Early Childhood Administrators Views on LGBTQ Books: A Mixed Methods Study

Abstract

There is limited empirical literature on the study of LGBTQ books, and even less on the perspective of early childhood center administrators on these books. Hence, a mixed methods study surveying the administrators of high-quality early childhood centers across the state of North Carolina was implemented. Sixty-five participants completed the survey, and both quantitative and qualitative data were gathered and analyzed. The findings indicated that the majority (64%) of the administrators had read at least one book from the listed LGBTQ books, while the rest had never read a single book from the listing. Their familiarity with the book content was based on reading the book only once, and they only “somewhat” recalled the content of the book. These findings indicate a lack of regular use of LGBTQ books in the centers. The administrators made both negative and positive comments on the survey administered and the books in general. The results indicate a need for education and training to focus on the connection of LGBTQ topics and how they are developmentally appropriate, as well as the connection to the NAEYC Code of Ethics.

1. Introduction

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) content in educational settings is currently receiving a great deal of political attention, as 46 of the 50 U.S. states saw the introduction of 230 anti-LGBTQ education bills in 2023 (https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights?impact=school (accessed on 18 March 2024). In the state in which the current study was conducted, North Carolina (NC), the senate recently overrode the Governor’s veto of Bill 49, titled the Parents Bill of Rights, which, among other things, enacted laws restricting instruction and discussion about gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality in kindergarten through fourth grade classrooms unless a child asks a question about it in the context of a classroom activity. Many of the proponents of this bill supported it based on their belief that sex and sexuality should not be discussed with young children. In addition, while the state senate does not control early childhood care educational (ECCE) settings, as it does the public school system, these same beliefs are often cited as reasons to deny LGBTQ content in ECCE centers (Beren, 2013; Robinson, 2005). Simply put, many believe that children do not and/or should not know about sexuality (Blaise, 2010).

Yet, we know that at age 2 children begin to develop gender and family identities; by age 3 they begin to ask questions about gender; and by age 4 they have awareness of family structures (Evans-Santiago & Lin, 2016). While many equate LGBTQ identities to sexual behavior, we also know that it involves much more than that and includes family structures and gender identity. Anyone who has spent time with young children knows that they play, discuss, and act out family dynamics, romantic relationships, and socially constructed dichotomous gendered interactions. Nevertheless, heteronormativity in sexuality is not only allowed but supported within classrooms (Averett & Hegde, 2012), and heteronormative gender pervades young children’s experiences and education (Blaise, 2010; Davies et al., 2023; Ryan & Hermann-Wilmarth, 2013).

Childcare administrators play a very important role in maintaining an inclusive and welcoming environment within their centers or schools (Church et al., 2018). Administrators of programs for young children include all those who operate centers on an everyday basis and own the centers. To this point, “Program administrators are faced with unique responsibilities and ethical challenges in the course of managing and guiding their programs and assume leadership roles within and beyond their programs” (NAEYC, 2011, p. 10). These administrators are also heavily involved in making pedagogical decisions, which can include the choice of books that are brought in and placed within their centers and classrooms. Thus, administrators are tasked with the responsibility to provide pedagogical leadership, manage program operations, and represent families of their centers and the broader community in general.

Center administrators ultimately impact the culture, education, and experience of the children that attend their centers. LGBTQ books are viewed by early childhood educators as necessary to children’s learning (Burt et al., 2010), thus the need for the current study. Drawing on our previous studies, the limited literature on LGBTQ books, and the lack of research specifically on early childhood administrators’ views of these books, this specific mixed-methods research study was designed to examine early childhood administrators’ exposure, familiarity, enjoyment, recommendation, and use of LGBTQ books within their centers. Thus, the following overarching questions guided our research study.

• How do ECCE administrators describe their exposure to, familiarity with, recall of, and enjoyment of LGBTQ picture books?
• To what extent do ECCE administrator recommend and use LGBTQ picture books within their centers?

2. Literature Review

2.1. Early Childhood Administrators and LGBTQ Issues

Positive partnerships between children, parents, teachers, and childcare administrators are essential in promoting the best outcomes for children (Burt et al., 2010; Fox, 2007; Jeltova & Fish, 2005) within childcare centers in the US. Unlike traditional school settings (K–12), within private childcare centers, administrators play a highly involved and critically important role in developing and maintaining an inclusive environment for gay and lesbian (GL)-parented families within their respective centers (Church et al., 2018). Administrators are often the first and main point of contact between parents and teachers and spend a great deal of time each day communicating with parents (Rodd, 1999). They can influence school and center policies, including the selection of materials that go within each classroom. In the state of North Carolina, it is mandatory for administrators to take courses in administration, which are sometimes closely linked with courses in early childhood administration (EDU 261 and EDU 262). Thus, creating environments that are conducive and welcoming to families of various structures should be administrators’ primary duty and concern. Hence, examining their views on LGBTQ books becomes very important.

