Production and maintenance of the institutional in/visibility of sexual and gender minority students in schools.

Abstract

This research investigates how school professionals, as institutional actors, influence school climates experienced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Although research links institutional characteristics to outcomes for LGBTQ youth, scholars do not yet fully understand the mechanisms. We address this gap through a mesolevel analysis of staff perspectives on schools' responsibilities to LGBTQ students. Using data from 96 semistructured interviews with high school staff during the 2016-2017 school year, we found that participants used three main cues to assess visibility of the school's LGBTQ population: (a) student self-advocacy; (b) students' enactment of LGBTQ stereotypes; and (c) same-sex relationships. Reliance on these cues led staff to underestimate the LGBTQ population and employ narrative frames to rationalize the status quo: small LGBTQ population did not merit allocating resources; all students were treated equally;LGBTQ-inclusive policies further marginalized LGBTQ students; and student issues were addressed through individualized interventions. Our research shows how staff's biases collide with institutional inertia to influence school climate, one crucial facet of the ecological contexts of LGBTQ youth. We conclude with discussion of implications and recommendations. Public Policy Relevance StatementLesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning/queer (LGBTQ) youth who experience hostile and anti-LGBTQ school climates exhibit more severe behavioral health difficulties compared to those LGBTQ youth who go to schools with more inclusive environments. This study examines how school climates that do not affirm LGBTQ students are constituted at the mesolevel and proposes changes to school policies around school professional education to promote LGBTQ-inclusive schools. aaa A s institutions in which youth spend large portions of their lives, schools can help build resilience and/or cause harm, depending on the schools' cultivation of safe and supportive environments. Attending schools with hostile environments can negatively affect all students, but lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning/queer (LGBTQ) youth are more likely to report experiencing such environments compared to cisgender and heterosexual students (Kann et al., 2016). In this context, a "hostile school environment" is often operationalized as characterized by the presence of anti-LGBTQ remarks, verbal or physical harassment, and discrimination in school (Kosciw et al., 2009). Findings from the 2019 National School Climate Survey, administered by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), found that of 23,001 LGBTQ student respondents, 59.1% This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

‘Bullying is bullying, if they want to say it's because of being LGBT that's another story’: Perceptions of educators on LGBTQ+ bullying.

“…One of the greatest difficulties pointed out by teachers, in line with previous studies, is the lack of training; despite the generally positive attitudes of teachers about support for LGBTQ + students, most teachers do not receive training to work with sexual minority populations (Kull et al, 2019). Therefore, the results agree with those reported by Kuhlemeier et al (2021), who found that, although the teachers are committed to the need for schools to become safe spaces for all students, the way in which this commitment is concreted in institutional actions is, in some cases, not effective.…”

“…Regarding sexual and gender diversity in schools, the results are in line with those of previous studies, which state that, to identify such diversity, teachers usually rely on testimonies, LGBTQ + stereotypes and same-sex couples among the students (Kuhlemeier et al, 2021). This aspect somewhat indicates the lack of inclusive thinking, keeping the idea of cis-heterosexuality as the norm in the background and undervaluing the proportion of students with different identities, orientations and expressions.…”

Outer-context determinants on the implementation of school-based interventions for LGBTQ+ adolescents

“…This study shows that cultural and structural forces, often considered external to organizations, affect inner-context factors such as motivation for change (Shattuck et al, 2022 ). Heteronormative ideas about gender and sexuality, prevalent in schools and communities, inhibit supportive action ( Hatzenbuehler, 2011 , 2014 ; Hatzenbuehler et al, 2013 ; Kuhlemeier et al, 2021 ). Participants shared fears about publicly acknowledging their LGBTQ+ allyship.…”

“…Yet, underlying structural and cultural factors traditionally conceptualized as part of the outer context influenced inner-context factors. For example, neutral discourses were often used to excuse schools from addressing LGBTQ+ experiences, while foregrounding desires to support “all students” (Kuhlelemeir et al, 2021 ). However, this category of “all students” is based on assumptions of heterosexuality (opposite-sex attraction) and cisgender identity (gender identity that conforms with the sex assigned at birth; see Appendix A for additional definitions; Shattuck et al, 2022 ).…”