Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 7.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Sci. 2021 Jul 7;23(1):108–118. doi: 10.1007/s11121-021-01276-x

Does a Decade of School Administrator Support for Educator Training on Students’ Sexual and Gender Identity Make a Difference for Students’ Victimization and Perceptions of School Climate?

Salvatore Ioverno 1, Meg D Bishop 2, Stephen T Russell 2
PMCID: PMC9171694  NIHMSID: NIHMS1807730  PMID: 34235632

Abstract

Professional development training for school personnel on issues related to sexual and gender identity (i.e., SOGI training) is a school strategy designed to prevent health and educational disparities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth at school. Yet we know surprisingly little about how the presence of this practice at school affects students’ experience. This study explores whether students’ experiences of victimization and school climate vary as a function of school administrator support for SOGI training at two time points (2004 and 2014). We combined multiple independent databases: students’ reports on victimization and school climate in 2013–2015 (n = 55,158), and school (n = 152) and school district data (n = 67) on support for SOGI training in 2004 and 2014. More positive school climates were found in schools with support for SOGI training in 2004 only and both 2004 and 2014 compared to schools with SOGI training support in 2014 only. In schools with support for SOGI training in both 2004 and 2014, LGBT students reported the lowest rates of victimization. Findings from this study provide evidence that support for SOGI training by school administration is an effective way to improve school contexts for LGBT and all students. School administrators who aim to reduce victimization disparities for LGBT students and improve school climates should support the implementation of SOGI training, and sustain such training over time.

In the past decade, a growing body of research has focused on school strategies and practices designed to prevent health and educational disparities for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth at school. These practices are crucial, as LGBT youth continue to report higher rates of victimization and hostile school climate than their non-LGBT peers (Kann et al., 2018; Poteat et al., 2020). Professional development training for school personnel on issues related to sexual and gender identity (i.e., SOGI training) is one such strategy, yet we know surprisingly little about this practice. As educators are often key to preventing students’ negative experiences at school, a better understanding of SOGI training for educators is central to providing LGBT students with equitable learning contexts. Further, considering whether schools are supportive of training over a decade could provide a better understanding of how schools can contribute to the reduction of disparities for LGBT students, especially as they relate to risk for victimization and perceptions of hostile school climates. Throughout this paper, we operationalize SOGI training support as school administrations that make SOGI training available or required for teachers or that encourage their participation.

LGBT Disparities at School: Hostile School Climates and Victimization Experiences

Overall, school climate is meaningfully linked to the lives and health of adolescents: Hundreds of studies document the association between students’ perceptions of a positive school climate and their wellbeing, including academic performance and attendance, self-esteem and self-concept, emotional and mental health, and lower risk behaviors (see Thapa et al., 2013 for a review). As a consequence of discrimination and prejudice, LGBT students often perceive the climate in their schools as more negative compared to non-LGBT students (Day et al., 2019; Ioverno & Russell, 2020, 2021) with severe consequences for their well-being and mental health (Birkett et al., 2009). There are multiple definitions and measures of “school climate” (Thapa et al., 2013); in the current study, we operationalize school climate based on students’ experiences of feeling safe at school, school connectedness, positive relationships with adults at school, and opportunities for meaningful participation (Ioverno & Russell, 2021).

Victimization is another key inequity experienced by many LGBT students. One-third (33%) of LGB youth in a nationally representative sample of high school students in the USA reported being bullied at school compared to 17% of heterosexual youth (Kann et al., 2018). Another recent nationwide study including the experience of both sexual and gender minority youth reported that 87% of LGBT high school students experienced harassment or assault (Kosciw, et al., 2018). A growing body of research has documented the associations between victimization and mental and behavioral health risks for LGBT youth including depression, suicidality, posttraumatic stress, alcohol use, and substance use (see Russell & Fish, 2016 for a review). Further, recent trend analyses suggest that despite the growing visibility of sexual minority identity and lives, sexual identity–based disparities in victimization have persisted over time (Poteat et al., 2020). Thus, understanding which strategies aid in reducing LGBT youths’ victimization experiences at school is as important as ever.

The Role of SOGI Training in Schools

Supportive educators play a key role in reducing negative school experiences. In the existing literature on LGBT students’ experiences, being a supportive educator entails caring about students or treating them fairly (Russell et al., 2001), making themselves available to talk when students have a problem (Goodenow et al., 2006), or being perceived as supportive of LGBT students in general (Greytak et al., 2013b; Kosciw et al., 2013). For LGBT students, the availability of supportive educators is associated with better academic outcomes (Kosciw et al., 2013; Russell et al., 2001), more positive school climates (Kosciw et al., 2013), lower absenteeism (Greytak et al., 2013b), and more positive wellbeing (Goodenow et al., 2006). When educators engage in LGBT-supportive practices such as intervening when anti-LGBT harassment occurs, enforcing LGBT-supportive policies, and incorporating inclusive curricula, students and teachers report safer and more inclusive school climates (Russell et al., 2010; Swanson & Gettinger, 2016).