The current authors have provided the only known ECCE studies that empirically provide the viewpoint of early childhood administrators regarding LGBTQ issues (Averett et al., 2021; Church et al., 2018). Both studies accessed a sample of administrators in the state of NC that oversaw four- or five-star-rated centers. These were all for-profit and non-profit childcare centers with an established star rating that are easy to locate on the North Carolina state’s division website.

The first study completed (Church et al., 2018) examined the attitudes, preparation, and comfort of 203 administrators in working with gay- and lesbian (GL)-parented families. The respondents had an overall positive attitude toward lesbian and gay parents, with those who had higher education levels and lower religiosity showing higher scores. Their attitudes correlated highly with their comfort.

The more recent study (Averett et al., 2021) was a qualitative study that utilized open-ended questions to ascertain administrators’ practices in creating centers that were welcoming to gay and lesbian (GL) parents. The results demonstrated a continuum of practices that leaned towards heterosexism and homophobia, with few gay- and lesbian-affirming practices reported. This study did include a question specifically about the use of LGBTQ picture books, which revealed a continuum of responses. These responses ranged from affirming/many books to homophobic/against having books, with the majority providing a homogenous response of providing books as they would for all families. The overall findings indicated that the highly rated centers have generally heteronormative or heterosexist cultures that typically marginalize and do not recognize diverse family structures in practice.

There are no other known empirical studies on early childhood administrators’ views of LGBTQ picture books. In the following section, we review the existing literature on LGBTQ books that provides the perspectives of children, parents, and teachers.

2.2. LGBTQ Books

ECCE researchers (Kelly, 2012; Riggs & Augoustinos, 2007) and practitioners (Evans-Santiago & Lin, 2016; Morgan & Kelly-Ware, 2016; Trostle & Maasch, 2017) have called for over 30 years (Averett et al., 2017) for the inclusion of LGBTQ storybooks in ECCE settings as an ethical, just, and necessary component of children’s learning (Burt et al., 2010). In a recent systematic review of the literature on LGBTQ in the early childhood context, it was noted there were five practice-based articles that list, critique, and apply the use of LGBTQ picture books and only one empirical study (Averett et al., 2017). That review found that in terms of LGBTQ book use, the lists provided were outdated, but did suggest ways to incorporate the books into broader subjects beyond literacy, yet most reinforced white, heterosexist norms. Since that 2017 review, additional empirical studies have been published. The authors have also identified several studies that were excluded from their systematic review because they were conducted outside the United States (US). These studies on LGBTQ books in ECCE that were not covered in the 2017 review will be considered below. However, it noteworthy that none of the following studies include the administrators’ perspectives, but they provide children’s, teachers’, and parents’ perspectives. These articles are reviewed in order to present the current state of the literature on LGBTQ books within early childhood settings.

In New Zealand, Kelly (2012) studied interpretations to children’s responses to picture books featuring same gender parented families in an ECCE setting. The children’s responses to the books were overwhelmingly positive, and the teachers enjoyed the experience of presenting the books and engaging with the children about their themes. However, Kelly (2012) cautioned that the books’ main themes of pregnancy may have become the more central discourse of “motherhood” vs. the intended discourse of same-sex parenting.

In Australia, Cloughessy and Waniganayake (2019) interviewed 11 lesbian parents about their perceptions of eight picture books featuring same-sex parents. Many of the participants had read some or all of the eight books in their home, while they reported that only half of the ECCE educators used them regularly in their children’s classrooms. As a result, many parents feared that their children would be left to answer questions and defend their lesbian-headed families. The parents shared that they expected resistance to LGBTQ picture books in their children’s ECCE setting but felt it was crucial that such a setting was ideal for first exposure to such books and specifically books that focused only on diverse family structures. The parents also criticized the books, and similar to the findings from Taylor (2012), felt that the books were too often white, middle class, and homonormative.

Similarly, Malins and Whitty (2022) engaged in ethnographic interviewing or conversational research in Canada, speaking with parents about their comfort reading picture books that address gender and sexuality to their young children. The mothers interviewed expressed comfort when encountering picture books with diverse gender and sexual identities and utilized them for critical conversations. More recent picture books were found to have greater fluidity represented and a naturalness to their presentation rather than a pointed focus. The authors point to a need for schools to provide dedicated spaces, appropriate materials, and sufficient time for teachers to prepare for conversations about gender and sexual identity.

