Teacher Support As an Influence on Sexual and Gender Minority Youth Success

Background

Bullying of LGBT youth in schools continues to be a concern, and teachers play an important role in affecting school climate (Poteat & Vecho, 2015). Students and teachers report LGBTQ bias and harassment goes unchallenged or is even encouraged by teachers and other administrators (O’Connell, Atlas, Saunders, & Philbrick, 2010) and positive relationships with teachers can be protective for LGBT youth (Saewyc, Homma, Skay, Bearinger, Resnick, & Reis, 2009).

Methods

We report on a survey of 953 high school students from 5 urban, rural, and suburban area high schools that focuses on two outcomes of well-being related to teacher relationships: academic achievement (self-reported grades from mostly Ds to mostly As) and self-esteem, measured using the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965; alpha = .90). Four aspects of teacher relationships were included as independent variables. Teacher’s use of biased language related to gender/sexuality was measured through a 5-item scale, alpha = .84. Teacher’s intervention behaviors was measured using a 4-item scale, alpha = .86. We asked if students felt they had a trusted adult at school (0 = no, 1 = yes). Finally, students’ comfort with teachers was measured using a 3-item scale that asked students to indicate how comfortable they felt discussing issues related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, alpha = .98. 

Demographic variables were also included to control for any differences by race (white/POC), sexuality (straight/LGBQ), gender (cis men, cis women, and trans*), and current grade (9^th-12^th). Finally, both of the outcome variables were included in the other outcome variable’s model (self-esteem as a predictor of grades and grades as a predictor of self-esteem).

Results

The full model predicted 19.7% of the variance in self-esteem scores (n = 766). All four teacher relationship variables were significant, with higher rates of witnessed teacher intervention in instances of gender/sexually marginalizing language use, the presence of a trusted adult in school, and comfort talking with teachers about gender/sexuality all having a positive association with self-esteem (b = 0.06, p < .01; b = 0.21, p < .001; b = 0.05, p < .01, respectively). Teacher’s use of biased language was negatively associated with self-esteem, b = -0.12, p < .01. Finally, higher grades were also associated with higher self-esteem, b = 0.07, p < .001. The full model predicting self-reported grades estimated 15.5% of the variance in the outcome (n =766). Self-esteem positively predicted grades, b = 0.39, p < .001. However, none of the teacher support variables were significantly associated with grades.

Conclusions

Self-esteem may mediate the effects of grades for LGBT youth.  Schools need to provide more inclusive environments for sexual minority students such as implementing education policies designed to support teacher learning around LGBT harassment and bullying and interventions (Theoharis, 2010; Wang; 2015). These efforts will support LGBT student self esteem and school success. Research should examine differential effects for transgender and racial minority students.