In light of this evidence, schools’ support for SOGI training (i.e., making SOGI training available or required for teachers or encouraging their participation) can help to promote equitable learning contexts for LGBT youth (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Greytak et al., 2013b) and could be protective not only for LGBT students but also for the general population of students, as homophobic aggression may also be directed at non-LGBT youth (Ioverno et al., 2020). Many educators do not feel prepared to support LGBT youth or to respond when LGBT-related bullying occurs (Bradshaw et al., 2013; Meyer, 2008). Teachers who receive SOGI training report more supportive attitudes toward LGBT youth (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Greytak et al., 2013a). For example, educators who received SOGI training are more likely to be aware of LGBT issues, to feel confident in promoting inclusiveness (Swanson & Gettinger, 2016), to provide support to LGBT youth (Kull et al., 2017; Swanson & Gettinger, 2016), and to advocate for SOGI-inclusive policies (Kull et al., 2017).

In California, where this study was conducted, data from a survey administered in 359 school districts showed that in 2004, SOGI training was required for all high school teachers in 49% of districts, required for some teachers or available in 34.4% of districts, and not available in 16.6% of districts (California Safe Schools Coalition, 2005). One decade later, data from the School Health Profiles (SHP) survey showed that the percentage of California schools encouraging staff to attend SOGI training was 72.9% (Demissie et al., 2015).

Despite the availability of data on the presence of SOGI training across schools, there is a dearth of research that specifically focuses on the benefits associated with such training. Few studies have examined how SOGI training may affect teachers’ behaviors (Greytak et al., 2013a; Swanson & Gettinger, 2016) or how supportive teacher practices may improve LGBT students’ experiences (Greytak et al., 2013b; Kosciw et al., 2013; Russell et al., 2001). In other studies, SOGI training was summed with the presence of other policies and practices to create an index of an LGBT supportive school climate (Day et al., 2019; Gower et al., 2018). Of note, no studies have empirically documented the unique contribution of SOGI training to students’ experiences at school.

The association may be difficult to detect: it may take time for SOGI training to produce significant changes. Prior studies have sought to document the effect of duration when analyzing the impact of gay-straight alliances or gender-sexuality alliances (GSAs, i.e., LGBTQ-focused student-led clubs) and anti-homophobic bullying policies (Konishi et al., 2013; Saewyc et al., 2014). Saewyc and colleagues (2014) found that in schools where GSAs had been established for 3 or more years, LGB students reported a lower risk of homophobic discrimination, suicidal ideation, and suicidal attempts, whereas having a recently established GSA did not predict lower odds of discrimination and suicidality. In another study, Li and colleagues (2019) found that the length of time since a GSA had been established at school was linearly related to increased school-level perceived safety among LGB students. Konishi and colleagues (2013) found that in a population-based sample of Canadian students in 8–12 grade, GSAs and anti-homophobic bullying policies reduced substance use for LGB adolescents, but this effect was almost exclusively observed in schools that had been implementing these strategies for at least 3 years. Further, a recent statewide study of California schools showed that the number of years a GSA had been in the school (from 0 to 15 years) was associated with better school functioning, mental health, and lower lifetime smoking among students (Baams & Russell, 2020). Overall, anti-homophobic bullying policies and GSAs may meaningfully contribute to a gradual change toward more inclusive and safe learning contexts for all students. Taken together, these findings suggest that school administrators should not only support the introduction of these policies but also sustain them to make them more effective.

Similarly, it may take time for SOGI training to produce significant changes. Indeed, as posited by diffusion of innovation theories (Rogers, 2010; Russell & McGuire, 2008), a set of new ideas or practices (i.e., innovations) within a social structure like schools become introduced and instantiated through temporally bound stages characterized by development, dissemination, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Innovations such as practices aimed at improving LGBT students’ experiences can often take time to integrate into the culture of schools (Russell & McGuire, 2008). Thus, school administrator support for SOGI training may represent an important first step for the implementation of LGBT-supportive practices at school.

Hypotheses

This study matches multiple sources of data from California schools to examine the long-term influence of support from schools and districts for SOGI training on students’ school experiences. We take advantage of several statewide datasets to explore whether support for SOGI training at two time points one decade apart—in 2004 and 2014—was associated with less victimization and a more positive school climate for LGBT and all students. Overall, based on the literature reviewed, we expected that support for SOGI training in both 2004 and 2014 would be associated with lower rates of victimization for all students (Hypothesis 1), with a stronger association for LGBT students (Hypothesis 2). Additionally, we expected that SOGI training support at both time points would be associated with more positive school climates for all students (Hypothesis 3), with stronger associations for LGBT students (Hypothesis 4).

Method

Data Sources

Four independent data sources were merged for the current study, including two sources of data measuring support for SOGI training. First, collected in 2004, the Safe Schools Policy Survey (SSPS) was conducted by the California Safe Schools Coalition. The survey was mailed to all California school districts: 36% of 1219 districts returned the survey, representing 56% of California students (California Safe Schools Coalition, 2005). Second, the School Health Profiles (SHP) survey, collected a decade later during the 2014 spring semester, was administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in secondary schools to assess principals’ reports of school health programs and policies. Using a random sampling design, 386 California schools were sampled with an estimated 77% response rate (Demissie et al., 2015). The third source of data was school characteristics that are publicly available from the California Department of Education (CDE). Fourth, student reports of victimization and perceptions of their school climate came from the California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS), a statewide survey biennially administered in public middle and high schools by WestEd with support from the CDE. The CHKS surveys were administered between fall 2013 and spring 2015 in 7th, 9th, and 11th-grade classrooms, some of which included students in other grades. For this reason, students are grouped in grades 6th–8th, 9th–10th, and 11th–12th in this study. Of California schools, 24.16% participated in survey administration, with an estimated 71% student response rate (Austin et al., 2015).