Taylor (2012) provides a critique of LGBTQ theme picture books using critical discourse analysis grounded in Duggan’s (2002) concept of homonormativism. Homonormativity is when the LGBTQ community does not challenge heteronormative assumptions and institutions, aligning instead with goals of domesticity and consumption. Taylor (2012) found that the four LGBTQ picture books chosen for analysis make visible white, middle-class, lesbians, and gays, while erasing queer people of color, working class queer people, and differently able people who identify as queer. It is of note that Taylor’s (2012) research and books were chosen prior to 2012 and do not represent the past 11 years of progress in LGBTQ picture book representations of trans, gender fluid, and differently abled queer characters.

Franz Bentley and Souto-Manning (2016) examined how preschoolers in a US ECCE setting understood same-sex marriage through the picture book King and King by de Haan and Nijland (2003). Although not traditionally presented as an empirical study, it is an action research project grounded in ethnography. They provide a complex and nuanced picture of the classroom experience, with the book framing its “findings” as the hopeful beginning of a lifetime of critical thinking and authentic living for the children in the classroom.

These few recent and international empirical studies on LGBTQ books in early childhood settings provide children’s, teachers’, and parents’ perspective on books, as well as a critique of those books using critical discourse analysis. The findings suggest that many LGBTQ books continue to reinforce white, heterosexist visions of parenting. Yet, the most recent study (Malins & Whitty, 2022) found greater fluidity represented in more recent picture books. Several studies provide pathways to push hetero-norms and provide children with broader exposure to LGBTQ-headed families. What is evident is that there is much need for further research on this topic. One needed area is that of ECE administrators’ perspective on LGBTQ books. Thus, the current study was conducted.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

The current study is a mixed-methods design that involved the collection and analysis of both quantitative and qualitative data. It is considered a partially mixed concurrent dominant status design, as described by Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009). According to Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009), it fits the criteria of the partially mixed concurrent dominant status design by collecting both quantitative and qualitative data at the same time, with dominant weight given to one set of the data. In this study, dominant weight was given to the quantitative portion of the study due to the greater number of survey questions being quantitative in nature. In this type of mixed-methods design, the mixing of the data does not occur until after the data is collected and analyzed. Thus, this mixed methods design sought to provide complimentary data, with the qualitative data supporting and expanding upon the information that was provided by the quantitative data.

3.2. Participants

A total of 92 administrators from across North Carolina consented to participate in the study. However, 65 participants completed most of the survey items, leaving no more than 10% of the questions unanswered (i.e., four to five questions within the survey).

These administrators specifically worked within North Carolina’s high-quality childcare centers. The participants were recruited from all the 100 counties in North Carolina, utilizing the North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education (NCDCDEE) website (https://ncchildcare.ncdhhs.gov/Parent (accessed on 18 March 2024)). The participants were required to be administrators of a four- or five-star childcare centers, as determined by the North Carolina Star Rated Licensing system (North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education (https://ncchildcare.ncdhhs.gov/Parent (accessed on 18 March 2024))), which mandates childcare centers in NC to acquire a star rating as a part of their licensing requirement. The star ratings range between one and five stars. Higher quality childcare programs generally have a four- or five-star rating. The star ratings are based on two considerations: program standards and staff education. The program standard considers aspects of the center, such as staff-to-child ratio, square footage per child, the amount and quality of materials available for children to play with, and sanitation issues. The staff education component considers teacher qualifications and credentials. The centers are also awarded a quality point which can count toward their star rating if they meet additional education or programmatic criteria, such as 75% of center infant/toddler teachers have obtained an Infant/Toddler Certificate or smaller class sizes (see Averett et al., 2021 for more information).

Participant ages ranged between 25 and 70 years. The majority of the participants were white (78.1%), followed by Black (18.8%), Latino(a) or Spanish (1.6%), and multi-ethnic (1.6%). The majority of the participants identified as female (69%) and 3% as male. Approximately 28% of participants did not answer the question on gender or did not answer it correctly (e.g., by providing their race instead of their gender). Gender was constructed as an open-ended question on the survey, hence the answers varied. Approximately 58% of the participants stated they were heterosexuals, 0.04% identified as gay, and 0.01% identified as bisexual. We did have a significant portion of missing data (41.95%) on this variable (sexual orientation), as the question was asked in an open-ended format. Only 5 participants reported that they were out in their workplace as LGBTQ individuals. Most participants rated themselves as somewhat religious (49.2%), followed by very religious (26.2%), not at all religious (13.8%), and hardly religious (10.8%).

Most participants were directors (61.5%), followed by owners who also served as directors (18.5%); 9.2% were assistant directors, 6.2% were exclusively owners, and 4.6% identified themselves as belonging to the other category. The participants in the other category identified themselves as either co-owners or executive directors of the center. Most participants (75.4%) worked in a high quality or 5-star center, and 24.6% worked within a 4-star center in the state of NC. Most participants had worked in the field of ECCE for 25–30 years, while the least experienced had worked for less than 10 years (see

Table 1. Administrators’ years of experience in the field of ECCE.

