Sexual Orientation and School Discipline: New Evidence From a Population-Based Sample

Abstract

Sexual minorities’ risk for exclusionary discipline is a commonly cited indicator of the challenges that these students face. The current study addresses this issue by introducing a new data source for research on sexual minority students: the Fragile Families and Childhood Wellbeing Study. In this geographically diverse, population-based sample, I find that sexual minorities continue to face higher rates of discipline than their peers. However, this risk is highly stratified by sex: Same-sex attraction is associated with 95% higher odds of discipline among girls but no apparent discipline risk among boys. Sexual minority girls’ risk for discipline is only partially mediated by behavior, a result that is plausibly consistent with the interpretation that these students continue to face discriminatory treatment in schools.

Sexual Orientation and Adolescent Time Use: How Sexual Minority Youth Spend Their Time

“…This is a surprising finding, as previous studies document stronger links between sexual minority status and truancy amongst boys than girls (Birkett et al., , ). However, it is consistent with recent research documenting a greater propensity for sexual minority girls to be expelled or suspended from school than heterosexual girls, whereas sexual minority and heterosexual boys experience similar outcomes (Mittleman, ).…”

Promoting Social Inclusion in Educational Settings: Challenges and Opportunities

“…Disproportionate discipline affects other marginalized groups as well, for example, sexual minority girls (Mittleman, 2018) and students in special education (Sullivan, Van Norman, & Klingbeil, 2014). Observing teachers discipline certain groups of students more frequently than others is likely to strengthen negative stereotypes in ways that affect how students relate to one another (cf.…”

“…Professional development is especially critical when certain types of disparities are difficult to measure. For example, although sexual minority youth-particularly girls-appear to receive disproportionate disciplinary referrals (Mittleman, 2018), information on students' sexual orientation is unlikely to be available to schools. Given that sexual orientation is rarely addressed in teacher education (Jennings, 2007), teachers are less likely to be aware of such disciplinary biases.…”

A Researcher–Practitioner Agenda for Studying and Supporting Youth Reentering School After Involvement in the Juvenile Justice System

“…Following the so-called wars on drugs and crime in the 1980s, schools changed how they responded to student misbehavior. States, districts, and schools, particularly those serving high proportions of students of color (Curran, 2019), increasingly passed laws and created disciplinary policies that were implemented in such a way that students of color (Curran, 2016; Fabelo et al, 2011; Gregory et al, 2010; Kupchik, 2009; Laura, 2014; Mallet, 2016; National Research Council, 2001; Simmons, 2017; Skiba et al, 2002), students in special education (Annamma et al, 2014), and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning youth (Mittleman, 2018b) increasingly and disproportionately were excluded from school. As an example, 3.5 million K-12 students were punished with out-of-school suspension in the 2011–2012 school year alone.…”

“…The process is embedded because the involved agencies and individuals do not interact in a vacuum; rather, they are subject to laws (e.g., schools are subject not only to district policies but also to state and federal laws) and they function within a broader political and cultural context that shapes policies and the ways in which the youth are viewed. This context includes federal, state, and local laws as well as district and campus policies (e.g., codes of conduct) and practices but also social norms and implicit biases that likely affect how different students are treated (e.g., Gilliam et al, 2016; Gullo, 2017; Mittleman, 2018b).…”