Measures

SOGI Training Support in 2004 and 2014

In 2004, SSPS-participating school districts reported whether high school teachers were “trained about addressing discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation” (five response options: required for all, required for some, available for all, available for some, none are trained), followed by the question, “Do these employee trainings include information about addressing harassment based on gender identity, appearance and behavior, in addition to sexual orientation?” (three response options: yes, no, I don’t know). We created a binary measure for which no SOGI training was coded as 0 = none are trained compared to training on sexual orientation and gender identity that was available or required, coded as 1 = SOGI training available/required for all/some. In 2014, SHP principals reported on the presence of policies focused on sexual orientation and gender identity by answering the prompt: “Does your school engage in each of the following practices related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning (LGBTQ) youth?” One of the options was “Encourage staff to attend professional development on safe and supportive school environments for all youth, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity?” (response options: 0 = no; 1 = yes, SOGI training encouraged). With these indicators, we classified schools into three categories of SOGI training support: 0 = schools with SOGI training support in 2014 only (reference group), 1 = schools with SOGI training support in both 2004 and 2014, 2 = schools with SOGI training support in 2004 only. Due to their small number, schools with no support for SOGI training in both 2004 and 2014 were not included.

Victimization

Victimization was measured using a 9-item scale (α = 0.82; Day et al., 2019) based on student responses to questions assessing physical and verbal assault and harassment on school property within the past 12 months (0 = 0 times; 3 = 4 or more times). Specifically, students were asked whether they have (1) “been pushed, shoved, slapped, hit, or kicked by someone who wasn’t just kidding around”; (2) “been afraid of being beaten up”; (3) “had mean rumors or lies spread”; (4) “had sexual jokes, comments, or gestures made to you”; (5) “been made fun of because of your looks or the way you talk”; (6) “had your property stolen or deliberately damaged, such as your car, clothing, or books”; (7) “been threatened or injured with a weapon (gun, knife, club, etc.)”; (8) “been threatened with harm or injury”; (9) “been made fun of, insulted, or called names.” Because the items were highly skewed and kurtotic, the score was created by dichotomizing and summing the items (final scores ranged from 0 to 9).

School Climate

A 15-item scale was used to measure students’ perceptions of school climate, including caring relationships with adults, meaningful participation, school connectedness, and perceived safety (Ioverno & Russell, 2021). A total score was calculated as the mean of the standardized z-score of each item (α = 0.89) with high scores indicating positive school climates.

LGBT Identity

Students were asked: “Which of the following best describes you? Mark all that apply.” Response options included: “Heterosexual”; “lesbian, gay, bisexual”; “transgender”; “unsure”; “decline to respond.” Three non-mutually exclusive dichotomous variables were created: “lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT)”, “not sure”, and “decline to respond.”

School Characteristics

Measures of school enrollment, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-priced meals (FRPM), average years of experience of teachers, and percentages of racial and ethnic groups came from CDE. The percentage of LGBT students was calculated for each school using CHKS data. The number of school policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity was assessed based on principal reports from SHP. In addition to SOGI training, the other policies include inclusive enumerated policies, student-led clubs (GSAs), identification of “safe spaces” for LGBTQ students, and health support services for LGBTQ students. We created a summary variable based on the total number of school policies within schools (0–4 policies).

Analytic Sample

When combined, the four different datasets yielded a sample of 68 matching school districts with 154 high schools. In 125 schools, SOGI training support was present both in 2004 and 2014 (81.17%). In 21 (13.64%) schools, SOGI training support was present in 2004 only, and in 6 (3.90%) of schools, SOGI training support was present in 2014 only. There were two schools (1.30%) where SOGI training was not supported in 2004 or 2014, both from the same district; once merged with student-level data, these schools represented only 0.29% of the total sample of students. Due to these small numbers, this group was excluded. The final analytic sample includes 152 schools from 67 school districts. Across the selected schools, 1.75% of CHKS student data were excluded because response validity was questionable (Austin et al., 2015) yielding a sample of 55,158 students. Student and school characteristics are shown in Table 1. The overlap in the number of schools across datasets is shown in the supplementary materials.

Table 1.

Student (CHKS) and school characteristics (CDE), 2014

N(%) M(SD)
Student-level
  Sexual/Gender Identity
    Non-LGBT 52,078 (94.42%)
    LGBT 3,080 (5.58%)
    Not sure 3,186 (5.88%)
    No sexual/gender identity reported 3,758 (6.93%)
  Sex
    Female 26,480 (50.58%)
    Male 25,868 (49.42%)
    Age 14.62 (1.70)
  Grades
    6th–8th grades 14,210 (26.53%)
    9th–10th grades 22,000 (41.07%)
    11th–12th grades 17,244 (32.19%)
    Other grade/ungraded 117 (0.22%)
  Race
    Am. Indian/Alaska Nat. 1848 (3.35%)
    Asian 8289 (15.03%)
    Black 2891 (5.24%)
    Nat. Haw./ Pac. Isl. 1271 (2.3%)
    White 14604 (26.48%)
    Mixed races 17941 (32.53%)
    No race reported 1848 (3.35%)
  Ethnicity
    Hispanic/Latino 24,006 (45.60%)
    Non-Hispanic/Latino 28,634 (54.40%)
School-level
  Enrollment 1,152.77 (710.93)
  % FRMP 58.25% (26.71%)
  Teacher experience (average years) 12.56 (3.14)
  % Hispanic/Latino 50.75% (27.48%)
  % American Indian or Alaska Native 0.99% (4.54%)
  % Asian 8.54% (13.26%)
  % African American 6.79% (8.95%)
  % Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.67% (0.85%)
  % White 25.95% (23.83%)
  % Multiracial 2.95% (2.59%)
Open in a new tab