Years in ECCE	N	%
1–3 years	3	4.6
3–5 years	2	3.1
5–10 years	2	3.1
10–15 years	9	13.8
15–20 years	11	16.9
20–25 years	13	20.0
25–30 years	14	21.5
Over 30 years	11	16.9
Total	65	100.0

).

There was much variability within the educational status of the participants. The range was between some college to doctoral degrees (see

Table 2. Administrators’ highest level of educational attainment.

Educational Attainment	N	%
Some college coursework < 30 credits	3	4.6
A 1 year community college diploma	5	7.7
A 2 year Associate of Arts (A.A.) degree	5	7.7
A 2 year Associate of Science (A.S.) degree	6	9.2
A 2 years Associate of Applied Science (A.A.S) degree	2	3.1
A 4 year Early Childhood/Childhood Development (EC/CD) degree	7	10.8
A 4 year Education degree	6	9.2
A 4 year degree in a related field	14	21.5
A 4 year degree in another field	15	23.1
A doctoral degree (e.g. Ph.D, Ed.D, etc.)	2	3.1
Total	65	100.0

). Approximately 32% of the administrators had a less than a 4-year degree, while 68% of the administrators had a 4-year degree and above.

Less than half (46.9%) of the participants were aware that their center was serving at least one child from an LGBTQ family or had served a child from an LGBTQ family in the past (35.9%). Approximately 5% of the participants stated that they did not currently serve any children from an LGBTQ family or were unsure (4.3%) if they were serving any such family within their center.

3.3. Tools

The research team developed the instrument themselves, as no known tool within the existing literature specifically addresses this topic. For this study, we selected sections of the tool that specifically examined administrators’ exposure to selected books (read the section LGBTQ Book List for more details), followed by a section of the LGBTQ Book Survey that included questions exploring the administrators’ familiarity with the book and its content, enjoyment of the book, their recommendation of these books to others, and its use in their own centers or classrooms (read the section LGBTQ Book Survey).

3.4. Demographic Survey

A brief demographic survey was first administered to gather information on administrators’ personal and professional characteristics. Information on administrators’ age, gender, sexual orientation, racial/ethnic group, religiosity formed a part of their personal characteristic, while the administrators’ highest level of education, current title within their school/center, and years worked in the field of ECCE, were considered part of their professional characteristics. Center-specific information such as the North Carolina County in which the center operates, the number of stars the center holds, and whether the administrator knows if their center currently or previously served children with LGBTQ parents was asked as well.

3.5. LGBTQ Book List

For the current study, the LGBTQ book list was created using the American Library Associations’ annual Rainbow Book List (https://glbtrt.ala.org/rainbowbooks/ (accessed on 30 October 2020)) and various blogs and websites intended for parents or caregivers of young children. The Rainbow Book List was provided by the research team’s literacy expert as a reputable source for LGBTQ inclusive children’s literature. The books were selected based on the availability of existing titles, as well as on their perceived level of controversy. It was assumed that most parents and caregivers might not be knowledgeable of the Rainbow Book as a resource, so we felt it was important to also utilize online search engines during our book selection process. Using the google search “LGBTQ storybooks for young children”, the top five websites were viewed, and books assigned to the 0–6-year-old age range were identified. The most frequently mentioned books across five websites and the Rainbow Book List were utilized. These specific websites were used most frequently to identify the selected books:

https://glbtrt.ala.org/rainbowbooks/archives/1331, https://www.buzzfeed.com/pablovaldivia/lgbtq-childrens-books, https://www.rebekahgienapp.com/lgbtq-childrens-books/) (accessed on 30 October 2020).

The final book selections for the survey were based on a variety of factors. The research team selected books that were recommended on well-known book lists, included a range of publication dates, centered around topics appropriate for childcare centers, had characters that the children could relate to, and titles that are generally available from a variety of retailers.

3.6. LGBTQ Books Survey

In this section, the researchers asked about administrators’ previous exposure to specific LGBTQ books. A list of 25 books were selected for this section of the tool.

Table 3. Frequency and percentage of selected books read by administrators.

