationship between the Profile of the

Respondents and the Level of Acceptability on

Homosexual Teachers 36

Proposed Solutions in the Perceived Problems

on Homosexual Teachers 43

Proposed Intervention 43

5 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings 45

Conclusion 47

vi
 Recommendation 49

BIBLIOGRAPHY 51

APPENDICES

A. Teacher-respondent questionnaire checklist 56

B. Questionnaire Establishing Content Validity of the Instrument 60

C. Summary of Validation for survey-questionnaire 62

D. Letter to Schools Division Office 63

E. Letter to School Principal 64

F. Letter to School Administrators to conduct survey 65

CURRICULUM VITAE

Personal Data 66

Educational Background 66

Eligibility 67

References 67

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Hierarchy of Needs 19

Figure 2. Conceptual Paradigm 20

viii
 LIST OF TABLE

Page

Table 1. Sectarian School 23

Table 2 Profile of the Respondents 28

Table 3a Level of Acceptability on Personal Characteristics/Qualities

of Homosexual Teachers 30

Table 3b Summary on Level of Acceptability on Personal Characteristics/

Qualities of Homosexual Teachers 31

Table 3c Level of Acceptability on Role in School Community of

Homosexual Teachers 32

Table 4 Perceived Problems on Homosexual Teachers 35

Table 5a Relationship of Level of Acceptability in Personal Characteristics/

Qualities on the Profile of Respondents 37

Table 5b Relationship of Level of Acceptability in Roles in School

Community on the Profile of Respondents 40

Table 6 Proposed Intervention on the Perceived Problems 44

ix
 Abstract

This study was conducted to assess the level of acceptability on homosexual

teachers and the perceived problems they faced in school community. The respondents in

this study composed of teachers in eight (8) sectarian schools in the Division of Tarlac

Province which was randomly selected.

This quantitative study used survey-questionnaire to know the level of

acceptability of teacher-respondents on homosexual teachers in private sectarian schools.

The survey-questionnaire was divided into five parts. The first part was about the socio-

demographic background of respondents. The second part is a checklist to determine the

level of acceptability of respondents on homosexual teachers in terms of personal

characteristics of homosexual teachers and the third part is to know the level of

acceptability on homosexual teachers’ role in school community. In part four,

respondents was to rank the different perceived problems on homosexual sexual teachers

from the most perceived to the least perceived. In the last part, respondents were asked to

give interventions on the perceived problems on homosexual teachers.

The study found that respondents slightly accepts the personal

characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers while they somewhat accepts

homosexual teachers’ role in school community. Moreover, the result of the study shows

a significant relationship between the level of acceptability on homosexual teachers and

the profile of the respondents specifically on the type of sectarian school, number of

years in teaching, religion, and number of homosexual friends. Furthermore, the study

shows that there is a significant difference between the different sectarian schools

x
acceptability on homosexual teachers. In addition, the study also found that the most

perceived problems on homosexual teachers include making gestures not appropriate to

preferred orientation, using inappropriate language (e.g. gay lingo), physical appearance,

disrespect from students, being ridiculed in the school community, and being attracted to

same sex. Lastly, this study found that giving respect to homosexual teachers and having

programs with regards to gender and development issues is the most known solutions to

the perceived problems on homosexual teachers as suggest by respondents.

xi
 CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study

Gender identity refers to a person’s internal feeling of being male or female,

regardless of the sex listed on their birth certificate (assigned birth sex). On the other

hand, sexual orientation refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or

sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Three sexual orientations are commonly

recognized – heterosexual (straight), homosexual (gay or lesbian) and bisexual. Some

people do not experience attraction to either men or women and define themselves as

asexual. (GLEN, 2016)

According to Diaz (2000), because of the rising number of homosexuals, the

social structure of the society greatly change, for they are found in the different aspects in

our society which includes various profession, religion, jobs and socio-economic

backgrounds.

LGBT which stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender also known as

the “Third Sex” and their growing number is one of the most sensitive, yet talk about

issues in our society today. There are many studies been conducted as to how being an

LGBT develops on one’s personality. For some this is brought about by the environment

where an individual lives (Chapman & Brannock, 1987). But for others it is about the

development took place in an individual from the early age (Higgins, 2002).

School is the place where most of the development of child happens including

their gender identity and sexual orientation. Teachers play a vital role in ensuring that
 2

their intervention and instructions will result to proper development of their students, one

of these is the aspect of gender and sexuality. So, teachers must possess a personality and

character which is according to their gender identity (male or female) and sexual

orientation (heterosexual/straight) amongst other to ensure credibility in their profession.

But as we all know, in our education system today, teaching profession is not

exclusive to heterosexual alone. We cannot deny the fact that the number of LGBT

educators is increasing in number as years passed. For many it is not a problem having

homosexual educators in a classroom as long as they are doing what is mandated to them.

But for some it has a negative effect especially on the development students whom they

are teaching.

According to Piddoche, [Link]. (1997), homosexuals are often found in education

system. They are either school administrator or teachers. But even though homosexuals

dominated the education system, most of them are afraid to reveal their real identity in

the fear of being criticized. It is because homosexuals in the past until the present is not

generally acceptable in the society.

According to Franco (1988), social acceptance must be given to all no matter

what he believes and feels, and whatever his identity is. In the same way, according to

Bell and Weinberg (1978), homosexuals who are being treated as “disapproved minority”

feel great unhappiness.

Many researches have been made to study the growing number LGBT students in

school and its implication to the education system and society. It includes studies

regarding to the awareness and acceptance of LGBT teachers.

 3

As cited by Smith, et. al.,2008, most of the research and writing on this topic

revolves around three themes: 1) the history of LGBT educators and the climates they

have faced and currently face within schools, 2) the individual experiences of LGBT

educators or pre-service educators, and 3) the need for acceptance by LGBT educators

(Anderson, 1997).

Statement of the Problem

This study aimed to determine the problems and level of acceptability on

homosexual teachers of sectarian schools in the Schools Division of Tarlac Province for

the school year 2018-2019. This study seeks to answer the following question:

This study sought to answer the following question:

1. What is the personal-social demographic background of the respondents in

terms of:

a. type of sectarian school;

b. sex;

c. age;

d. number of years in teaching;

e. employment status;

f. highest educational attainment;

g. religion;

h. civil status;

i. number of homosexual family member;

 4

j. number of homosexual friends?

2. What is the level of acceptability on homosexual teacher in terms of their:

a. Characteristics/qualities in the following aspects:

1. physical;

2. social;

3. moral/spiritual;

b. Role in school community?

3. What are the perceived problems on homosexual teachers in the aspect of:

a. personal/social

b. professionalism

c. morale?

4. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents and the

level of acceptability on homosexual teachers?

5. What solutions can be proposed in the perceived problems on homosexual

teachers?

Hypothesis

The hypothesis for this research study was tested in null form at .05 level of significance:

1. There is a significant relationship between the personal-social demographic

background of the respondents and their acceptability on homosexual teachers.

 5

Significance of the study

The conduct of this research study will benefit the teachers, school administrator,

the Department of Education, and researchers.

To the Teachers. That they will have awareness about the issues with regards to

homosexual teachers, to promote a healthier relationship among teachers.

To the School Administrators. That they will be more aware about the situation

of their teachers in the institution who are pro or against the presence of homosexual

teachers in their school and from that they can plan programs and action with regards to

gender development and gender equality.

To the Schools Division Office. That this research studies in one way or another

help in analyzing the present situations of teachers with regards to their personality

development which greatly affect their performance in our education system.

To the Researcher. That this research study may serve as substantial reference

and guide in the conduct of future related studies.

Scope and Delimitation of the study

The focus of this research is to study the problems and level of acceptability on

homosexual teachers. This study was conducted in eight (8) selected sectarian schools

which are anchored in the Schools Division of Tarlac Province for the school year 2018-

2019. The study was comprised of teachers and administrators in the selected sectarian

schools.
 6

Definition of Terms

The following are the significant terms being used in this study:

Acceptability. Refers to a positive attitude towards the differences of gender

identity of teachers.

Problems. Refers to the perceived problem with regards to homosexual teachers.

Sectarian schools. Refers to the schools affiliated to a particular religious

organization and which are the basic foundation of the establishment are their religious

doctrines and beliefs. In this study, also refers to the selected sectarian schools in the

Schools Division of Tarlac Province.

Homosexual. A sexual orientation in which a person feels physically and

emotionally attracted to people of the same gender.

Teacher. In this study refers to a professional teacher who teaches in sectarian

school in the Division of Tarlac Province.

Physical Characteristics. Refers to the physical appearance that homosexual

teachers possess.

Social Characteristics. Refers to the way homosexual teachers deals or treat

other people.

Moral/Spiritual. Refers to the values possess by homosexual teachers

Role in School Community. Refers to the positions and or assignment of

homosexual teacher on the sectarian school where they teach.

Intervention. Refers to the suggested ways on how to prevent problems on

homosexual teachers.
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents a review of related literature and studies that will help the

researcher in the development of the research study.

Related Literature

Employment Issues on LGBT

There are a lot of researches being conducted with regards to employment. Some

of these researches included researching the career paths of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay,

Bisexual, and Transgender) people in terms of discrimination, exclusion of LGBT from

certain types of work, and identification of public sector workers training needs with

regards to LGBT issues that includes questioning their sexual orientation and gender

identity in applying for work.