% FRPM indicates the percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals

Am. Indian/Alaska Nat. American Indian or Alaska Native, Nat. Haw./ Pac. Isl. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

Analytic Strategy

We analyzed whether support for SOGI training only in 2004 or in both 2004 and 2014 was associated with fewer students’ experiences of victimization and more positive perceived school climate compared to support for SOGI training only in 2014 (reference group). Due to their small number, schools with no support for SOGI training in both 2004 and 2014 were excluded from the analyses. Three-level multilevel regression analyses allowed us to examine these associations while accounting for the nested nature of the data (students nested in schools and schools nested in districts) and providing a better estimation of the coefficients and standard errors. Multilevel models also allowed us to test cross-level interactions between student-level and school-level variables. Specifically, we examined whether student-level sexual/gender identity disparities for reports of victimization and school climate were moderated by differences across schools in their histories of SOGI training support. Given that the moderation models included student-level variables (sexual/gender identity), we allowed random slopes to model the between-school variance of the slopes of sexual/gender identity on victimization and school climate. Models were adjusted for student characteristics (grade, sex, sexual/ gender identity, race/ethnicity) and school characteristics (enrollment, percentage of students with FRPM), as recent studies have shown that negative school climates are mostly perceived by racial/ethnic minority and female students (Day et al., 2019), whereas female and younger students are at most risk of victimization (Day et al., 2019). At the school level, negative school climates and victimizations are mostly perceived in large and economically disadvantaged schools (Day et al., 2019). Methodological considerations related to the combination of distinct data sources prompted several sensitivity analyses, described below. Missing data were addressed using multiple imputations with chained Eqs. (15 iterations). All variables in the analysis model were included in the imputation model. Complete case analyses resulted in a loss of 9.39–12.17% of the sample. All models were estimated in Stata 15.1.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

First, because we take advantage of existing data sources with varied sampling frames and response rates resulting in an analytic sample with unknown generalizability, we used CDE measures of school characteristics to compare schools in the analytic sample with all other California schools and then to compare the schools included in this study with those excluded because of the lack of overlap across datasets. Specifically, schools were compared on school enrollment, percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-priced meals (FRPM), average years of experience of teachers, and percentages of racial and ethnic groups. Statistically significant differences were found only for school enrollment and average years of experience of teachers both when the analytic sample was compared with all California schools [enrollment: F(3,5294) = 24.72, p < 0.001; teacher experience: F(3, 4823) = 8.58, p < 0.001] and when they were compared with excluded schools [enrollment: F(3, 3316) = 9.95, p < 0.001; teacher experience: F(3,3170) = 4.31, p = 0.005]. Specifically, schools in the analytic sample with SOGI training support in both 2004 and 2014 were larger and had teachers with more experience. Second, intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated on victimization and school climate to examine the extent to which variation in these variables is attributable to school-level and district-level rather than individual-level variables. The ICCs for victimization were 2.40% at the school level and 0.05% at the district level, whereas the ICCs for school climate were 5.74% at the school level and 2.26% at the district level.

SOGI Training, Victimization, and School Climate

To test Hypothesis 1, we computed a conditional model with student-level and school-level predictors of victimization (Table 2, first column). After controlling for student and school characteristics, results showed that schools with SOGI training support in 2004 only, and both 2004 and 2014 did not differ in levels of victimization when compared to schools with SOGI training support in 2014 only. In the moderation model (Hypothesis 2), we found a significant interaction between LGBT identity and SOGI training support both in 2004 and 2014 (see Table 2, second column). Simple slope tests (Fig. 1) revealed that LGBT students generally reported more victimization compared to non-LGBT students; further, LGBT students in schools with SOGI training support in 2004 and 2014 reported lower levels of victimization, B = − 1.48; SE = 0.43, p = 0.001, compared to LGBT students in schools with SOGI training support only in 2014.

Table 2.

Multilevel regression for association of SOGI training support in 2004 and/or 2014 with victimization and school climate