Books	Read		Not Read
	N	%	N	%
My Two Moms And Me	3	5.7	50	94.3
Mommy Mama And Me	14	15.2	39	42.4
Daddy, Papa and Me	8	8.7	46	50.0
The Adventures of Honey and Leon	3	3.3	51	55.4
And Tango Makes Three	18	33.3	36	66.7
Stella Brings The Family	10	19.2	42	80.8
Heather Has Two Mommies	9	16.4	46	83.6
A Tale of Two Mommies	4	7.7	48	92.3
A Tale Of Two Daddies	5	9.4	48	90.6
Prince and Knight	7	13.0	47	87.0
Worm Loves Worm	1	1.9	52	98.1
Aunty Uncle	2	2.2	50	54.3
Julian Is A Mermaid	9	17.0	44	83.0
I Am Jazz	7	7.6	46	50.0
Morris Mickelwhite And The Tangerine Dress	3	5.7	50	94.3
10,000 Dresses	3	5.6	51	94.4
When Aidan becomes A Brother	1	1.9	53	98.1
Annie’s Plaid Shirt	5	9.4	48	90.6
Pink Is For Boys	8	14.8	46	85.2
Introducing Gender A Gentle Story of Gender and Friendship	1	1.9	51	98.1
Jacob’s New Dress	3	5.6	51	94.4
Pride Colors	3	5.7	50	94.3
Love Makes a Family	12	21.8	43	46.7
Be Who You Are	16	30.2	37	69.8
The Family Book	26	48.1	28	51.9

lists all the books that were selected and included in the study. As described above, these books were collaboratively chosen by the research team members.

Additionally, participants were asked about their familiarity with the book and its content, their recommendation of these books to others, and their usage in the centers or classrooms. Two of the questions, one about the participants’ comfort and the other about recommending the book, were accompanied by open-ended follow-up questions. Additionally, there were two open-ended questions in Section 3 that asked the participants, “How did you originally discover the book/s? (e.g., recommendation from others, library resources, online resources, etc., …)” and “Did you enjoy the book? Why or why not?”, providing them with the opportunity to offer more specific context and feedback about the books.

3.7. Researcher Reflexivity

The research team comprised an early childhood education professor and a social work professor, both of whom have previously worked on several gay and lesbian studies within the field of early childhood and social work. The team also included a professor who works in the field of literacy education, with an expertise in culturally responsive classrooms. She was invited to join the team specifically for her background in literacy. Additionally, the team included two students: one was a public health graduate student who was completing a research-based practicum under the guidance of the literacy professor, with an interest in LGBTQ issues. The other student was a graduate assistant in the human development department, a former elementary teacher with an interest in LGBTQ issues.

In terms of identity, two of the professors identify as heterosexual, one professor identifies as bisexual, and the two students identify as bisexual and lesbian, respectively. The team engaged in numerous meetings to discuss their positionality and their insider–outsider researcher identities (Hayfield & Huxley, 2015). Consideration of their connection to early childhood, books, LGBTQ topics, and identity, as well as their values and experiences of heteronormative expectations were discussed, processed, and considered in light of the research foci.

3.8. Data Collection

A university-approved Qualtrics web-based survey was utilized to collect data after Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Participation within the study was completely voluntary. Consent was obtained from each participant before the completion of the survey. This study was open for approximately 12 weeks. Follow-up reminders were sent out at two, five, and ten weeks after the original invite.

3.9. Data Analysis

For the quantitative data, frequencies and percentages were primarily utilized during the analysis. For example, frequencies/counts of yes OR no for books read by each participant were calculated. Other selected questions utilized a Likert scale that assumed the function of ordinality. That is, each item on the Likert scale was incrementally different than the other. For example, participants were asked a question on how much they recall the content of the book read, and their response was rated on a four-point scale, 1–4, with 1 being I do not recall any of the book content, 2 being I somewhat recall book content, 3 being I recall most of the book content, and 4 being I can recall all the book content. Distinctions in participant responses were made based on the selection made (1, 2, 3 or 4).

For the data with open-ended questions, qualitative data analysis was employed. A member of the research team, an experienced qualitative methodologist, analyzed the responses via qualitative content analysis (Patton, 1990). Patton’s (1990) method was used to identify and categorize patterns in the data. Content analysis is often mistakenly assumed to be merely the counting of word frequencies. However, it also extends beyond this (Chambers & Chiang, 2012). There are three approaches to content analysis: conventional, directed, and summative, with only summative involving word frequency (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). For the current analysis, the qualitative methodologist used the conventional approach in an inductive manner. This process allowed for identification of themes based on similarities and cohesion among the data (Finfgeld-Connett, 2014). In the inductive conventional approach, key words and statements were the unit of analysis. Utilizing the words and statements of the participants, themes were identified, and responses were grouped based on these themes. For example, in the confusing and inappropriate theme, the theme was named based on responses that included the specific terms “confusing” or “inappropriate”, as well as those that conveyed the idea that the books were confusing or inappropriate without using the actual terms.

The following section provides the results of the methods described above and the analysis procedures, with the content following the order of the questions as they appeared in the tool. This organization allows the reader to see the qualitative data embedded within, and at times in following, a quantitative question and its corresponding data. For ease of reading, we have organized the results under two broad research questions that we asked within the study: I. Describe ECCE administrators’ exposure, familiarity, recall, and enjoyment, of LGBTQ picture books. II. Examine ECCE administrators’ recommendation and use of LGBTQ picture books within their centers.