The Commission for Racial Equality Scotland recently published “Equal

Opportunities and Private Sector Employment in Scotland: A summary of research into

equal opportunities policies and practices”, find out that with regards to sexual

orientation and gender identity, only few employers had policies with regards to sexual

orientation and gender identity (CRE, 2000). This survey also revealed that previous

studies of employers regarding sexual orientation issues tended to address the public

sector rather than private sector labor market. Furthermore, the result of the survey

highlighted the need of respondents to feel confident on their workplace thus, if LGBT

people do fear discrimination in their workplace, they will be particularly likely to hide

their sexual orientation in a workplace. (Sally McManus, 2003)

 8

A study by the Women Coalition in 2005, around 19% of the self-identified

lesbians or bisexual women who surveyed reported they were discriminated in their

workplace because of their sexual orientation. In addition, 10% of them stated that they

have experienced harassment and 5% reported knowing or suspecting that they were fired

due to their sexual orientation.

In another study entitled “Employment discrimination based on sexual

orientation: A Hong Kong Study” (Lau & Stotzer, 2011), LGBT employees reported that

they were discriminated in employment in the basis of their sexual orientation, regardless

of whether they were gay or lesbian. The research also found that younger and less

educated employees were more vulnerable to discrimination.

Another study conducted by Community Business (2012) found that most of the

LGBT employees were not open to colleagues about their sexuality and gender identity.

They are worried about how other people would think, being stereotyped, and losing

social connection or personal relationships with colleagues. Furthermore, many LGBT

employees reported personal experienced of negative treatment because of their sexual

orientation and/or gender identity.

In the “Tongzhi and Transgender Equality Report” (2014), there were reports of

discrimination experienced by LGBT people in the domain of employment. For example,

a lesbian teacher was fired by her principal after finding out her sexual orientation. On 72

transgender people interviewed, 49% had experienced discrimination in terms of denial

of employment, contract termination, and harassment and vilification in the working

 9

environment. For example, the supervisor of a transgender woman downgraded her

performance in the appraisal when she applied to wear female clothing in the work.

The report of Community Business (2012) found that 85% of the LGBT

employees expressed that a non-inclusive environment had a negative impact to them. It

includes the need to lie about their personal life at work, difficulty to build authentic

relationship with colleagues, and avoiding certain situation/working opportunities. They

felt exhausted, depressed or stressed because they had to pretend to be someone else,

worrying about the consequences of “coming out”, and had to decide/consider to leave

the job. Gender Research Centre, CUHK, 2016)

In 2013, Pew Research Center in its survey “The Global Divide on

Homosexuality” found that the leaning closer acceptance of homosexuality in the

Philippines. 73 percent of the Filipino who surveyed believed that homosexuality should

be accepted.

Although the Philippines, as reported by the Philippine Daily Inquirer, was named

as one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world, still, the Filipino LGBT

community faces issues, including their shout for equal rights and anti-discriminatory

laws.

Filipino LGBT individuals enjoy few protections like the decriminalization of

same-sex sexual activity and the military allowing them to serve openly. Despite these,

they cannot go into marriage or have their marriage contracted in another country be

legally recognized in the Philippines. Additionally, same-sex couples cannot legally

 10

adopt children, and national laws addressing sexual orientation and gender identity

(SOGI) are absent.

On the other hand, local ordinances tackling SOGI discrimination have been

enacted in Quezon City, Cebu, Davao and Albay. A national SOGI anti-discrimination

bill (HB 5686), has been languishing in the House of Representatives since it was

approved at the committee-level in February 2015. (Gabriel Hipolito & Biance Suarez,

2015)

On June 30, 2016, Representative Geraldine B. Roman, the first Filipino

transgender congresswoman introduced a bill (HB 267) prohibiting discrimination on

work on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI).

([Link]

Lastly, on February 2017 a House Bill (HB 4982) was submitted in the House of

Representative that prohibits discrimination on work on the basis of sexual orientation

and gender identity or expression and providing penalties therefore. The bill when

enacted shall be known as “SOGIE Equality Act”.

([Link]

Related Studies

Heteronormativity in Education System

Students need to feel safe and accepted in order to take the risks associated with

academic and social development (Bluestein, 2000; Merrow, 2004). Educators also need

to feel safe and accepted in order to provide the best education to these students.

Leithwood & McAdie (2007) stated that teachers who feel accepted in their workplace
 11

perform better in school which results to increased student achievement. In the past and

even at present – gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or transgender students and staff felt

unaccepted in many school environments because of their sexual orientation and gender

identity. (Markow & Fein, 2005).

Blount (1996, 2000, 2005) and Harbeck (1997) have contributed in the literature

on the history of LGBT educators. Their study was focused on how the climate for LGBT

educators has been influenced by cultural shifts in the larger society. At first men were

the earliest educators but they were replaced by females for the reason that they were pay

for a lower salary. This was eventually accepted and considered smart money

management. Soon, this profession and lifestyle attracted women whom by today’s

standards would be defined as lesbians (Blount, 1996). Afterwards, female educators

dominated the educational leadership positions until the 1920s (Blount, 2000).

This scrutiny led to the examination of the lives of educators and promoted

gender role polarization and introduced the concept of “heteronormativity” to the

education literature (Blount, 2000; Melillo, 2003; Sumara & Davis, 1999). For this

research study, “ heteronormativity” will be used similar to what Berlant and Warner

(1998) used in their study, which is the “institutions, structures of understanding, and

practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent – that is,

organized as a sexuality – but also privileged. Since the 1920s, the climate for LGBT

educators has been structured through court cases, cultural shifts and backlashes, and

public debates about morality and sexual orientation. (Smith, et. al., 2008)
 12

In a study conducted by Juul & Repa (1993), they found factors influencing the

professional experiences of LGBT educators. They examined the relationship between

the levels of job satisfaction and stress of LGBT educators and the levels of “outness”

(being open to their sexual orientation and gender identity) they had to others within the

school setting. Their subjects varied in gender, geographic location, race, ethnicity, and

teaching experienced. They also used multiple surveys to measure job satisfaction, level

of job stress, and level of “outness”.

In addition, Juul & Repa (1993) survey found that LGBT educators who rated

themselves as more “out” had higher scores on the job satisfaction. Also, teachers who

rated themselves as more “out” to administrators scored higher on the job satisfaction

survey and are more comfortable in acknowledging their successful performance in job.

Finally, Juul & Repa (1993) concluded that teachers who rated themselves as more “out”

felt more engaged in the social and interpersonal role of being an educator.

In another study conducted by Jackson (2007), nine LGBT participants identified

support (especially from administrators) as a major factor that impacted their level of

“outness” in the workplace. This research identified a theory of development for LGBT

educators. They progressed from not believing they could teach (due to not identifying as

heterosexual) through a closeted teacher phase to finally the authentic phase, when the

educators were open about their sexuality to their school communities. Jackson (2007)

also identified several factors that impacted the feelings on the climate for LGBT

educators. It includes personal characteristics, race, religion, age, level of gender

conformity, family status and professional experiences. Finally, Jackson (2007) found
 13

that all participants believed that it was not the experience of being gay or lesbian that

made being an educator difficult at times but it is in the context of a heteronormative

society.

This was supported by Hebl (2000) which cited that approximately eighty percent

of prospective teachers report negative attitudes toward gay and lesbian people. Roughly

one third of prospective teachers can be classified as "high-grade homophobes” (Kirby,

1994, p.339). Finally, fifty-two percent of prospective teachers report that they feel

uncomfortable working with an openly lesbian or gay colleague (Kantor, L., 1987).

Which in turn, gave unsafe and unaccepted feeling to LGBT educators in school

environment.

Teaching Performance and Acceptability on Homosexual Teachers

There are many reasons given by the researchers why LGBT educators feel wary

and unsafe about being completely “out” in school community. As cited by Harbeck

(1997), according to the Human Rights Campaign (2005), one of the main problem is the

lack of non-discrimination law which includes sexual orientation or gender identity that

makes coming out quite risky and difficult. They tend to hide their identity because they

were not protected from discrimination in terms of their employment (Lugg, 2006). This

contributes to a complex climate for LGBT educators; they experience dissonance,

because they want to protect and be role models for the LGBT youth without risking their

employment status (Griffin, 1992; Litton, 1999). Even if laws are in place to protect

them, other factors may make the workplace uncomfortable, because it is clear that some
 14

LGBT educators have experienced discrimination by way of giving unpleasant

assignments and negative gossip about them.

Researchers also have identified gender role polarization (Blount, 1996, 2000)

and heteronormativity (Melillo, 2003, Sumara & Davis, 1999; Jackson, 2007) as factors

which greatly affect the climate of LGBT educators in school. Also, having heterosexual

allies who will speak out and support acceptance (Ferfolja, 1998; Jennings, 2005; Woods

& Harbeck, 1992), seeing LGBT issues and heroes as visible in the curriculum (Ferfolja,

1998) and participating in LGBT educators support group (Griffin, 1992) impacted the

perception of LGBT educators in perceiving the environment for themselves.