Victimization
 Perceived School climate
Main effect model Interaction model Main effect model Interaction model
B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) B (SE)
Intercept
Student level Sexual/gender identity
LGBT (ref: Non-LGBT) 3.74 (0.26)*** 5.31 (0.34)*** −0.18 (0.02)*** −0.19 (0.08)*
Questioning (ref: Non-questioning) 0.81 (0.12)*** 0.80 (0.12)*** −0.07 (0.01)*** −0.07 (0.01)***
Not reported (ref: Reported) 0.11 (0.10) 0.11 (0.10) −0.03 (0.01)** −0.03 (0.01)**
Female (ref: male) 0.10 (0.07) 0.11 (0.07) −0.01 (0.01) −0.01 (0.01)
Grades (ref: 6th–8th grades)
9th–10th grades −0.53 (0.18)** −0.47 (0.18)** 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03)
11th–12th grades −1.20 (0.19)*** −1.14 (0.19)*** 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03)
Other grade/ungraded 0.99 (0.86) 0.95 (0.84) −0.24 (0.07)*** −0.24 (0.07)**
Race (ref: White)
Am. Indian/Alaska Nat 0.03 (0.14) 0.03 (0.14) −0.10 (0.02)*** −0.10 (0.02)***
Asian −0.76 (0.10)*** −0.77 (0.10)*** −0.04 (0.02)* −0.04 (0.02)*
African American 0.24 (0.19) 0.26 (0.19) −0.11 (0.01)*** −0.11 (0.01)***
Nat. Haw./ Pac. Isl 0.68 (0.21)** 0.66 (0.21)** −0.06 (0.02)** −0.06 (0.02)**
Mixed races 0.37 (0.1)*** 0.36 (0.09)*** −0.06 (0.01)*** −0.06 (0.01)***
No race reported −0.36 (0.13)** −0.38 (0.12)** −0.08 (0.01)*** −0.08 (0.01)***
Hispanic/Latino −0.40 (0.08)*** −0.39 (0.08)*** −0.07 (0.01)*** −0.07 (0.01)***
School level Enrollment 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)*** 0.01 (0.01)***
% FRMP −0.15 (0.30) −0.24 (0.30) −0.18 (0.05)*** −0.18 (0.05)***
% LGBT students 78.17 (59.16) 41.01 (50.40) −1.39 (4.03) −1.53 (3.89)
SOGI policies 0.08 (0.09) 0.10 (0.09) −0.01 (0.01) −0.01 (0.01)
Teacher experience (average years) −0.01 (0.03) −0.02 (0.03) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01)
SOGI training support (ref: SOGI training support in 2014 only)
SOGI training support in 2004 only 0.01 (0.39) 0.09 (0.40) 0.11 (0.05)* 0.12 (0.05)*
SOGI training support in 2004 and 2014 −0.25 (0.35) −0.14 (0.36) 0.14 (0.04)*** 0.14 (0.04)***
Interactions SOGI training support in 2004 × LGBT −0.80 (0.84) −0.09 (0.09)
SOGI training support in 2004 and 2014 × LGBT −1.21 (0.43)** 0.03 (0.08)
Random effects Student-level error variance 5.86 (0.06)*** 5.85 (0.06)*** 0.56 (0.01)*** 0.56 (0.01)***
School-level intercept variance 0.56 (0.08)*** 0.54 (0.07)*** 0.08 (0.01)*** 0.08 (0.01)***
School-level LGBT slope variancea 1.99 (0.30)***
District-level intercept variance 0.34 (0.10)*** 0.34 (0.10)*** 0.07 (0.01)*** 0.07 (0.01)***
Open in a new tab

Am. Indian/Alaska Nat. American Indian or Alaska Native, Nat. Haw./ Pac. Isl. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, % FRPM percent of students eligible for free or reduced-price meals

*

p<.05

**

p<.01

***

p<.001

a

Random slopes were only computed for significant interactions. The covariance between slope and intercept was not included in the victimization model because it was not significant

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Predictive margins for victimization based on the interaction between sexual/gender identity and SOGI training support in 2004 and/or 2014

There was a different pattern for school climate (Table 2, third column). Hypothesis 3 was partially confirmed: Students in schools with SOGI training support in 2004 only, and both 2004 and 2014 reported a more positive school climate compared to students in schools with SOGI training support only in 2014. On the contrary, hypothesis 4 was not confirmed. In the moderation model (Table 2, fourth column), we found no significant interactions between SOGI training support and LGBT identity for school climate.

Sensitivity Analyses

To bolster confidence in our results, we tested three sensitivity analyses (results available upon request). First, we replicated analyses constraining the 2004 SOGI training support measure to district reports of required training only (i.e., school districts in which SOGI training was available but not required for all teachers were excluded). Second, for some school districts, all schools in the districts had SOGI training support in both 2004 and 2014. To rule out whether those school districts were simply more sensitive to SOGI issues than others that showed cross-decade variability in training support, we replicated analyses dropping those districts (including only school districts that contained schools in both conditions: those that included schools with and without support for SOGI training in 2014). Finally, the measure of SOGI training support in 2014 asked about sexual orientation and gender identity, whereas training on sexual orientation was asked separately from gender identity in 2004. All school districts that supported training on gender identity in 2004 also supported training on sexual orientation; we tested analyses limited to school districts that supported only sexual orientation–inclusive training in 2004 (i.e., excluding schools that supported gender identity-inclusive training). Results for all sensitivity analyses were similar to the full analytical sample except that the associations between SOGI training support in 2004 only and school climate were not significant. This could be due to lower statistical power as the analyses were limited to 38% and 64% and of the total number of schools. In fact, in the last sensitivity analyses including 64% of the total number of schools, the association was close to the significance threshold (p = 0.064).

Discussion

In the current study, we capitalized on an opportunity to combine unique independent data sources at the student, school, and district levels to explore whether support for SOGI training was associated with more positive student experiences at school. Specifically, results showed that compared to students in schools with support for SOGI training in 2014 only, those in schools with support for SOGI training in 2004 only and both 2004 and 2014 experienced a more positive school climate. LGBT students in particular were at lower risk for victimization when they attended schools with SOGI training support in both 2004 and 2014.

