LGBTQ+-Inclusive Professional Development in Elementary Schools: Does It Matter to Schoolwide Discipline?

Abstract

PK-12 leaders use gender- and sexuality-inclusivity professional development (IPD) as a tool to improve the school climate for LGBTQ+ students, but IPD programs vary widely in their scope, breadth, duration, instructional approach, and content. In this paper, we present the IPD conceptual framework, which proposes a sustained, intensive, and expansive approach to PD can influence student outcomes through changes in educators’ beliefs, attitudes, skills, and knowledge concerning gender and sexuality. Using a large, Midwestern school district as a case study, we examine characteristics of schools participating in an intensive IPD program and whether participation contributed to school disciplinary rates. Using 2018-2019 administrative and program data from the district and state department of instruction, we: 1) describe demographic and program differences between IPD and non-IPD schools, and 2) evaluate the contribution of IPD on disciplinary outcomes using OLS regression analysis controlling for selection characteristics. Our analysis reveals less racial and ethnically-diverse and better financially-resourced schools participate in the IPD program. The regression analysis suggests schools participating in IPD have lower suspension rates, assault rates, and endangering behavior rates compared to non-IPD schools. Several studies indicate supportive leaders and IPD improves school climates for LGBTQ+ students; however, quantitative descriptions of how IPD may influence student behavior remain scarce. Policymakers and educational leaders may be interested in this study’s results suggesting a decrease in disciplinary actions among schools committed to IPD with core components of the IPD framework.

School Leaders and Transphobia: Direct, Facilitative, Accommodative, and Resistant Forms of Gender-Based Bias and Bullying

“…While leaders may need different levels of support depending upon personal beliefs, their approach to the profession, and the political context of the school (Spillane et al, 2002), gender-inclusivity training and guidance directed at administrators can be initial steps towards the structural reforms underpinning gender equity in schools (Mayo, 2022;McQuillan, 2022;Meyer & Leonardi, 2018). Training can provide leaders with time for personal reflection, content knowledge, and active learning opportunities, needed to learn about gender-creativity and why it matters to student learning (McQuillan et al, 2023b;Payne & Smith, 2018). However, like any other educational reform, limited professional development alone will not change the entrenched gendered nation of U.S. schooling any more than a single math, civics, or English lesson would achieve all the learning goals of the content area curriculum.…”

“…Sexism in organizations and leadership structures has yet to be fully addressed, gender norms overlap with homophobia, and transphobia, too, is related to expectations about normative gender. However, few leaders receive gender- or sexuality-inclusivity training in their preservice teaching (Airton & Koecher, 2019; Meyer et al, 2016; Meyer & Leonardi, 2018), in-service professional development (Payne & Smith, 2012, 2018; McQuillan & Leininger, 2021), or educational leadership programs (O’Malley & Capper, 2015) that would help them build the capacity for broader gender and sexual diversity reforms (Mayo, 2022; McQuillan et al, 2023b).…”

“…Because too little information to counter existing social beliefs can lead to greater resistance to educational reforms (McQuillan, 2022; Spillane et al, 2002), support for leaders attempting to change the structural forces that result in gender-based bullying needs to be sustained and reach multiple kinds of educational stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers, staff, school board members; Desimone, 2009; McQuillan et al, 2023a). Professional development should introduce foundational gender concepts, strategies to identify bullying, time for reflection, and opportunities for active learning (Desimone, 2009; McQuillan et al, 2023b; McQuillan & Leininger, 2021). Further, leaders need to work with the larger school community to establish coherence across organizational structures in how leaders should effectively intervene and interrupt bullying behaviors: from protective policies to daily student interactions.…”

Restorative Justice in a “Don’t Say Gay” State: Are Relationships Enough?

“…Cohen, 2014;Cunliffe, 2016;Genao, 2021). McQuillan et al (2023) argue that school leaders who provide intensive gender-and-sexuality inclusivity professional development for school staff witness improvements in school climate benefiting LGBTQIA+ students and a reduction in behavioral incidents. While Dr. Lopez makes a series of decisions to support his students, perhaps he could have taken a activist stance.…”