On the other hand, another research study (Birden, 2005) found that gay and

lesbian teachers have had to navigate their sexual orientation within the heterosexual

matrix of education. Birden (2005) stated, “Heterosexism has been broadly defined as the

belief that heterosexuality is inherently superior to non-heterosexuality in its various

forms” (p. 6). Many gays and lesbians interchanging their sexual and gender orientation

between heteronormative and homonormative identities; some choose to reveal their

sexual identity, but others remain in the closet or not “out” about their sexual orientation

(Yoshino, 2007). Evans (2002) added to the research by highlighting the presence of

both overt and subtle forms of homophobia in education. The concept of homophobia is

linked to the way homosexuality is defined and experienced in the world (van Dijk & van

Driel, 2007). Education often perpetuated heterosexuality in the context of established

gender roles (Epstein, 1994). ([Link]

 15

Historically, gender roles and norms have led to a heightened scrutiny male and

female teachers (Blount, 2006; Griffin & Ouellett, 2003). The continued suspicion of

homosexuality has forced some teachers out of the classroom. For example, in the early

20th century, as homosexuality was being viewed by the general population as something

that could be taught, Blount (2006) noted that school administrators began to target single

male teachers at same-sex schools. School officials viewed unmarried female teachers

with less concern because there was little stigma associated with women in the

classroom. Society had been conditioned to think that a woman would more likely seek

the affection of another woman to “reduce loneliness” than seek sex (Blount, 2006, p.

29). Albert Kinsey published a report on male sexuality in 1948 and a second report on

female sexuality in 1953. These studies of male and female sexual activity continued to

ignite homophobia in the educational system, even with Kinsey’s conclusion that

homosexuality was “perfectly natural” (Lugg, 2003). Public awareness and concern over

homosexuality continued to grow as “efforts to cleanse the educational system of all

suspected homosexuals were in full force” (Brunner, 2013, p. 163). In 2006, Blount wrote

about the history of LGBT teachers being controlled by school communities and their

resistance to it. Blount (2006) provided detailed accounts of how schools have

historically attempted to control the sexuality of their workers. She described the gender,

identity, and other mistreatment of LGBT teachers and educators:

“Educators who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender have begun

pressing for the right to claim these identities openly in spite of powerful social
 16

opposition. This marks a critical development in the gender identification of

schoolwork, as cross-gender behaviors and characteristics have been linked in the

popular mind with homosexuality and all of its attendant taboos since the late

1920s.” (Blount, 2006, p. 84)

This push for acceptance helps to redefine gender norms in education.

Local Studies on Homosexual Acceptance

There are a lot of studies conducted in foreign countries with regards to

acceptance of sexual orientation and gender identity. For comparison on how Filipino

feel about homosexuality, local study though limited, were also conducted.

Diaz (2000) conducted a research to assess the teaching performance and

acceptability of homosexual teachers in Pangasinan. The research study found that

homosexual teachers were assessed “very satisfactory” with regards to their teaching

performance, specifically, on student achievement, and instructional competence,

personality, and human relation. The study also found that homosexual teachers were

acceptable as professionals, friends, and as individuals. Further, the research has found a

significant difference in the assessment of the administrators, peers, and students in the

level of performance and acceptability of homosexual teachers.

Another research study conducted by Domenden (2007) to found the problems

encountered by the homosexuals in the society where they belong and to assess the

acceptability they have earned from the citizens.

 17

A recent study was conducted by Cura (2016) which deals with the perception of

the folk people with regards to gays at Capas Tarlac. Research found a high level of

acceptance from the folklore was gained by gays in the said place.

Theoretical Framework

This research study is guided by some theories and studies. One of the researches

conducted by Marsigilo (1998) showed that individuals’ gender, age, educational

background and religious orientation affect one’s view on homosexuality. Further,

Tygart’s (1990) study also showed the importance of religion in determining one’s stand

on homosexuality.

One’s background and experiences influences how he perceives or sees a certain

event or object. One sees and feel things differently than others do because of these

differences (Sasse, 1981). In this sense, an individuals’ personal and social attributes

affect acceptability of homosexuals. In the same way, Coleman (1980) emphasize the

important role of socio-cultural factors in the development of homosexual lifestyle, as

well as acceptance of it.

Discussions of homosexuality are often influenced by ignorance, fear and

avoidance, conflicting moral and religious dogmas and contrasting political aims.

Sigmund Freud, and most other scientists who have studied human sexuality,

believe that homosexual activities are as “normal” and as “genetically determined” as

homosexual behaviors (Jarapa, [Link]., 2002). Homosexuality is not a medical or

 18

psychiatric disorder; however, it is an aspect of human condition that has profound

effects on individuals, communities, and society as a whole.

Psychiatrists and mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an

illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. In support, Marmor (1980) states that

homosexuality is far from being “unnatural” in the statistical sense. It occurs in all higher

species, even members of the opposite sex are present and presumably available for

mating. Therefore, it can be presumed that the possibility of homosexuality is as “coded

for in the genes” as is the possibility of heterosexuality.

Another theory that can be connected in this is the Critical social theory which

offers a way to analyze “the social” as a construction molded and influenced by context,

beliefs, and the power maintained within dominant groups (Grace, 2005). As it relates to

education, critical social theory provides a lens for discussing democratic forms of

schooling, social justice, and ethical educational practices. Allman (1999) argues that

critical social theory helps us examine how education can play a pivotal role in

transforming a society through political and cultural action. By building students’

knowledge and understanding of why and how queer individuals have been marginalized,

schools can begin to question, and perhaps transform their practices to reflect a more

critical pedagogy.

Also, this study can be anchored in the hierarchy of needs of Abraham Maslow

which states that one of the basic need a man must fulfill is the need for belonging and

companionship. To be belong in a group, acceptance of the people is needed which

covers the totality of an individual including the aspect of gender and sexuality.
 19

Figure 1. Hierarchy of

Conceptual Paradigm

This research paradigm that guided this study is shown in the schematic diagram

in Figure 1 which features factors related to the level of acceptability on homosexual

teachers.

This conceptual paradigm shows the input-process-output that was used to

execute the study. On the input, the researcher gathered the information needed in the

study using the questionnaire which includes: a) respondents’ personal demographic

background, b) level of acceptability on homosexual teachers, and c) perceived problems

on homosexual teachers. On the process part, the researcher consolidated the gathered

information using different statistical treatment, interpreting frequency mean, significant

relationship and difference, and analyzing the data. Lastly, on the output part, researcher

consolidated the given intervention of the respondents with regards to the perceived

problems on homosexual teachers.

 20

In general, the research paradigm shows the relationship between the respondents

personal-social demographic background and the level of acceptability on homosexual

teachers and the intervention that can be addressed.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Personal-Social Demographic Background

Proposed solution on the
a. type of sectarian school perceived problems on
b. sex homosexual teachers (by the
c. age
d. number of years in respondents)
teaching
e. employment status Proposed interventions (by the
f. educational attainment
g. religion researcher)
h. civil status
i. number of homosexual
family member
j. number of homosexual
 Comparison
friends  Relationship
 Statistical treatment

A. Level of Acceptability on
Homosexual Teachers
Characteristics/qualities
1. physical
2. social
3. moral/spiritual
Role in school community
B. Perceived Problems
on Homosexual
Teachers
 Personal
 Professionalism
 Morale

Perceived problems on
homosexual teachers

Figure 2. Conceptual Paradigm

 21

Synthesis of the Study

The review of related literature and related study revealed that many of the

teachers who identified themselves as homosexuals chose to hide their sexual orientation

and gender identity in the fear of being discriminated and being fired in their workplace.

Also, another reason why they chose to hide their real identity is because of the lack of

legal support and protection of their rights. The culture of “heteronormativity” has a big

impact in the level of “outness” and acceptance of homosexual teachers as well.

On the other hand, studies also show that a high acceptance and awareness of

school administrators and colleagues in the existence of LGBT educators in the education

society helps to boost the morale, job satisfaction and performance of LGBT teachers.

Result of the study also revealed that a general awareness and acceptance together with

the support from friends and relatives greatly affects LGBT teachers to continue in their

profession.

In relation to the said studies being conducted, this research study will be

conducted to know the problems and the level of acceptability on homosexual teachers.

The study do not intend to see or show discrimination on teachers in their sexual

orientation and gender identity, but it only aims to take a pulse on teachers’ perception

about acceptability on homosexual teachers.

 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods and process that was used in the conduct of the

research study. It was discussed as follows: Research Design, Respondents of the Study,

Research Instrument, Methods of Data Collection, and Statistical Treatment.

Research Design

This study utilizes a correlational-descriptive survey research design. It is

considered to be the most appropriate research design in this study because it enables to

researcher to generate data through standardize collection procedure based on highly

structured research instrument(s) and well defined study concept and related variables.

This will be used to determine the personal-social background of the respondents and the

level of acceptability and problems of homosexual teachers.

Respondents of the study

The participants in this research study are selected sectarian schools in the

Division of Tarlac Province for the school year 2018-2019.

The sectarian schools were chosen using random sampling according to what

sect/religion they represent. The researcher used fish bowl technique to randomly choose

eight (8) sectarian schools. Two (2) schools were chosen in each sect/religion as

representative.

The respondents that took part in the research study are the teacher in each

selected sectarian school.