These results are in line with other studies analyzing the association between the length of time since LGBT-focused policies and practices were first implemented in schools and students’ experiences. Specifically, these studies showed that LGB and heterosexual students reported less discrimination and lower levels of at-risk behaviors when inclusive policies and GSAs were implemented in their schools for at least 3 years (Konishi et al., 2013; Saewyc et al., 2014). A more recent study also demonstrated that the presence of a GSA in a school was linearly related to increased school-level perceived safety among LGB and heterosexual students (Li et al., 2019). Likewise, our results showed that the associations between a school administration’s support for SOGI training and the outcomes were stronger in schools where support for SOGI training was already present in 2004 compared to schools where support for SOGI training was only present in 2014. These findings suggest that school support for SOGI training may have long-term positive impacts on students and that it can take time for this policy to have a widespread influence on a school. As posited by diffusion of innovation theories (Rogers, 2010; Russell & McGuire, 2008), innovations such as LGBT-supportive practices may require a period from when they are introduced to when they are adopted. Overall, support for SOGI training may influence a school’s value system and trigger a gradual cultural change.

Results related to victimization did not confirm our first hypothesis: support for SOGI training in both 2004 and 2014 was not associated with less victimization for all students. However, our second hypothesis was confirmed showing that LGBT students, in particular, were at lower risk for victimization when they attended schools with SOGI training support in both 2004 and 2014. This finding underscores the role of school administration support for SOGI training in reducing victimization specific to LGBT students. It may be the case that victimization prevention efforts require more specialized skills and knowledge from school personnel that can effectively be obtained through SOGI training. Many educators do not feel prepared to respond when homophobic victimization occurs (Bradshaw et al., 2013; Meyer, 2008). Thus, the constant availability of SOGI training may be an important prerequisite for teachers to support LGBT students (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Greytak et al., 2013b).

Findings on school climate partially confirmed our third hypothesis. SOGI training support in 2004 was associated with a positive school climate for the whole student body, rather than LGBT students specifically. Motivations for homophobic attitudes and victimization often reflect a social process to establish dominance hierarchies among peers by enforcing traditional masculine and feminine behaviors (Ioverno et al., 2019, 2020; Salvati et al., 2018). Thus, heterosexual and cisgender youth may experience the hostility of homophobic school climates, albeit at lower rates than their LGBT peers (Ioverno et al., 2020). Thus, considering that SOGI training is aimed at challenging gender-related biases that feed these hostile climates, they may be beneficial for all students regardless of their sexual and gender identity (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Payne & Smith, 2010). Moreover, it is understandable that typical elements of SOGI training—building capacity for school personnel to promote inclusion, to intervene when witnessing aggression, and to effectively support students—would be universal actions that promote a positive school climate for all students (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Payne & Smith, 2010). The hypothesis was partially confirmed because SOGI training support in 2004 was associated with a positive school climate whether or not schools supported SOGI training in 2014. This finding suggests that the introduction of a positive attitude toward SOGI training from the school administration may trigger a gradual change in the school system values. For example, at a very basic level, the school administration’s support for SOGI training may communicate the message that the school accepts LGBT-supportive practices and that school personnel are allowed to adopt such practices. Thus, once LGBT-supportive practices are introduced, they may have a long-term influence on the inclusivity of the school climate.

The fourth hypothesis about differential associations of SOGI training support and school climate for LGBT and non-LGBT students was not confirmed. While unexpected, this finding may be encouraging. It suggests that in schools with support for SOGI training, both LGBT and non-LGBT students are similarly likely to rely on resources at school (e.g., support from the teachers, principals, and school community) that may improve their experiences.

Overall, results suggest that SOGI training support in 2004 may have paved the way for later support of SOGI training, which ultimately was associated with less victimization for LGBT students and a more positive school climate for all students. Thus, LGBT-supportive practices may be most efficacious for school climate and student wellbeing when SOGI training becomes established over time in the culture and practices of districts and schools.

The findings from sensitivity analyses paralleled the primary analyses bolstering confidence in the results presented here. Specifically, the first sensitivity analyses suggested similarities between districts that required SOGI training in 2004 and districts that offered but did not require SOGI training. This result may corroborate our operationalization of SOGI training support as a characteristic of an administration that gives the opportunity for professional development on issues of inclusivity regardless of whether the training is required or available. This finding further suggests that the availability of SOGI training in an education system may be sufficient to produce cultural change across schools over time.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although the study makes use of unique school-level data regarding schools’ support for SOGI training, several limitations should be noted regarding data and measures. The measure of SOGI training relied on reports from school districts for 2004, but from schools for 2014; ideally, we would have school-level measures at both times, rather than assuming that all schools in the same district had the same level of support for SOGI training. This study would have also benefited from the use of student reports from 2004 to establish a baseline measurement to test whether SOGI training support was associated with actual school-level climate and victimization improvement over a decade. However, we believe that the approach used in this study is useful in expanding our understanding of the impact of school policies and practices using a diffusion of innovations theory perspective (Rogers, 2010; Russell & McGuire, 2008). Specifically, the application of this theoretical framework may provide important insight into how the introduction of a new policy in a social system such as a school district may contribute to a gradual cultural change at the school level (Meyer, 2008; Schneider & Dimito, 2008). Nonetheless, this study is limited to the period of a decade. After a longer time interval, we might have found stronger associations between SOGI training support and students’ outcomes. Such processes could be tested in future analyses that follow schools for multiple assessments over a longer period of time.

