Strategies for Creating Lgbtq-Supportive Schools: Recommendations from Lgbtq and Non-Lgbtq Students

Background.  The significant health disparities experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth compared to their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts are well documented, including higher rates of depression, suicide, and self-harm.  A growing body of research points to sexual- and gender identity-based microaggressions, hostility, and violence as likely causes of those disparities.  Much of the victimization experienced by LGBTQ youth occurs in school settings, resulting in additional negative outcomes including diminished school performance, negative school attitudes, fear of attending school, and traumatic stress.  Research to identify intervention targets to address these disparities is critically needed.  Little is known about the resources and services needed to support LGBTQ youth in general, and even less is known about youths’ own ideas for reducing victimization.  As a step toward addressing this gap, we examined the prevalence of LGBTQ victimization in school settings and elicited youths’ recommendations for what should be done to address these issues in their school.

Methods.   Participants were recruited in August 2014 from a 10-day state fair that draws approximately 1.7 million people annually from urban and rural regions of one Midwestern state.  Youth attending the fair were eligible to participate in the study if they were (a) between the ages of 14-19, and (b) either a current student or recent graduate (i.e., June 2014) of a high school in that state. A self-administered survey was used to assess school climate, experiences with bullying during the last 12 months, and the perceived availability of and access to LGBTQ resources and supports.  The survey was completed electronically via tablet device and concluded with an open-ended question that asked: “What do you think should be done to improve the climate in your school for LGBTQ students?”  Narrative responses were analyzed independently by the two authors who then compared codes to establish agreement and identified emerging strategy themes collaboratively.

Results.  Participants (N=782) primarily identified as Caucasian (87.7%), Asian American (5.2%), African American (2.6%), and Native American (1.4%).  Participants identified as young women (63.4%), men (35.5%), trans* (0.4%), and genderqueer (0.5%) individuals; 90% identified as non-LGBTQ.  Data analysis revealed seven overarching strategy themes: (1) Raise awareness, (2) Build a supportive climate, (3) Increase acceptance, (4) Make supportive resources available, (5) Add LGBTQ-specific course content, (6) Stricter consequences for LGBTQ victimization, and (7) Improve teacher support and action.  Notably, all but one of these strategies were identified by similar proportions of LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ youth; ‘stricter consequences’ was the third most suggested strategy by LGBTQ youth, while it had the second fewest responses among non-LGBTQ respondents.  Finally, slightly more LGBTQ youth reported that no change was needed as their school was already supportive (11.4% versus 7.4% for non-LGBTQ).  

Conclusions and Implications.  Findings revealed few differences in suggested intervention strategies for both heterosexual/cisgender and LGBTQ youth, with both groups recommending individual- and structural-level intervention.  Both groups prioritized similar strategies, with the exception of enforcing rules/increasing punishment, which was endorsed more frequently by LGBTQ youth.  Implications for social work intervention will be discussed.