 23

Number of
Sect/Religio Number of
Sectarian Sectarian School to be Sampled
n Schools Respondents
St. Rose Catholic School 21
Catholic 6
Victoria Catholic School 14
La Paz Christian Academy 8
Baptist 6
Conception Bible Baptist Academy 5

Paniqui Christian School 16

Methodst 6 Victoria United Methodist Learning
School
8

Cariño Adventist Multigrade School 6

Seventh Day
Adventist
6
Moncada Adventist Multigrade School 6

TOTAL 24 8 84
Table 1. Sectarian Schools

Research Instrument

The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire-checklist which were

answered by the teacher-respondents in the selected sectarian schools. The questionnaire

checklist was divided into three major parts. First, the profile of the teacher-respondents.

Second, the level of acceptability on homosexual teachers. And third, the problems

encountered on homosexual teachers and the solutions that can address in the perceived

problems on homosexual teachers.

The designed questionnaire-checklist was submitted to the five experts for

validation before the conduct of the research. The validators for the questionnaires were:

Joemar Bancifra, Head Teacher VI of Tarlac National High School; Dr. Zenaida Samson,

Head Teacher III of Eduardo Cojuangco National Vocational High School; Luisito

Tejada, Head Teacher I of Corazon C. Aquino High School; Carmela Pinili, Head
 24

Teacher I of Estipona National High School; and Agapito Gonzaga, Master Teacher I of

Victoria National High School. The validators were given questionnaire for establishing

content validity of the instrument and a copy of the questionnaire checklist which was

used in the conduct of the research. The summary of the result of validation shows High

Validity of the instrument and was recommended that can be used in the conduct of the

study.

Methods of Data Collection

The researcher collected data using a questionnaire-checklist. The questionnaire

was developed by the researcher using the statement of the problem as basis. The

administration of the questionnaire/survey was carried by the researcher. Teachers-

respondents from selected sectarian schools were given questionnaire-checklist to be

answered and were retrieved on the spot by the researcher after the teacher-respondents

accomplished answering it.

Statistical Treatment

The data was collected, collated and tabulated to facilitate analysis. Frequency

and percentage distribution, average weighted mean, Pearson-r correlation, and Chi-

square was utilized in presenting and analyzing the data for the profile variables.

The profile of the respondent was analyzed and presented using frequency and

percentage distribution.

The level of acceptability of the teacher-respondents on homosexual teachers was

analyzed using average weighted mean. The descriptive ranking of the level of
 25

acceptability on homosexual teachers was determined using the following mean ranges

score:

Score Range Interpretation

4.50-5.00 Strongly acceptable

3.50-4.49 Moderately Acceptable

2.50-3.49 Somewhat Acceptable

1.50-2.49 Slightly Acceptable

1.00-1.49 Least Acceptable

The most positive response was given 5 points and the score decrease as the

response goes negative.

To determine if there is a significant relationship between the profile of the

respondents and the level of acceptability on homosexual teachers, Pearson-r and chi-

square was used.

Lastly, mean and ranking was used in assessing the perceived problems on

homosexual teachers by the respondents.

On the other, no statistical treatment was employed in the proposed intervention

in the perceived problems on homosexual teachers by the respondents. However, all

answers were consolidated to get a general conclusion.

 CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS

This chapter presents the analyzed result and interpretation of the data gathered in

the conducted study. The presentation was done through tabulation that shows frequency

distribution, computed mean and percentage. Tabulated and statistically treated data were

the basis of the analysis and interpretation of this study.

Profile of the Respondents

The profile of the respondents includes: type of sectarian school, sex, age, number

of years in teaching, employment status, educational attainment, religion, civil status,

number of homosexual family member and number of homosexual friends. There are 84

teacher-respondents in this study who participated and are the basis of this study.

Table 2 shows the respondents’ profile. As shown in the table the 84 respondents are

distributed in different sectarian schools as follows: 13 or 15.5% of the respondents

belongs to Baptist schools, 24 or 28.6% of the respondents belongs to Methodist school,

35 or 41.7% of the respondents belongs to Catholic school, and 12 or 14.3% of the

respondents belongs to Seventh Day Adventist school. The result shows that the most

number of respondents in this study teaches in Catholic schools.

When it comes to sex of the respondents, 22 or 25.3% are male teachers while 62

or 74.7% are female teachers. It shows that most of the respondents are female teachers.

Meanwhile, in respondents’ age the distribution are as follows: 5 or 6.0% of the

respondents aged less than 20, 48 or 57.1% of the respondents aged 21 to 25, 9 or 10.7%

of the respondents aged 26 to 30, 4 or 4.8% of the respondents aged 31 to 35, 4 or 4.8%

of the respondents age 36 to 40, 6 or 7.1% of the respondents aged 41 to 45, 3 or 3.6% of
 27

respondents are aged 46 to 50, 3 or 3.6% of the respondents are aged 51 to 55, 1 or 1.2%

of the respondents aged 56 to 60, and 1 or 1.2% of the respondents aged 61 to 65. The

result shows that more than half of the respondents (57.1%) are aged 21 to 25, meaning

most of the respondents are young teachers.

On the number of years in teaching, 63 or 75.0% of the respondents have 5 and

below years in teaching, 7 or 8.3% of the respondents have 6 to 10 years in teaching, 4 or

4.8% of the respondents have 11 to 15 years in teaching, 5 or 6.0% of the respondents

have 16 to 20 years in teaching, 1 or 1.2% of the respondents has 21 to 24 years in

teaching, and 4 or 4.8% of the respondents have 26 and above years in teaching. The

result shows the more the half of the respondents (63%) has 5 years and below teaching

experience in their respective sectarian school.

Moreover, in respondents’ employment status, among 84 teachers who surveyed

20 or 27.0% are regular-permanent, 5 or 6.8% are provisional and 49 or 66.2% are

contractual. This shows that majority of the respondent are temporarily employed in the

schools.

Also, in the educational attainment of the respondents, 82 or 97.6% of the

respondents have Bachelor’s Degree, 1 or 1.2 % of the respondents has Master’s Degree

and 1or 1.2% of the respondents has completed other course or study. This shows that

almost all of the respondents completed Bachelor’s Degree as their highest educational

qualification.

In addition, in respondents religion, 1 or 1.2% of the respondents is Aglipay, 2 or

2.4% of the respondents are Born Again, 12 or 14.3% of the respondents are Baptist, 2 or
 28
Table 2
Profile of the Respondents
n=84
29
Profile Category Frequency Percentage
Baptist 13 15.5
Methodist 24 28.6
Type of Sectarian School
Catholic 35 41.7
Seventh Day Adventist 12 14.3
Male 22 25.3
Sex
Female 62 74.7
20 – below 5 6.0
21 -25 48 57.1
26 – 30 9 10.7
31 – 35 4 4.8
36 – 40 4 4.8
Age
41 -45 6 7.1
46 – 50 3 3.6
51 – 55 3 3.6
56 – 60 1 1.2
61 – 65 1 1.2
5 years – below 63 75.0
6 - 10 years 7 8.3
11 -15 years 4 4.8
Years in Teaching
16 - 20 years 5 6.0
21 - 25 years 1 1.2
26 years – above 4 4.8
Regular-Permanent 20 27.0
Employment Status Provisional 5 6.8
Contractual 49 66.2
Bachelor's Degree 82 97.6
Master's Degree 1 1.2
Educational Attainment
Doctorate Degree 0 0.0
Others 1 1.2
Aglipay Church 1 1.2
Born Again Christian 2 2.4
Baptist 12 14.3
Iglesia Ni Cristo 2 2.4
Islam 0 0.0
Religion Jehovah's Witness 0 0.0
Methodist 14 16.7
Protestant Church 0 0.0
Roman Catholic 40 47.6
Seventh Day Adventist 12 14.3
Others 1 1.2
Single 53 63.1
Civil Status
Married 31 36.9
None 50 61.7
1-5 relatives 28 34.6
Homosexual Family Member/Relative
6-10 relatives 2 2.5
11-up 1 1.2
None 25 30.1
1-5 friends 38 45.8
Homosexual Friends
6-10 friends 9 10.8
11-up 11 13.3
2.4% of the respondents are Iglesia Ni Cristo, 14 or 16.7%of the respondents are

Methodist, 40 or 47.6% of the respondents are Catholics, 12 or 14.3% of the respondents

are Seventh Day Adventist, and 1 or 1.2% of the respondents belongs to a religious group

which is not indicated in the survey. The result shows that almost half of the respondents

are Catholics.

Furthermore, on the respondents’ civil status, 53 or 63.1% of the respondents are

single, and 31 or 36.9% of the respondents are married. This shows the majority of the

respondents are single.

On the other hand, when ask about the number of homosexual family

member/relative the respondents have, 50 or 61.7% of the respondents do not have any

family member/relative who are homosexual, 28 or 34.6% of the respondents have 1 to 5

family member/relative who are homosexual, 2 or 2.5 of the respondents have 6 to 10

family member/relative who are homosexual, and 1 or 1.2% of the respondents has 11

and more family member/relative. The result shows that 50 of the respondents (61.7%)

do not have any family member/relative who is homosexual.