Another limitation is that in 2004, the measure asked whether SOGI training was “available” as well as “required,” whereas, in 2014, the measure focused on whether training was “encouraged.” Sensitivity analyses to address both limitations showed no difference in findings, which bolsters confidence, yet consistent measures across time would be ideal. Also, the wording of the 2014 SOGI training support item referring to “professional development on safe and supportive school environments for all students, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity” could be problematic. However, we believe that the prompt of this item explicitly referring to LGBTQ youth may have limited potential interpretation biases.

The state of California passed one of the first US statewide laws that included SOGI nondiscrimination protections in education in 2000, so the period studied here includes an early period of SOGI inclusion in schools and a decade of substantial change related to SOGI issues in the broader society. Aside from these data sources, we have no other information about the availability, content, or context of SOGI training in schools, a subject worth further investigation. Further, LGBT-supportive teacher behaviors or resources that might have resulted from the school’s support for SOGI training were not directly evaluated yet are assumed to be associated with SOGI training support. Our findings supported these assumptions by showing theoretically expected results in students’ experiences (Payne & Smith, 2010; Swanson & Gettinger, 2016). However, future studies should evaluate whether and to what extent teachers received SOGI training and decided to adopt LGBT-supportive practices as a result. Besides, future studies should collect more data about the length of time since SOGI training has been supported or implemented to detect the relative speed with which LGBT-supportive practices are adopted at school and start to be beneficial for students.

The majority of California districts in 2004 and schools in 2014 encouraged SOGI training. The small number of schools with SOGI training support in 2004 only or 2014 only may have limited the statistical power to detect significant associations between SOGI training support and the outcomes. Also, our findings may underestimate the impact of SOGI training support in more conservative areas. Moreover, the limited overlap of schools across datasets may be a result of a selection bias. However, our preliminary analyses showed that our sample did not significantly differ from other California schools nor schools that were excluded from the study, except schools with SOGI support in both 2004 and 2014 were larger and had teachers with more experience. Further, additional sensitivity analyses bolster confidence that the results are not idiosyncratic to a particular set of districts and schools.

Other limitations regarding student-level measures should be noted. This study used a general measure of victimization. Given its focus on sexual orientation and gender identity, future studies on the impact of SOGI training should consider using scales measuring bias-based bullying. Finally, the CHKS included a single sexual and gender identity question with multiple response options lacking a clearer assessment of transgender or questioning status and obscuring the complexities and intersections of sexual and gender identities.

Conclusion

Findings from this study provide evidence that support for SOGI training by school administration is an effective way to reduce victimization disparities for LGBT students and improve school climates for all students. School administrators can reference these results when implementing SOGI training in their schools; in particular, the findings may be used to respond in communities where there may be resistance to SOGI-supportive policies from school staff, parents, or other stakeholders. Indeed, evidence from the current study may help to shift discussions and decision-making regarding school-based SOGI training from a focus on personal SOGI values or beliefs to a focus on student well-being. Further, findings suggest that the adoption of SOGI-supportive practices may require time, and the consistent availability of SOGI training at the district level may facilitate the adoption of supportive practices over time. Indeed, schools within the same districts have frequent and extended contact with one another. Thus, direct or indirect exposure to SOGI training within a school district may provide an opportunity to obtain an informed assessment of SOGI-supportive practices and may reduce barriers to addressing SOGI issues in schools. Finally, stakeholders who want to support SOGI training should advocate for making school administrators aware of the documented importance of such training. The impact of SOGI training may take time; school climate and victimization problems cannot be addressed through one-time actions or training. Consistent with any effective professional development for educators, SOGI training should be sustained over time to reap the associated benefits.

Acknowledgements

The California Healthy Kids Survey was developed by WestEd under contract with the California Department of Education. This SSPS was developed by the California Safe Schools Coalition with a grant from the California Endowment. The authors acknowledge generous support from the Communities for Just Schools Fund, and for Russell from the Priscilla Pond Flawn Endowment at the University of Texas at Austin.

Funding

This work was supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO) [grant number 12V8120N]. This study was also made possible with funding from two grants awarded to the Population Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin (P2CHD042849 and T32HD007081) by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics Approval This study was approved by the University of Texas at Austin Review Board. IRB Amendment Approval for Protocol Number 2017–04-0070. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate In accordance with Education Code 501938(b), and with school board policy, passive consent was used for the administration of the CHKS surveys. Parents or guardians were notified, in writing, at the beginning of the school year about the survey, and allowed to review the survey and decline their child’s participation.