4. Results

4.1. I: Describe ECCE Administrators’ Exposure, Familiarity, Recall, and Enjoyment of LGBTQ Picture Books

4.1.1. Number of LGBTQ Book(s) Read (Exposure)

Sixty-four percent of the administrators stated that they had read at least one book from the list of readings selected by the researchers, while approximately 37% of the administrators responded they had never read any of the chosen books from the list. The most frequently read book was “And Tango Makes Three”. Approximately 33% of administrators had read that book. There were three books that were least read: Worm loves Worm, When Aidan Became a Brother, and Introducing Gender: A Gentle Story of Gender and Friendship. See Table 3 for the complete list of books read and not read by the administrators based on frequencies and their corresponding percentages.

4.1.2. Familiarity with LGBTQ Book(s) Read

Sixty-four participants who reported having read AT LEAST one book from the lists of chosen books were then followed up with a list of questions. The first question prompted them to reflect on their familiarity with the book(s) read. Specifically, the question asked, “How familiar are you with the book(s)?” with the following response options: “I have read the book only once,” “I have read the book a few times,” “I have read the book many times.” In the results section, we compiled the choices given by the participants presented as percentages (See

Table 4. Participants’ familiarity with the content of the selected books.

Familiarity with Book Content	Read
	N	%
Read the book only “once”	17	46
Read the book “few times”	14	38
Read the book “many time”	8	16

).

Thus, the majority of participants had read the book at least “once” (approximately 46%), followed by “I have read the book a few times” (38%), and “I have read the book many times” (16%).

4.1.3. Recall of LGBTQ Book(s) Content

Similarly, the same 64 participants were asked if they recalled or remembered the content of the book(s) read. The question on the survey asked, “How well do you recall or remember the book(s)’ content?” (e.g., character, storyline). The responses to choose from included the following: I do not recall any details about the book’s content; I somewhat remember the book(s)’ content; I remember most of the book(s) content, I can recall all of the details about the book(s)’ content.

Participant ratings varied. The most popular response given by half (48.6%) of the participants was “they somewhat remember the book’s content” (See

Table 5. Participant’s recollection of the content of the book(s) read.

Book Recall	Read
	N	%
Do not recall “any” book content	8	21.6
“Somewhat” remember the book content	18	48.6
“Most” book content remembered	9	24.3
“All” book content remembered	2	5.4

).

4.1.4. Enjoyment of the LGBTQ Book(s)

After the participants answered follow-up questions on familiarity with the book(s) read and content recollection, we provided them with the opportunity to share details about their experience with the book(s). Specifically, we included an open-ended prompt: Did you enjoy the book? Why or why not?

Although the participants were overwhelmingly affirming that they enjoyed the book, there were also negative views on the books. This resulted in two themes: acceptance and representation of all families, and confusion and inappropriateness.

Acceptance and Representation of All Families

Within this theme, the participants shared thoughts such as:

“Because it teaches acceptance, kindness and all children in the class are represented in the books.”

“Yes, I believe children need to know and respect all families.”

“Yes, the books were appealing to our under-three classrooms and helped the children understand that a family is a family no matter what.”

Confusion and Inappropriateness

There were some participants who shared that they had not enjoyed the books, and these responses illustrate the theme of confusion and inappropriateness, which can be seen in the following responses:

“Not really. I think to an extent it is confusing to a child.”

“Not really. Maybe because of the age for 2 yrs. old. It seems they can’t fully understand the context of the book.”

“These books are absolutely the most ridiculous things I have ever seen in my entire career in childcare.”

4.2. II: Examining ECCE Administrators’ Recommendation and Use of LGBTQ Picture Books Within Their Centers

4.2.1. Recommendation of LGBTQ Book(s)

The participants were also asked if they would recommend these books to others. The majority (54.1%) of participants were “very likely” to recommend these books to other administrators, followed by a “neutral” stance (18.9%) and “likely” (16.2%). A few administrators were hesitant to recommend these books to others, and their responses were recorded as “unlikely” (8.1%) and “very unlikely” (2.7%).

The participants were also asked to justify their stance on why they would or would not recommend the book to others. The participants gave positive responses, such as, “it’s good to be exposed to new ideas” and, “love is love”. Neutral responses included it “depends on the child’s situation”, “some (books) more than the others”, and negative responses included “I think there is so much adversity around it”, “NOT AGE APPROPRIATE”.

4.2.2. Dis/Comfort Regarding LGBTQ Book Usage in the Classroom

Participants’ comfort or discomfort with reading a chosen book in the classroom was also gauged. Thirty-nine percent of administrators were “very comfortable” with the book in the classroom, followed by “comfortable” (21.1%), “neutral” (21.1%), “uncomfortable” (2.6%), and “very uncomfortable” (15.8%).

Participants who stated that they felt “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” were asked to share their “why”. Those responding to this prompt shared concerns such as “children might have a lot of questions and parents don’t think this age bracket should be exposed to these books”, “NOT VERY AGE APPROPRIATE”, and “obvious reasons”.

4.2.3. Discovery of LGBTQ Book(s)

In response to this open-ended question, the participants shared four main ways in which they had found an LGBTQ book:

• They personally searched for them;
• Recommended BY a specific person;
• The center was provided with it;
• From an early childhood education professional setting (such as a conference or training) that made them aware of the book(s).

The most frequent response to this question was that they personally searched for them. Of note is that a specific for-profit chain center was repeatedly cited as observing Pride month and providing all their centers with the books. It is also of note that there was one participant who used this last question in this section of the survey to share their thoughts about the survey and topic stating

“Your ridiculous survey is trying to push the agenda of brainwashing our children into senseless material that should NEVER be exposed to any child of any age!”

5. Discussion

Books can be one of the best media to introduce children to the world of language, literacy, and imagination (Kim et al., 2016). Diverse books, and specifically LGBTQ books, can introduce young children to many different types of families (e.g., two moms/two dads) in a developmentally appropriate fashion and is recommended by scholars and researchers as a necessary inclusive practice (Franz Bentley & Souto-Manning, 2016; Hartsfield & Kimmel, 2020; Averett et al., 2021) that can be easily incorporated within early childhood classrooms.

5.1. Books Read

However, this study found that thirty-three percent of the North Carolina administrators had never read any of the LGBTQ books listed within the study. This points to the need for training administrators in LGBTQ sensitivity and in understanding the role of LGBTQ picture books in respecting and representing the diverse family structures of children.

Only one book, And Tango Makes Three, stood out as the most frequently read. It is not surprising that this particular book was read most often by the participants. This popular children’s book is based on a true story of pair-bonded male penguins in the Central Park Zoo. The book was first published in 2005 and thus has been in print for almost 20 years, making it more likely to be known, found, and recommended. According to Pen America (pen.org), an organization concerned with the “intersection of literature and human rights”, And Tango Makes Three also has a history of appearing on the top lists of banned books within the US. According to PBS (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/banned-and-tango-makes-three/ (accessed on 18 March 2024)), the book is cited as “unsuitable for children” and/or having “homosexual overtones”. Thus, the administrators’ familiarity with the book could be due to the actual controversy surrounding the book and a related curiosity about the book’s content, rather than a desire to include the book in their respective centers or classrooms. This speculation is further supported by many participants stating that they had read the book “at least once”, with a “somewhat” recollection of its content. This indicates a vague familiarity with the book rather than its regular use in the classroom.

It is important to note that the three least-read books, Worm loves Worm, Aidan becomes a Brother, and Introducing Gender, all address gender role expectations and include elements of trans and gender fluid identities. This points to the possibility that, although there has been an increase in acceptance regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and challenges to traditional gender presentation, trans, and gender fluid identities do not have the same level of acceptance. Many trainings and topics related to LGBTQ have historically focused more on issues of sexual orientation, highlighting the need for training and education of early childhood educators specifically on issues of gender non-conformity and transitions. Future research should study ECCE teachers and administrators regarding their attitudes and thoughts specifically on gender non-conformity and trans identities.

5.2. Dis/Comfort with Book Use in the Center

Half of the participants were open to recommending the selected LGBTQ books to others in the field and were “very comfortable” or “comfortable” possibly using the book(s) in their centers. Although it is encouraging to see these answers from NC administrators, the social desirability impacting or eliciting such positive responses from the participants cannot be completely ruled out. Further, it is important to note that all the NC administrators worked in 4- and 5-star childcare centers, considered as “High Quality” centers in the state of NC, with more than half of the participants (67.7%) having a 4-year college degree or more. Thus, the high educational level of the administrators and the stringent requirements for quality standards could influence participant responses. Mims et al. (2009), found that administrators with higher levels of education oversaw classrooms rated higher in quality. Evidently, the educational qualifications of the director impacted the quality of the childcare facility, including teacher and administrator interactions, the care provided by the teachers and administrators at the center, and parental involvement. Thus, it is speculated that administrators with higher levels of education might be better equipped to implement strategies for including gay and lesbian (GL)-parented families at their center. Building on this point, it is worth noting that when the researchers initially sent out the call for participants on a statewide listserv of ECCE administrators, there were email responses from administrators indicating an initial disapproval of the study itself, thus indicating that those who did not agree with the topic did not complete the survey.

Further, almost half of ECCE administrators were “neutral”, “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” with LGBTQ books in their centers. ECCE administrators have an important leadership role in their centers and are key to developing the culture and impacting the diversity of their centers. Hence, neutral or negative responses are concerning.

As stated earlier, administrators and directors serve as the first and main point of contact between parents and teachers (Rodd, 1999). Their comfort and discomfort with this topic can influence all areas of their school or center. This influence extends from interactions with parents and children, to curriculum decisions (such as which books are allowed in the center), to the emotional climate of their workplace.

Additionally, there were also negative responses given by participants to open-ended questions. With comments such as “ridiculous”, “not age-appropriate”, and “parents don’t think this age bracket should be exposed to these books”, some of the administrators shared clearly uninformed and/or personal values that overrode their professional duty, which is to uphold the National Association of Young Children’s (NAEYC) code of ethics (NAEYC, 2011). The revised code of ethics delineates the ethical responsibilities and professional duty of an early childhood administrator. There is a separate section on administrator’s role and ethical responsibilities within the given ethics document. Administrators are called upon to support educators and staff in their own advocacy journey and help families gain inclusive and equitable access to high quality education and learning environments. Thus, access to diverse LGBTQ books becomes an inherent and important part of their ethical responsibility. Training on ethics and anti-bias curriculum can be woven into discourse on diversity, empowering all administrators, teachers, children, and their parents (Averett et al., 2021). However, we did not ask questions directly related to administrators’ knowledge of, or training in, the NAEYC code of ethics and other related documents (e.g., NAEYC’s developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) position statement or professional standards and competencies for early childhood educators) within the survey. It was expected that the administrators overseeing “high quality” childcare centers in N.C. are familiar with the content of these documents. Additionally, the negative comments from the administrators affirm the need for more training in these published documents, as it relates to development appropriateness and diversity, as found by researchers who have studied this topic closely over the years with different kinds of early childhood professionals (DePalma & Atkinson, 2006; Franz Bentley & Souto-Manning, 2016; Malins & Whitty, 2022).

As this study focused specially on ECCE administrators from centers that were rated at a four- or five-star level by the NCDCDEE (https://ncchildcare.ncdhhs.gov/Parent (accessed on 18 March 2024)), we believe that NC and other states should reconsider their criteria for rating centers as high quality. Inclusion of anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) within the current rating systems of childcare centers is one criterion that could impact children’s experience and education. However, within the US and across various states, ADEI efforts have been either outlawed or defunded. Thus, diversity and inclusion efforts within early childhood centers are likely to decline than to increase.

5.3. Research Implications

Future research should consider conducting a nationwide survey of ECCE administrators to obtain a clearer picture of the national trends and allow for state-level analysis and comparison. A larger sample size will allow for both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses, leading to richer data for further interpretation, which could not be achieved in the present study due to its small sample size. This would be very timely, as book bans increased by 33% in the last year (Pen America, 2023). There is also a need for studies that observe actual centers, interview key stakeholders, and examine various documents and center policies, as these could provide a fuller picture of LGBTQ books and administrators’ roles in selecting and using such books, as well as overall LGBTQ inclusivity within centers. Researchers should also consider in-depth interviews with administrators.

6. Conclusions

This mixed-methods study of ECCE administrators of high-quality early childhood centers across the state of North Carolina found that, while the majority of the administrators had read at least one of the LGBTQ picture books listed, they had read the book only once and only “somewhat” recalled the content of the book. The administrators also held both negative and positive views about the use of LGBTQ books within their centers. The findings of this study have several practice and policy implications.

• Administrators are gate keepers of care and education during early childhood years in the United States of America. They have the power to make consequential decisions for their respective high-quality centers. It is important that administrators are aware of and willing to follow NAEYC’s code of ethics, developmentally appropriate practices, professional standards, and competency requirements for early childhood professionals, comprehend early childhood program standards, and advance equity in the field of early childhood.
• Access to high quality diversity training opportunities that specifically targets the LGBTQ population and provides practical tips and strategies to administrators to make their center inclusive might be timely and necessary (e.g., training provided by welcoming schools)
• As suggested by this research, many trainings and topics regarding LGBTQ have historically focused on issues of sexual orientation. While this is necessary, specific training for early childhood educators on issues of gender non-conformity and transitions might also be important.
• Usage of diverse books within the center must be normalized and encouraged across all high-quality centers. Training programs could specifically discuss how centers could offer a range of books that portray the LGBTQ community at large. This could begin with a board book in an infant toddler class that portrays a picture of a diverse family (e.g., two moms or two dads with a child) or a story of love and acceptance that portrays insects or animals (e.g., Worm loves Worm), and extend to books that explicitly and appropriately discuss acceptance of unique identities (e.g., Julian is a Mermaid).
• At the policy level, the qualifying and rating criteria for a high-quality center should assess an administrator or director’s attitude towards anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) and require documentation on how the policy is upheld and practiced within their centers.