Lastly, when ask about the number of homosexual friends the respondents have,

25 or 30.1% of the respondents do not have any homosexual friend, 38 or 45.8% of the

respondents have 1 to 5 homosexual friends, 9 or 10.8% of the respondents have 6 to 10

homosexual friends, and 11 or 13.3% of the respondents have 11 and more homosexual

friends. This shows that almost half of the teacher-respondents (45.8%) have at least 1 to

5 homosexual friends and most of the respondents have homosexual friends.

30
 Level of Acceptability on Homosexual Teachers

The respondent’s level of acceptability on homosexual teachers was presented in

two tables. Table 3a presents the respondent’s level of acceptability on homosexual

teachers in terms of personal characteristics/qualities which was divided into three

categories: (a) physical qualities of homosexual teachers, (b) social qualities of

homosexual teacher, and (c) moral/spiritual aspect. Table 3c presents the level of

acceptability of respondents on homosexual teachers in terms of the role in school

community.

Table 3a
Level of Acceptability on Personal Characteristics/Qualities of Homosexual Teachers
n=84
Personal Characteristics/Qualities Frequency of Acceptability
LA SlA SoA MA StA Mean
A. On physical qualities, the homosexual teacher has/is
1. cross-dressing 48 18 11 4 1 1.68
2. sexually active 40 18 21 4 1 1.90
3. weak physique (male) 29 17 24 9 3 2.27
4. strong physique (female) 24 24 21 9 4 2.33
Average Weighted Mean 2.05 (Slightly Acceptable)
B. On social qualities, the homosexual teacher has/is
1. moody 21 30 29 3 0 2.17
2. adventurous 7 18 26 18 15 3.19
3. boisterous/noisy 18 27 19 14 6 2.56
4. talkative/chatty 14 23 25 12 10 2.77
5. frank 16 23 22 14 9 2.73
Average Weighted Mean 2.68 (Somewhat Acceptable)
C. On moral/spiritual, the homosexual teacher has/is
1. pretentious 30 25 18 7 3 2.13
2. tactless 28 26 19 7 4 2.20
3. sexually active 29 27 18 4 6 2.18
4. prefer to have sexual relationship with same sex 40 22 9 7 6 2.01
Average Weighted Mean 2.13 (Slightly Acceptable)
Legend: 1.00 – 1.49 – Least Acceptable; 1.50 – 2.49 – Slightly Acceptable; 2.50 – 3.49 – Somewhat Acceptable; 3.50 – 4.49 –
Moderately Acceptable; 4.50 – 5.00 – Strongly Acceptable

31
 On the respondents’ level of acceptability on homosexual teacher in terms of

personal characteristics/qualities, in the category of physical qualities, teacher-

respondents slightly accept the following physical qualities of homosexual teachers:

cross-dressing with the mean 1.68, sexually active with the mean 1.90, weak physique

(male) with the mean 2.27, and strong physique (female) with the mean 2.33. In addition,

when it comes to the category of social qualities, respondents slightly accepts the social

quality of the homosexual teacher as moody with the mean 2.17. Moreover, the

respondents somewhat accept the following social qualities of the homosexual teacher:

adventurous with the mean 3.19, boisterous/noisy with the mean 2.56, talkative/chatty

with the mean 2.77, and frank with the mean 2.73. Going on to the third category which

is the moral/spiritual aspect of homosexual teachers, respondents slightly accept the

following: pretentious with the mean 2.13, tactless with the mean 2.20, sexually active

with the mean 2.18, and prefer to have sexual relationship with same sex with the mean

2.01. In general, based on the overall weighted mean (2.29), the teacher-respondents

slightly accept the personal characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers.

Table 3b
Summary on Level of Acceptability on Personal Characteristics/Qualities of Homosexual
Teachers
n=84
Personal Characteristics/Qualities Frequency of Acceptability
Mean Description
A. Physical qualities 2.05 Slightly Acceptable

B. Social qualities 2.68 Somewhat Acceptable

2.13 Slightly Acceptable

C. Moral/Spiritual
Overall Weighted Mean 2.29 Slightly Acceptable

32
 On the other hand, in the level of acceptability on homosexual teacher in terms of

role in school, teachers respondents moderately accept the following role in school

community: subject teacher with the mean 3.53, class adviser with the mean 3.54, subject

leader/level coordinator with the mean 3.57, grade level coordinator with the mean 3.55,

and chairman on programs with the mean 3.55. Moreover, the teacher-respondents

somewhat accept the following role in school community: club adviser with the mean

3.49, and guidance counselor with the mean 3.06. in general, based on the average

weighted mean (3.47), the teacher-respondents somewhat accepts the listed role in school

community portrayed by homosexual teachers.

The level of acceptability of respondents on the characteristics/qualities and role

in school community found that the most acceptable trait of a homosexual teacher are

strong physique (female teacher), being adventurous, being tackles, and subject

leader/coordinator. The least acceptable trait of homosexual teacher are cross-dressing,

Table 3c
Level of Acceptability on Role in School Community of Homosexual Teachers
n=84
Role in School Community Frequency of Acceptability

LA SlA SoA MA StA Mean

Homosexual teachers serve as:

[Link] teacher 10 12 16 14 31 3.53

2. class adviser 10 11 17 14 31 3.54

3. subject leader/coordinator 9 8 22 15 29 3.57

4. grade level coordinator 8 10 20 18 27 3.55

5. club adviser 10 10 19 17 27 3.49

6. chairman on programs 9 12 15 18 29 3.55

7. guidance counselor 13 17 22 14 17 3.06

Average Weighted Mean 3.47 (Somewhat Acceptable)

Legend: 1.00 – 1.49 – Least Acceptable; 1.50 – 2.49 – Slightly Acceptable; 2.50 – 3.49 – Somewhat Acceptable; 3.50 – 4.49 –Moderately
Acceptable; 4.50 – 5.00 – Strongly Acceptable

33

moody, prefer to have sexual relationship with same sex and being a guidance counselor.

According to Reinhardt (1997), the masculinity of lesbian is more acceptable than

femininity of gay individuals. Town (1996) state that gays had to work at constructing

masculine physique to be accepted. Bolich (2007) found that most of the respondents

cannot accept homosexual cross-dressers. Bibby (2004) in his study about the attitude

towards LGBT found that most of the respondent have negative attitude when it comes to

homosexual relationship. Respondents viewed same sex relationship as morally wrong

and should not be practice. A survey conducted by Jackson (2007) conclude that support

from school administration is a major impact in the performance of homosexual teachers.

However, in a survey conducted by Smith (2008), teachers, counselors and specialist

reported that they perceived their workplace as homophobic, racist and transphobic. A

recent study conducted by Tongzhi and Transgender Equality Report (2014) state that

many homosexual teachers were denied to teach because of their sexual orientation some

are ousted when found to be homosexual.

Perceived Problems on Homosexual Teachers

On the perceived problems on homosexual teachers, respondents were asked to

rate the listed perceived problems on homosexual teachers from their point of view. They

were asked to rank the listed perceived problem from one (1) as the most encountered

problem to five (5) as the least encountered problem. Table 4 presents the perceived

problem on homosexual teachers which were ranked by the respondents from the most
 34

encountered (1) to the least encountered (2). It was divided into three categories: (a)

personal/social, (b) professionalism, and (c) morale.

On the personal/social category, respondents agreed that the most encountered

problem on homosexual teacher were making gestures not appropriates to their preferred

orientation and using inappropriate language (e.g. gay lingo) both get an weighted mean

of 16.60. It was followed by physical modification not appropriate to preferred

orientation (14.53), scandalous/outrageous acts (13.13) and last to the list is extreme

closeness (13.93)

Meanwhile, on the professionalism category, the most perceived problem on

homosexual teacher according to the respondents was disrespect from students with a

weighted mean of 17.93, second to the list is being ridiculed in the school community

with a weighted mean of 16.20, third is unjust treatment from colleagues with a weighted

mean of 14.27, fourth is unjust treatment from school administrators with a weighted

mean of 13.87 and fifth is deprivation of privileges with a weighted mean of 9.13.

Lastly, on the morale category, respondents chose being attracted to same sex as

the most perceived problem on homosexual teacher with a weighted mean of 15.93. It

was seconded by sexual relationship with same sex with a weighted mean of 15.27,

followed by malicious dressing with a weighted mean of 15.13, then disobedience to

religious doctrines with a weighted mean of 13.13. The least perceived problem in this

category according to the respondents was same sex marriage with a weighted mean of

13.07.
 35
Table 4
Perceived Problems on Homosexual Teachers
n=84
Perceived Problems Weighted Mean Rank

Personal/Social

 Physical modification not appropriate to preferred orientation 14.53 3

 Making gestures not appropriate to preferred orientation 16.60 1.5

 Using inappropriate language (e.g. gay lingo) 16.60 1.5

 Scandalous/outrageous acts 13.13 5

 .Extreme closeness 13.93 4

Professionalism

 Being ridiculed in the school community 16.20 2

 Unjust treatment from school administrators 13.87 4

 Unjust treatments from colleagues 14.27 3

 Disrespect from students 17.93 1

 Deprivation of privileges 9.13 5

Morale

 Sexual relationship with same sex 15.27 2

 Being attracted to same sex 15.93 1

 Malicious dressing 15.13 3

 Same sex marriage 13.07 5

 Disobedience to religious doctrines 13.13 4

Note: The Weighted Mean is computed by giving corresponding weights to each ranks in the frequency then dividing it by 15.
Weight 1 is given to Rank 5, 2 for Rank 4, 3 for Rank 3, 4 for Rank 2, and 5 for Rank 1. The one with the highest weighted
mean per category (Personal/Social, Professionalism, Morale) is given the Rank 1.

The result shows that the most perceived problems of respondents on homosexual

teachers are making gestures not appropriate to their respective gender roles, using
inappropriate language, disrespect from students, and being attracted to same sex. On the

other hand, the least perceived problems are being scandalous, deprivation of privileges,

and same-sex marriage. Kirby (1994) in a survey found that teachers have negative

36

attitude towards gay and lesbian people. Prior to this a study conducted by Kantor (1987)

found that most of the teachers feel uncomfortable working with openly lesbian or gay

colleagues. Also, Litton (1999) on a study conduct to assess LGBT teachers found that

most of the interviewed LGBT teachers experience oppression by students and school

administrators. Likewise, Birkett, [Link] (2009) state that homosexual students and staff

experience homophobic harassment by peers and school staff. A study conducted by

Community Business (2012) reports unfriendly attitudes towards homosexual employees

such as being denied in promotion and job offer were they are qualified. Kushner and

Helbling (1995) in a survey found that majority of teachers surveyed believed that being

attracted of two consenting individual with same sex and having sexual relationship is

morally wrong.

Significant Relationship between the Profile of the Respondents and the Level of

Acceptability on Homosexual Teachers

Table 5a and 5b shows the significant relationship of the respondents’ socio-

demographic profile and their level of acceptability on homosexual teacher which were

divided into two: qualities/characteristics and roles in school community.

 Comparing the level of acceptability on personal qualities/characteristics of

homosexual teachers and profile of the respondents, Table 6a shows the following

results:

The type of sectarian schools of respondents results with r=0.355 with a

significant value of 0.000. The result shows a significant relationship between the level of

37

acceptability on the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the type of

sectarian schools of the respondents.

Meanwhile, the sex of respondents results with r=-0.005 with a significant value

of 0.967. The result shows no significant relationship between the level of acceptability

on the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the sex of the respondents.

Table 5a
Relationship of Level of Acceptability in Personal Characteristics/Qualities on the Profile
of Respondents

Level of Acceptability
Profile Qualities/Characteristics
Statistics Sig. Interpretation

Type of Sectarian School a 0.355* 0.000 Significant

Sex c -0.005 0.967 Not Significant

Age b -0.201 0.670 Not Significant

Years in Teaching b -0.294* 0.007 Significant

Employment Status a 0.232 0.241 Not Significant

a
Religion 0.347* 0.003 Significant
Civil Status c -0.197 0.072 Not Significant

Number of Homosexual Family c 0.200 0.074 Not Significant

Number of Homosexual Friends b 0.314* 0.004 Significant

Note: Superscript (a) indicates that the test used was Chi-square test of Independence; (b) Spearman Rank-Order Correlation; and (c)
Point-Biserial Correlation
Significant at 5% level
 Likewise, the age of respondents results with r=-0.201 with a significant value of

0.670. This shows no significant relationship between the level of acceptability on the

characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the age of the respondents.

In addition, the years in teaching of respondents results with r=-0.294 with a

significant value of 0.007. The result shows a significant relationship between the level of

38

acceptability on the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the years in

teaching of the respondents.

Moreover, employment status of respondents results with r=0.232 with a

significant value of 0.241. The result shows no significant relationship between the level

of acceptability on the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the

employment status of the respondents.

Further, the religion of respondents results with r=0.347 with a significant value

of 0.003. The result shows a significant relationship between the level of acceptability on

the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the religion of the respondents.

Furthermore, the civil status of respondents results with r=-0.197 with a

significant value of 0.072. This shows no significant relationship between the level of

acceptability on the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the civil status of

the respondents.

Also, the number of homosexual family of respondents results with r=-0.200 with

a significant value of 0.074. The result shows no significant relationship between the

level of acceptability on the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the

number of homosexual family of the respondents.

 Lastly, the number of homosexual friends of respondents results with r=-0.314

with a significant value of 0.004. The result shows a significant relationship between the

level of acceptability on the characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers and the

number of homosexual friends of the respondents.

39

The acceptability on the physical characteristics/qualities of homosexual teachers

shows a significant relationship on the profile of the respondents in the type of sectarian

school, years of teaching, religion, and number of homosexual friends. According to

McNamara (1992), religious schools have more positive attitude towards homosexual

which support the finding of the study. As stated by Convey (1992) in his study found

that sectarian schools are more tolerant to physical qualities of homosexuals. Moreover,

Jensen, [Link] (1988) states that age and friends, was important influencers on the

acceptability on homosexuals. The study also found that a more educated individual had

more approval to homosexual. In addition, Diaz (2000) found a significant relationship

on the acceptance of peers/friends on the performance of homosexual teachers. On the

study conducted by Crowell (2007), he found that one great factor of acceptance on

homosexual is religion. Fisher et al. (1994) determined that “Baptists, fundamentalists,

and those who describe themselves only as ‘Christians’ report higher levels of antigay

prejudice than do Catholics, Jews, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians”. They

also assert that frequency of worship is positively correlated to negative attitudes to

homosexuality. All of this recent studies support the result and finding of this study.
 On the other hand, comparing the level of acceptability on the roles in school

community of homosexual teachers and profile of the respondents, Table 6b shows the

following results:

The type of sectarian schools of respondents results with r=0.392 with a

significant value of 0.000. The result shows a significant relationship between the level of

40

acceptability on the roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the type of

sectarian schools of the respondents.

Additionally, the sex of respondents results with r=-0.005 with a significant value

of 0.965. The result shows no significant relationship between the level of acceptability

on the roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the sex of the respondents.

Table 5b
Relationship of Level of Acceptability in Roles in School Community on the Profile of
Respondents

Level of Acceptability
Profile Roles
Statistics Sig. Interpretation
Type of Sectarian School a 0.392 0.000 Significant

Sex c 0.005 0.965 Not Significant

Age b -.320* 0.003 Significant
Years in Teaching b -0.265* 0.015 Significant
Employment Status a 0.276 0.186 Not Significant
a
Religion 0.374* 0.000 Significant

Civil Status c -0.220* 0.045 Significant

Number of Homosexual Family c 0.281* 0.011 Significant

Number of Homosexual Friends b 0.544* 0.000 Significant

Note: Superscript (a) indicates that the test used was Chi-square test of Independence; (b) Spearman Rank-Order
Correlation; and (c) Point-Biserial Correlation.
 Significant at 5% level

Further, the age of respondents results with r=-0.320 with a significant value of

0.003. This shows that there is significant relationship between the level of acceptability

on the roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the age of the respondents.

Also, the years in teaching of respondents results with r=-0.265 with a significant

value of 0.015. The result shows a significant relationship between the level of

41

acceptability on the roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the years in

teaching of the respondents.

Furthermore, the employment status of respondents results with r=0.276 with a

significant value of 0.186. The result shows no significant relationship between the level

of acceptability on roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the

employment status of the respondents.

Moreover, the religion of respondents results with r=0.374 with a significant

value of 0.000. The result shows a significant relationship between the level of

acceptability on the roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the religion

of the respondents.

Also, the civil status of respondents results with r=-0.220 with a significant value

of 0.045. This shows that there is a significant relationship between the level of

acceptability on the roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the civil

status of the respondents.

Likewise, the number of homosexual family of respondents results with r=-0.281

with a significant value of 0.011. The result shows a significant relationship between the
level of acceptability on the roles in school community of homosexual teachers and the

number of homosexual family of the respondents.

Similarly, the number of homosexual friends of respondents results with r=-0.544

with a significant value of 0.000. The result shows that there is a significant relationship

between the level of acceptability on the roles in school community of homosexual

teachers and the number of homosexual friends of the respondents.

42

The acceptability on the role in school community of homosexual teachers shows

a significant relationship on the profile of the respondents in the type of sectarian school,

age, years of teaching, religion, civil status, number of homosexual family member and

number of homosexual friends. The result was congruent with the survey conducted by

Kushner and Helbling (1995) on sectarian school, more than half of the respondents

believed that schools should not terminated when found that a teacher was a homosexual

which proved that homosexuality was not a ground in rejecting or approving in

employment. Moreover, the result was also supported by Jensen, [Link]. (1988), they found

that age, family closeness, and marital/civil status affects the acceptability on

homosexuals. Additionally, Jackson (2007) found that teachers who had reached the

authentic phase in their profession are more open and acceptable to homosexual issues.

Meanwhile, the study of Soloff (2001) proved that educators who were highly religious

were most able to change their negative attitude towards gay and lesbian colleagues.

Furthermore, Savin- Williams (1989) in their study also found that there is a significant

relationship between the acceptance of family member and self-esteem of homosexual

family member which can affect his or her performance and work. Lastly, in a survey
conducted by Reinhardt (1997) found that a straight male or female who had friends and

acquaintance who were gay and lesbian or had a positive interaction with them were less

likely to have homophobic attitude.

The result was in line with the hypothesis of this study that there is a significant

relationship between the personal-social demographic background of the respondents and

their acceptability on homosexual teachers.

43

Proposed Solutions in the Perceived Problems on Homosexual Teachers

The last part of the survey which was undertaken by the respondents is to give at

least two (2) solutions that can addressed on the listed perceived problems on

homosexual teachers.

The most common answers of respondents are as follows: (a) Have respect to

homosexual teachers, (b) Schools must provide Gender and Development (GAD)

seminars to all teachers to be orientated about the diverse sexual orientation gender

identity not only in the teachers but also in students and how to deal with it, (c) Being

open-minded about the existence of homosexual teachers and acceptance on it, (d)

Homosexual teachers must act professionally not only in school community but even

outside the campus, and (e) Schools must be oriented and/or strengthen the policy with

regards to gender equality. Other answers include: (a) have screening on teacher

applicants with regards to their gender identity, (b) avoid having affair with same sex, (c)

homosexual teachers must know their limitations, and (d) homosexual teachers must

avoid being too vulgar in and outside school.

 The result was supported by Diaz (2000) which concludes that respecting

individual difference is a great factor on accepting homosexuals. In addition to this, Cura

(2016) suggest that having gender responsive and sensitive program to provide the needs

of every gender and promote gender equality in the society.

Proposed Interventions

As part of the research study, the researcher proposed intervention that can be

used or implemented by sectarian school in order to alleviate problems and acceptance on

44

homosexual teachers. The proposed interventions are based on the most perceived

problems on homosexual teacher and solutions to those problems given by the

respondents while answering the survey form.

Most Perceived Problem on Homosexual Proposed Intervention

Teachers

Personal/Social  Conducting Personality

 Making gestures not appropriate to Development Seminars for

preferred orientation homosexuals or GAD (Gender and

 Using inappropriate language (e.g. Development) Seminar

gay lingo)
Professionalism  Providing school code of conduct

 Disrespect from students that protects the right of school

 Being ridiculed in school staff belonging to LGBT

community community.
Morale  Develop policies regarding
  Being attracted to same sex recruitment of teachers and code

 Sexual relationship with same sex of ethics for school staffs.

Table 6. Proposed Intervention in the Perceived Problems

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations

that are formulated based on the results.

Summary of Findings

Profile of the Respondents

There are 84 teacher-respondents who participated in this study. Most of them

teach in Catholic schools (41.7%). More than half of the respondents are female (74.7%).

Respondents who participated in the study mostly aged 21 to 25 years (57.1%), have a

teaching experienced of 5 years and below (75%), contractual teachers in their respective

schools (66.2%) and almost all are bachelor’s degree holder as their highest educational

qualification (97.6%). Almost half of the respondents are Catholics (47.6%). Also, most

of the respondents are single (63.1%). As to number of homosexual family member or

relative, more than have of the respondents do not have any homosexual relative (61.7%),

however when it comes to homosexual friends more than half of the respondents declared
to have homosexual friends, 45.8% or 38 of the respondents declared to have at least 1 to

5 homosexual friends.

Level of Acceptability on Homosexual Teachers

The level of acceptability on homosexual teachers are based on personal

characteristics/qualities and role in school community. On the level of acceptability on

personal characteristics/qualities, homosexual teachers are slightly acceptable on their

46

physical qualities with an average mean of 2.05, somewhat acceptable on their social

qualities with an average mean of 2.68 and slightly acceptable on their moral/spiritual

qualities with an average mean of 2.13. Overall, homosexual teachers are slightly

acceptable (2.29) based on their personal characteristics/qualities. Moreover, on the

acceptability on role in school community, homosexual teachers are somewhat acceptable

with a weighted mean of 3.47.

Problems Perceived on Homosexual Teachers

Problems perceived by respondents on homosexual teachers are in three

categories: personal/social, professionalism and morale. Problems perceived on

homosexual teachers are ranked as follows: (a) on personal social – making gestures not

appropriate to preferred orientation and using inappropriate language (e.g. gay lingo)

(16.60), physical modification not appropriate to preferred orientation (14.53), extreme

closeness (13.93), and scandalous/outrageous act (13.13); (b) on professionalism –

disrespect from students (17.93), being ridiculed in the school community (16.20), unjust

treatment from colleagues (14.27), unjust treatment from school administrator (13.81),
and deprivation of privileges (9.13); (c) on morale – being attracted to same sex (15.93),

sexual relationship with same sex (15.27), malicious dressing (15.13), disobedience to

religious doctrines (13.13), and same sex marriage (13.07).

Significant Relationship between the Profile of the Respondents and the Level of

Acceptability on Homosexual Teachers

On the acceptability on homosexual teachers based on their personal

characteristics/qualities, there is a significant relationship on the profile of the respondent

47

in terms of: type of sectarian schools (0.000), years in teaching (0.007), religion (0.003),

and number of homosexual friends (0.004). When it comes to the level of acceptability on

role in school community of homosexual teachers, there is a significant relationship on

the profile of the respondents in terms of: type of sectarian schools (0.000), age (0.003),

years in teaching (0.015), religion (0.000), civil status (0.045), number of homosexual

family member (0.011), and number of homosexual friends (0.000).

Proposed Solutions in the Perceived Problems on Homosexual Teachers

The solutions given by the respondents in the perceived problems on homosexual

teachers includes: giving respect, conducting Gender and Development (GAD) seminars,

being open-minded, act professionally, strengthening the policy of school with regards to

gender equality, screening of teacher applicants, avoid having affair with same sex,

knowing ones limitations, and avoid being too vulgar in and outside school.

Proposed Intervention

The interventions that can be done in the perceived problems on homosexual

teachers in sectarian schools includes: conducting personality development seminars for

homosexual teachers or GAD (Gender and Development) Seminar, providing school

code of conduct that protects the right of school staff belonging to LGBT community,

and develop policies regarding recruitment of teachers and code of ethics for school

staffs.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis of data, and the findings in the study, the following

conclusions can be made:

48

1. Most of the teacher-respondents came from Catholic school, female, ages 21 to 25 with

not more than 5 years teaching experience, contractual employee, mostly bachelor’s

degree holder, Catholics, single, mostly no homosexual family member but have at least

1 to 5 homosexual friends.

2. Homosexual teachers are slightly acceptable on their physical characteristics/qualities

and somewhat acceptable on role in school community.

3. The most perceived problems on homosexual teachers in personal/social are making

gestures not appropriate to preferred orientation and using inappropriate language, in

professionalism is disrespect from students, and in morale is being attracted to same sex.

4. The type of sectarian school, years in teaching, religion, and number of homosexual

friends affects the level of acceptability of respondents on the personal

characteristics/qualities of homosexual teacher. On the other hand, the type of sectarian

school, age, years in teaching, religion, civil status, number of homosexual family, and

number of homosexual friends affects the level of acceptability of respondents on the role

in school community of homosexual teacher.

5. Respect to homosexual teachers, providing Gender and Development (GAD) seminars,

being open-minded, acting professionally, and practicing gender equality are the most

49

common solution given by the respondents in the perceived problems on homosexual

teachers.

6. Providing policies and developing programs can help in sectarian schools accepting

homosexual teachers.

Recommendation

With the finding and conclusion drawn from this research, the following are

recommend:

1. School administrators must strengthen the policy with regards to gender equality and

gender sensitivity not only for the students but also for the teachers.

2. Conduct seminar related to Gender and Development Issues (GAD), so that school

officials will know how to deal with homosexuals.

3. Proper orientation of the do’s and don’ts of teachers (homosexual and “straight”) must

be made in line with the school policy with regards to gender and sexuality.

4. Respect for individual differences that is the most important thing that everyone should

have in order to live with happiness and productivity.

5. More researches with regards to issues on homosexuals must be made in order to be

aware of their situation in the society and understand them more.

50

There is a saying that “the only permanent thing in this world is change. It is true

in all aspect in man’s life. Every time we change, whether we like it or not. People

change – our personality, behavior, likes and dislikes, and even accepting and rejecting

things.

The existence of homosexuals and accepting them is a manifestation of that

saying. Maybe decades ago, homosexuals hide their identity because of the fear of being

rejected, and they even considered as an illness or disorder – they are not accepted in our

society. But today, things change, there are many groups organized to protect their rights,

and little by little they are being accepted in our society. They can now contribute to the

growth and development of the society for they are given opportunity to prove

themselves on what they can do.

 51

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

“BEING LGBT IN SCHOOL”, 2016. A Resource for Post-Primary Schools to Prevent

Homophobic and Transphobic Bullying and Support LGBT Students, glen = gay
+ lesbian quality network

Bibby, Reginald W. (2004). Ethos Versus Ethics: Canada, the U.S., and Homosexuality.
(presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, San
Francisco, April 2004).

Birkett M., Espelage D. L., & Koenig B. (2009). LGB and questioning students in
schools: The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on
negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989-1000.

Blount, J.M. (1996, Summer). Manly men and womanly women: Deviance, gender role
polarization and the shift in women’s school employment, 1900 – 1976. Harvard
Educational Review.
Blount, J.M. (2000, Spring). Spinsters, bachelors, and other gender transgressors in
school employment, 1850 – 1990. Review of Educational Research.

Blount, J.M. (2005). Fit to teach: Same-sex desire, gender, and school work in the
twentieth century. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Bolich, G. (2007). Today's Transgender Realities: Crossdressing in Context (Vol. 2, p.

55, 221,244). Raleigh, North Carolina: Psyche's Press.

Convey, J. J. (1992). Catholic Schools make a difference: Twenty-five years of research.

Washington, DC: National Catholic Educational Association.

Fisher, R., Derison, D., Polley III, C., Cadman, J. & Johnston, D (1994). Religiousness,
religious orientation, and attitudes towards gays and lesbians. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 614-630.
52

Harbeck, K. M. (1997). Gay and lesbian educators: Personal freedoms, public

constraints. Malden, MA: Amethyst Press and Productions.

Harkins, W. (1993). Introducing the Catholic elementary school principal: What

principals say about themselves, their values, their schools. Washington, DC:
National Catholic Educational Association.

Hoffman, John P. and Alan S. Miller. 1998. “Denominational Influences on Socially

Divisive Issues: Polarization or Continuity?” Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 37:528-546.

Jackson, J. (2007). Unmasking identities: An exploration of the lives of gay and lesbian

Jensen, L., Gambles, D., & Olsen, J. (1988). Attitudes toward homosexuality: A cross
cultural analysis of predictors. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry,
34(1), 47-57.

Juul, T., & Repa, T. (1993). A survey to examine the relationship of the openness of self-
identified lesbian, gay male, and bisexual public school teachers to job stress and
 job satisfaction. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

Kushner, R., & Helbling, M. (1995). The people who work there: The report of the
Catholic elementary school teacher survey. Washington, DC: National Catholic
Educational Association.

Litton, E. F. (1999, April). Stories of courage and hope: Gay and lesbian Catholic
elementary school teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational ResearchAssociation, Montreal, Canada.

Markow, D., & Fein, J. (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate in America a
survey of students and teachers. New York: Harris Interactive, Inc. & Gay,
Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

McNamara, P. H. (1992). Conscience first, tradition second: A study of young American

Catholics. Albany: State University of New York Press.
53

Melillo, S. M. (2003). Heteronormativity and teaching: A phenomenological study of

lesbian teachers. Paper presented at the Annual AERA National Conference,
Chicago, IL.

Pidoche, Stuart, [Link]. “Teachers in Trouble: An Exploration of the Normative Character

of Teaching”, Toronta, University of Toronto Press, Inc. 1997

Proposed model of lesbian identity development: an empirical examination. Chapman

BE, Brannock JC J Homosex. 1987; 14(3-4):69-80 teachers. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.

Reinhardt, B. (1997, August). Examining correlates of homophobia in heterosexual

college students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago.

Sasse, Connie R., Person-to-Person, Revised, 1973

Savin-Williams, R. C. (1989). Parental influence on the self-esteem of gay and lesbian

youths: A reflected appraisal method. In G. Herdt (Ed.), Gay and lesbian youth
 (pp. 93-110). Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

Soloff, P. R. (2001). Inservice and preservice teachers’ attitudes toward addressing

homosexuality in a school setting (Doctoral dissertation, University of
California, Berkeley, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(02), 552A.

“Tongzhi and Transgender Equality Report” (2014). Hong KongChristian Institute,

Leslovestudy, OutandVote and Queer Theology Academy.

Town, S. (1998). Is it safe to come out yet?: The impact of secondary schooling on
the positive identity development of ten young gay men, or, that’s a queer way to
behave. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New York.

54

Unpublished Material

Cura, Kevin Chaster M., “Attitude of Rural Folks towards Gays on Capas, Tarlac”,
December 2016

Diaz, Celedonia C. “Teaching Performance and Acceptability of Homosexual Teaching

in Eastern Pangasinin”, February 2000

Domenden, Nhorly U., “Acceptability and Problems of Homosexual”, February 2007

Hebl, Jessica L., “A Study Of Teachers’ Attitudes Towardgay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, And
Transgender Issues”, December 2000

Smith, Nancy J., [Link]., “A National Study of LGBT Educators’ Perceptions of Their
Workplace Climate”, March 25, 2008

Other Sources
Sally McManus, 2003. Sexual Orientation Research Phase 1: A Review on
Methodological Approaches. Retrieved on June 18, 2018 from
[Link]

Gender Research Centre, CUHK, 2016. Study on Legislation against Discrimination on

the Grounds of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status. Retrieved on
May 24, 2018 from [Link]
16/english/panels/ca/papers/[Link]

Gabriel Hipolito & Biance Suarez, 2015. DLSU Issues Revisited: DLSU Students Weigh
in on LGBT Rights in the Philippines. Retrieved on June 17, 2018 from
[Link]
rights-in-the-philippines/

55

House Bill No. 267 introduced by Representative Geraldine B. Roman, 2016. Retrieved
on May 24, 2018 from [Link]

Committee Report No. 101, Sponsored by Representatives Emmilines Y. Aglipay-Villar,

Kaka J. Bao-ao and Geraldine B. Roman, 2017. Retrieved on May 24, 2018 from
[Link]
 56
Appendix A

QUESTIONNAIRE CHECKLIST

PART I: Respondents’ Profile

Direction: Please put a check mark (√) corresponding the appropriate response or provide
the needed information on the space provided.

A. Name (optional): _________________________________________________________

B. Name of School:__________________________________________________________

C. Type of Sectarian School:

Baptist ( ) Catholic ( )

Methodist ( ) Seventh Day Adventist ( )

D. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( )

E. Age: 20-below ( ) 36-40 ( ) 56-60 ( )

21-25 ( ) 41-45 ( ) 61-65 ( )

26-30 ( ) 56-50 ( ) 66-above ( )

 31-35 ( ) 51-55 ( )

F. Number of years in teaching:

5 yrs.- below ( ) 11-15 yrs. ( ) 21-25 yrs. ( )

6-10 yrs. ( ) 16-20 yrs. ( ) 26 yrs.-above ( )

G. Employment Status: Regular-Permanent ( ) Provisional ( ) Contractual ( )

H. Highest educational attainment:

Bachelor’s Degree ( )

Master’s Degree ( )

Doctorate Degree ( )

Others (please specify): ___________

57
I. Religion: Aglipay Church ( ) Jehovah’s Witness ( )

Born Again Christian ( ) Methodist ( )

Baptist ( ) Protestant Church ( )

Iglesia Ni Cristo ( ) Roman Catholic ( )

Islam ( ) Seventh Day Adventist ( )

Others (pls. specify):__________________

J. Civil status: Single ( ) Married ( ) Separated ( ) Widow/er ( )

K. How homosexual family member or relative (up to 2 nd degree of consanguinity) do

you have?
None ( ) 1-5 ( ) 6-10 ( ) 11-up ( )

L. How many homosexual friends do you have?

None ( ) 1-5 ( ) 6-10 ( ) 11-up ( )

PART II: On Personal Characteristics/Qualities

Please rate the level of your acceptability in the following homosexual teacher characteristics
 using the scale below:

Legend: 1 –Least Acceptable; 2 –Slightly Acceptable; 3 – Somewhat Acceptable;

4 –Moderately Acceptable; 5 –Strongly Acceptable

Characteristics 1 2 3 4 5
A. On physical qualities, the homosexual teacher has/is:
1. cross-dressing
2. sexually active
3. weak physique (male)
4. strong physique (female)
B. On social qualities, the homosexual teacher has/is: 1 2 3 4 5
1. moody
2. adventurous
3. boisterous/noisy
4. talkative/chatty
5. frank
C. On moral/spiritual, the homosexual teacher has/is: 1 2 3 4 5
1. pretentious
2. tactless
3. sexually active
4. prefer to have sexual relationship with same sex
58
PART III: On Role in School Community

Please rate the level of your acceptability in the following homosexual teachers’ role/job in
the school community using the scale below:

Legend: 1 –Least Acceptable; 2 –Slightly Acceptable; 3 – Somewhat Acceptable;

4 –Moderately Acceptable; 5 –Strongly Acceptable

Role in School Community 1 2 3 4 5

Homosexual teachers serves as:
1. subject teacher
2. class adviser
3. subject leader/coordinator
4. grade level coordinator
5. club adviser
6. chairman on programs
7. guidance counselor
PART IV: Perceived Problems on Homosexual Teachers

Please rank the following problems encountered on homosexual teachers by numbering from
one (1) to five (5), assigning number one (1) as the most encountered problem and number
five (5) as the least encountered problem.

Personal/Social
____a. physical modification not appropriate to preferred orientation

____b. making gestures not appropriate to preferred orientation

____c. using inappropriate language (e.g. gay lingo)

____d. scandalous/outrageous acts

____e. extreme closeness

others (pls. specify if any):_____________________________________________________

Professionalism

____a. being ridiculed in the school community

____b. unjust treatment from school administrators

____c. unjust treatment from colleagues

____d. disrespect from students

____e. deprivation of privileges (promotion/reclassification from current position)

others (pls. specify if any):_____________________________________________________

59
Morale

____a. sexual relationship with same sex

____b. being attracted to same sex

____c. malicious dressing

____d. same sex marriage

____e. disobedience to religious doctrines

others (pls. specify if any):_____________________________________________________

PART V: Give at least two (2) solutions that can address in the perceived problems on
homosexual teachers.

1._________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
2._________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for participating!!!