References

  1. Austin G, Bates S, & Duerr M (2015). Guidebook to the California Healthy Kids Survey part II: Survey content core module (2013–14 edition). WestEd. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baams L, & Russell ST (2021). Gay-straight alliances, school functioning, and mental health: Associations for students of color and LGBTQ students. Youth & Society, 53, 211–229. 10.1177/0044118X20951045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Birkett M, Espelage DL, & Koenig B (2009). LGB and questioning students in schools: The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989–1000. 10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, O’Brennan LM, & Gulemetova M (2013). Teachers’ and education support professionals’ perspectives on bullying and prevention: Findings from a national education association study. School Psychology Review, 42, 280–297. 10.1353/hsj.0.0047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. California Safe Schools Coalition. (2005). Safe schools research brief 1: District policies and trainings. Retrieved from http://www.casafeschools.org/c/research-briefs/
  6. Day JK, Ioverno S, & Russell ST (2019). Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth: Addressing educational inequities through inclusive policies and practices. Journal of School Psychology, 74, 29–43. 10.1016/j.jsp.2019.05.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Demissie Z, Brener ND, Mcmanus T, Shanklin SL, Hawkins J, & Kann L (2015). School Health Profiles 2014: Characteristics of health programs among secondary schools. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodenow C, Szalacha L, & Westheimer K (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573–589. 10.1002/pits.20173 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gower AL, Forster M, Gloppen K, Johnson AZ, Eisenberg ME, Connett JE, & Borowsky IW (2018). School practices to foster LGBT-supportive climate: Associations with adolescent bullying involvement. Prevention Science, 19, 813–821. 10.1007/s11121-017-0847-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Greytak EA, & Kosciw JG (2010). Year one evaluation of the New York City Department of Education “Respect for all” training program. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). [Google Scholar]
  11. Greytak EA, Kosciw JG, & Boesen MJ (2013a). Educating the educator: Creating supportive school personnel through professional development. Journal of School Violence, 12, 80–97. 10.1080/15388220.2012.731586 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Greytak EA, Kosciw JG, & Boesen MJ (2013b). Putting the “T” in “resource”: The benefits of LGBT-related school resources for transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10, 45–63. 10.1080/19361653.2012.718522 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Ioverno S, Baiocco R, Lingiardi V, Verrastro V, D’Amore S, & Green RJR.J. (2019). Attitudes towards same-sex parenting in Italy: The influence of traditional gender ideology. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 21, 188–204. 10.1080/13691058.2018.1459846 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Ioverno S, DeLay D, Martin CL, & Hanish LD (2021). Who engages in gender bullying? The role of homophobic name-calling, gender pressure, and gender conformity. Educational Researcher, 50, 215–224. 10.3102/0013189X20968067 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ioverno S, & Russell ST (2020). Homophobic bullying in positive and negative school climates: The moderating role of gender sexuality alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 50, 353–366. 10.1007/s10964-020-01297-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ioverno S, & Russell ST (2021). School climate perceptions at the intersection of sex, grade, sexual, and gender identity. Journal of Research on Adolescence. Advance online publication. 10.1111/jora.12607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kann L, McManus T, Harris W, Shanklin S, Flint K, Queen B, & Ethier K (2018). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance - United States 2017. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Konishi C, Saewyc E, Homma Y, & Poon C (2013). Population-level evaluation of school-based interventions to prevent problem substance use among gay, lesbian and bisexual adolescents in Canada. Preventive Medicine, 57, 929–933. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.06.031 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kosciw JG, Greytak EA, Zoningrone AD, Clark CM, & Truong NL (2018). The 2017 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY, US: GLSEN. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kosciw JG, Palmer NA, Kull RM, & Greytak EA (2013). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12, 45–63. 10.1080/15388220.2012.732546 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kull RM, Kosciw JG, & Greytak EA (2017). Preparing school counselors to support LGBT youth: The roles of graduate education and professional development. Professional School Counseling, 20, 13–20. 10.5330/1096-2409-20.1a.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Li G, Wu AD, Marshall SK, Watson RJ, Adjei JK, Park M, & Saewyc EM (2019). Investigating site-level longitudinal effects of population health interventions: Gay-Straight Alliances and school safety. SSM - Population Health, 7, 100350. 10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100350 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Meyer E (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: Understanding teachers’ (non) interventions. Gender and Education, 20, 555–570. 10.1080/09540250802213115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Payne E, & Smith M (2010). Reduction of stigma in schools: An evaluation of the first three years. Issues in Teacher Education, 19, 11–36. [Google Scholar]
  25. Poteat PV, Birkett M, Turner B, Wang X, & Phillips G (2020). Changes in victimization risk and disparities for heterosexual and sexual minority youth: Trends from 2009 to 2017. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66, 202–209. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.08.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rogers EM (2010). Diffusion of innovations. Simon and Schuster. [Google Scholar]
  27. Russell ST, & Fish JN (2016). Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 465–487. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Russell ST, Kosciw JG, Horn S, & Saewyc E (2010). Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students. Social Policy Report, 24, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  29. Russell ST, & McGuire JK (2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. In Shinn M & Yoshikawa H (Eds.), Changing schools and community organizations to foster positive youth development (pp. 133–158). Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  30. Russell ST, Seif H, & Truong NL (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 111–127. 10.1006/jado.2000.0365 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Saewyc EM, Konishi C, Rose HA, & Homma Y (2014). School-based strategies to reduce suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and discrimination among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents in Western Canada. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 5, 89–112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Salvati M, Pistella J, Ioverno S, Giacomantonio M, & Baiocco R (2018). Attitude of Italian gay men and Italian lesbian women towards gay and lesbian gender-typed scenarios. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 15, 312–328. 10.1007/s13178-017-0296-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Schneider MS, & Dimito A (2008). Educators’ beliefs about raising lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in the schools: The experience in Ontario. Canada. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5, 49–71. 10.1080/19361650802223003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Swanson K, & Gettinger M (2016). Teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, and supportive behaviors toward LGBT students: Relationship to Gay-Straight Alliances, antibullying policy, and teacher training. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13, 326–351. 10.1080/19361653.2016.1185765 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, & Higgins-D’Alessandro A (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. 10.3102/0034654313483907 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES