Background: In recent years, the social concern about sexual diversity has increased, and efforts have been made to include sexual minority students in school education. The reality is that sexual minority students are marginalized in sexuality education. It is necessary to promote the inclusion of sexual minority students in learning and teaching.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to clarify the process by which cisgender, heterosexual health and physical education teachers attempt to include sexual minority students in sexuality education. The study also identifies the psychological barriers teachers face and categorizes the inclusion strategies they generate.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven health and physical education teachers who worked in junior high and high schools and had experience teaching sexuality education and are cisgender, heterosexual. The interview items included “Thoughts on sexuality education and class creation”, “Creating classes that incorporate sexual diversity into the class content” and “Teaching sexuality education to sexual minority students”. Data obtained from the semi-structured interviews were analyzed using the Modified Grounded Theory Approach.

Results: Thirty-five concepts and seven categories (including five subcategories for one category) were generated. Cisgender, heterosexual teachers who teach sexuality education develop a concrete view of teaching by [creating a blueprint for teaching], and as such, they become [aware of their educational responsibility to be inclusive of “sexual diversity”]. Then, inspired by [thinking of students who are sexual minority] , they attempt to include them. In attempting to include them, they devised [positively affirm “being oneself”] by “inferring the anxiety of being ‘different from everyone else’”. On the other hand, although they tried to “inferring the uncertainty of their future” and “guess the learning needs of sexual minorities,” they fell into [spiral of resistance, confusion, and conflict] in doing so. Faced with several difficulties, they devised two contrasting measures for inclusion: [differentially using the framework ‘individual’ and ‘group’ in classes] and [creating lessons for students of various sexualities].

Conclusion: To include sexual minority students in sexuality education, it is essential to [creating lessons for students of various sexualities] based on perspective on ensuring the right to comprehensive sexuality education.

Background: In order to respond to the diversification and complexity of children's health issues and changes in special needs education, it is essential for schools to work as a team. However, there are few studies on the collaboration between Yogo teachers and teachers, and there are no scales to measure the collaboration.

Objective: Therefore, the purpose of this study is to create scales to measure the collaboration between Yogo teachers and teachers for each school type, and to verify their validity and reliability.

Methods: After organizing the conceptual framework for collaboration between Yogo teachers and teachers (sharing, companionship, expertise, responsibility, inclusion, support, trust, and mission) through a literature survey, and creating a scale to measure collaboration between the two in schools, we conducted a web survey of 3,570 Yogo teachers at public elementary, junior high, and high schools nationwide, asking them to complete a questionnaire of the scale and two external criteria (“Individualized Attention” and “Mutual Understanding”). Then, for each school type, the factorial validity of the scales was confirmed by exploratory factor analysis (principal factor method, promax rotation), internal consistency was evaluated by Cronbach's alpha coefficient and inter-item correlations, and goodness of fit such as GFI by confirmatory factor analysis. Criterion-related validity was further examined by calculating the correlation between the mean scores of the items included in each external criterion and the scores of the subscale corresponding to each factor.

Results: Of the 3,570 letters sent out, 971 responses were received (response rate: 27.2％, valid response rate: 100.0％). The number of respondents by school type was 566 for elementary schools, 297 for junior high schools, and 108 for high schools. Exploratory factor analysis yielded a seven-factor structure for elementary and junior high schools, and a four-factor structure for high schools. Factors common to all school types were “Common Understanding of Goals” and “Willingness of Yogo Teachers to Cooperate,” while factors common to elementary and junior high schools were “Collegiality,” “System in the Absence of Yogo Teachers,” “Participation of Yogo Teachers in Classes,” and “Organizational Efforts.” Factors unique to each school type were “Teachers' Willingness to Cooperate (Children's Health)” for elementary schools, “Mutual Support” for junior high schools, and “Trust” and “Camaraderie” for high schools.

The alpha coefficients of the subscales were .64-.89 for elementary schools, .65-.87 for junior high schools, and .71-.85 for high schools, the inter-item correlations were .29-.81 for elementary schools, .35-.76 for junior high schools, and .27-.77 for high schools, indicating generally good values. The GFI was .93 for elementary and junior high schools and .90 for high schools, indicating generally high values. The correlations between the external criterion and subscales ranged from .27-.52 for elementary schools, .16-.58 for junior high schools, and .26-.50 for high schools, indicating a moderate positive correlation.

Conclusion: We have developed valid and reliable collaborative scales for each school type. In the future, we plan to use these scales to explore the factors that promote or inhibit collaboration in each school type.