Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 2016 American Psychological Association

2016, Vol. 3, No. 4, 407 415 2329-0382/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000196

Effectiveness of School District Antibullying Policies in Improving LGBT

Youths School Climate

Ryan M. Kull Emily A. Greytak, Joseph G. Kosciw, and

New York University Christian Villenas
GLSEN, New York, New York

School-based bullying is a serious problem for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth.
Previous research suggests that antibullying policies that explicitly prohibit bullying based upon a
students sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression (SOGIE; i.e., SOGIE-inclusive
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

policies) may improve school safety for LGBT students. However, most prior research relies on students
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

perceptions of whether policies existwhich may be less reliable than more objective assessmentsand
represent only a limited number of states. The current study combines data from a study examining U.S.
public school districts antibullying policies with data from a national survey of LGBT students school
experiences (7,040 LGBT students from 2,952 unique school districts) to examine the relationship
between antibullying policies and LGBT students safety and victimization at school. MANCOVA
results indicated that LGBT students in districts with SOGIE protections in their policies reported greater
school safety, less victimization based on their sexual orientation and gender expression, and less social
aggression than students with generic policies or no/unidentified policies. We also found that LGBT
students in districts with generic policies (i.e., antibullying policies that do not enumerate SOGIE
characteristics) and those in districts with no/unidentified policy did not differ on most measures of safety
and victimization. Findings suggest that antibullying policies explicitly enumerating SOGIE protections
can improve LGBT school experiences and that generic policies may not sufficiently protect LGBT
students from bullying and harassment.

Public Significance Statement

This study suggests that LGBT students in school districts with anti-bullying policies that specifically
state protections for students based on their sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression
report greater safety and less victimization than LGBT students in districts with generic anti-bullying
policies (i.e., policies that do not provide protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity/
expression) and or no/unidentified policies.

Keywords: LGBT youth, bullying, antibullying policies, school safety

Despite increased acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender (LGBT) people in the United States and groundbreak-
ing victories with regard to legal rights (Andersen & Fetner, 2008;
Pew Research Center, 2015), many LGBT students across the
country continue to face bias, harassment, and violence in their
schools. A growing body of research demonstrates that LGBT
youth commonly feel unsafe in their schools due to high rates of
peer victimization (Eaton et al., 2011; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, &
Boesen, 2014; Russell, Kostroski, McGuire, Laub, & Manke,
2006), with over 85% experiencing bullying or harassment in
school (Kosciw et al., 2014, p. 22). In-school victimization of
LGBT students has been linked to harmful psychological effects,
Ryan M. Kull, Department of Social Work, New York University; Emily
A. Greytak, Joseph G. Kosciw, and Christian Villenas, GLSEN, New York,
New York.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily A.
Greytak, GLSEN, 110 William Street, New York, NY 10038. E-mail:
emily.greytak@glsen.org
such as depression and low self-esteem (Bontempo & DAugelli,
2002; Gruber & Fineran, 2008; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, Card, &
Russell, 2010), as well as lower levels of school connectedness and
achievement (Galliher, Rostosky, & Hughes, 2004; Murdock &
Bolch, 2005; Pearson, Muller, & Wilkinson, 2007; Poteat & Es-
pelage, 2007).
Existing research on bullying phenomena typically emphasizes
individual-level factors that contribute to bullying behaviors and
direct interventions (such as teacher intervention) in response to
bullying. As such, there is an important need to examine the larger
contexts in which bullying and harassment occur, which in turn
could lead to broader, systemic efforts to improve school climate
for LGBT youth. An ecological perspective appreciates that human
behavior occurs within complex, reciprocal, and interacting sys-
tems, from the individual level to the larger social and environ-
mental context (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Such a perspective, ap-
plied to school climate for LGBT students, includes the cultural
and institutional context of the school environmentincluding the
policies and procedures that reflect a school systems values,
beliefs, and expectationsas well as the roles that educators, staff,

407
 408 KULL, GREYTAK, KOSCIW, AND VILLENAS
and administration play in the well-being, safety, and success of its
students.
Previous research suggests that the larger school context plays
an important role in the well-being and safety of its students, and
researchers have applied ecological perspectives to understand and
address school-based bullying (Espelage & Swearer, 2003; Hong
& Espelage, 2012; Swearer & Doll, 2001). For example, there is
some evidence that the implementation of school-wide antibully-
ing programs that address multiple levels of the school system
including educating and raising awareness of adults in the school
community have resulted in significant reductions of student
bullying (Olweus & Limber, 2010), although these have not been
assessed for LGBT student populations, specifically. Furthermore,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
research has highlighted the relationship between the presence of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
LGBT-related school-based supports and improved school climate
for LGBT students, including educators who are supportive of
LGBT students (Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, & Greytak, 2013), the
presence of GayStraight Alliances and similar student clubs (Ko-
sciw et al., 2013; Szalacha, 2003), and curricula that include
positive representations of LGBT people, history, and events
(Greytak & Kosciw, 2013; Russell, Kostroski, et al., 2006).
The Role of Antibullying Policy Efforts
The school context extends beyond the school building and its
personnel to the governing bodies that have oversight of the
educational institutions in which students reside. These governing
institutionssuch as school districts, educational agencies, and
legislaturesplay critical roles in ensuring safe learning environ-
ments for students through the development of formal laws, reg-
ulations, and policies. Many state officials and school districts
have increasingly enacted laws and policies to address bullying
and harassment in schools, and researchers have begun to docu-
ment the breadth and content of antibullying laws across the
United States (Limber & Small, 2003; Sacco, Baird Silbaugh,
Corredor, Casey, & Doherty, 2012; Stuart-Cassel, Bell, &
Springer, 2011). Further research has identified a connection be-
tween state antibullying laws and increased school safety in those
states (Hatzenbuehler, Schwab-Reese, Ranapurwala, Hertz, &
Ramirez, 2015; Ramirez, Ten Eyck, Peek-Asa, Onwuachi-Willig,
& Cavanaugh, 2016). One studys assessment of the status of
antibullying laws in 25 states (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2015) found
that students in states with antibullying laws containing key leg-
islative components (see Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011) had 24%
reduced odds of reporting bullying incidents compared to students
who did not have such components in their state law. Importantly,
state legislative requirements for school districts to enact local
policies were consistently related to better outcomes for students in
those states; this finding may indicate that state laws have an effect
on the local level indirectly through district policies.
It is possible that antibullying policies on the local district level
can have a more immediate and direct impact on school climate
than state laws do. In addition to formally outlining and commu-
nicating to students the school districts position on bullying and
harassment, district antibullying policies could be an effective tool
in addressing the many interacting systems that perpetuate bully-
ing behaviors. District antibullying policies can raise the school
communitys awareness of bullying phenomena, educate the
school community on identifying bullying when it occurs, estab-
lish procedures for intervening in and reporting bullying incidents,
and delineate clear expectations on how school administration,
staff, and districts are held accountable for such incidents. How-
ever, little is currently known about the relationship between
district-level antibullying policies and student outcomes. With
regard to LGBT youth, previous research has indicated that
certain types of antibullying policiesspecifically those that
explicitly prohibit bullying based upon a students sexual ori-
entation, gender identity, and/or gender expression (SOGIE;
i.e., SOGIE-inclusive policies)may be most effective for re-
ducing bullying and increasing safety for this population (Cal-
ifornia Safe Schools Coalition, 2005; Goodenow, Szalacha, &
Westheimer, 2006; Hatzenbuehler, 2011; Kosciw et al., 2014;
Saewyc, Konishi, Rose, & Homma, 2014).
Enumerating Protections for LGBT Students in
Antibullying Policies
From an ecological perspective, SOGIE-inclusive policies could
further improve school climate (beyond generic policies which do
not enumerate SOGIE characteristics) for LGBT students by
broadly affecting the institutional culture, including the behaviors,
attitudes, and awareness of school educators and administrators.
SOGIE-inclusive antibullying policies may raise awareness among
adults in school to the increased risk of bullying and harassment
that LGBT students face, and influence the perceptions and be-
haviors of staff toward LGBT-related bullying and harassment. For
example, research has found that elementary school teachers were
more comfortable intervening in LGBT-related bullying and cre-
ating safer environments for gender nonconforming students when
they reported that their schools had SOGIE-inclusive policies
(GLSEN & Harris Interactive, 2012). In addition to influencing the
behaviors and awareness of adults in school, SOGIE-inclusive
policies could have an impact on the broader school communitys
attitudes toward LGBT students, and thus reduce stigmatizing
and victimizing behaviors toward LGBT youth. SOGIE-
inclusive policies may signal a districts support of LGBT youth
more generally, thus providing a more welcome climate for
LGBT students and communicating to students and staff that
the district respects and is concerned about LGBT youths
well-being and safety.
There is some preliminary evidence that explicitly prohibiting
bullying based upon certain categories or groups of students (i.e.,
enumeration) could further the effectiveness of such policies in
protecting vulnerable youth. Specifically, some research suggests
that LGBT students experience a more positive school climate if
they believe that their schools have SOGIE-inclusive policies
(California Safe Schools Coalition, 2005; Goodenow et al., 2006;
Hatzenbuehler, 2011; Kosciw et al., 2014; Saewyc et al., 2014).
For example, results from GLSENs most recent National School
Climate Survey (NSCS; Kosciw et al., 2014), a biennial survey of
LGBT secondary school students in the United States, found that
LGBT students who believed that their school antibullying policies
mention protections based on students sexual orientation or gen-
der identity/expression reported lower rates of victimization and
hearing biased remarks compared to students without such poli-
cies. Similarly, other research has found that LGBT students who
perceived that their schools had SOGIE-inclusive policies reported
less victimization experiences, better mental health, and greater
 ANTIBULLYING, LGBT YOUTH, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
safety in their schools (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Goodenow
et al., 2006; OShaughnessy, Russell, Heck, Calhoun, & Laub,
2004; Saewyc et al., 2014). However, these studies have only
examined students and staffs perceptions of their policies and not
the actual presence of SOGIE-inclusive policies; thus, additional
research examining the connection between the actual presence of
SOGIE-inclusive policies and school climate for LGBT students is
warranted.
Purpose of the Current Study
This current study adds to the literature by providing the first
examination of the relationship between school districts antibul-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
lying policies and LGBT students experiences of safety and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
victimization. Specifically, we hypothesized that LGBT students
in districts with SOGIE-inclusive antibullying policies (i.e., poli-
cies that enumerated sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or
gender expression as protected categories) would report less vic-
timization experiences and greater safety than those students who
were in districts with a generic antibullying policy or with no/
unidentified policy.
Method
Data Collection and Sample
District policies. From September, 2008 through March, 2011
we attempted to identify antibullying policies from U.S. public
school districts from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. We
identified the population of public school districts through the U.S.
Department of Educations National Center for Education Statis-
tics (NCES; United States Department of Education, 2011), which
maintains an online database of U.S. school and district informa-
tion. Only districts that NCES classified as a regular public school
district or supervisory union were included in our study. The list of
districts from NCES was cross-referenced with state departments
of education and state school boards associations most current
lists of school districts. Only districts that were identified as active
districts were retained, resulting in a sample of 13,181 school
districts.
Next we attempted to obtain policies relevant to preventing
bullying or harassment for each identified school district (herein
referred to as antibullying policies). District policies that specifi-
cally addressed bullying and harassmentand not other types of
policies such as discrimination or hazing policieswere consid-
ered relevant for the current study. Although discrimination or
hazing policies may also enumerate LGBT protections and indi-
rectly protect students from bullying and harassment, they may be
limited in scope (e.g., hazing policies only applying to athletic
teams or other organized student groups) and we were interested in
policies that specifically address the bullying and harassment of
students broadly. We engaged in the following sequential strate-
gies for identifying a school districts antibullying policy:
Internet search. We searched available state education agency
and public school district websites for district antibullying policies.
We first attempted to identify a specific policy that addressed
bullying or harassment. If a specific antibullying policy was not
identified, related policy documents, such as student codes of
409
conduct, were examined for specific sections on bullying or ha-
rassment.
Contacting the district. If a districts antibullying policy was
not available online, we contacted a district administrator (e.g.,
superintendent) directly by e-mail. If an e-mail address was not
available or we did not receive a response after two e-mail at-
tempts, we attempted to contact them by phone and/or fax, de-
pending on available contact information. Contacts were informed
of the studys intent and purpose and that we were requesting their
districts policies related to bullying and/or harassment. District
contacts were also asked to notify us if they did not have any
policies related to bullying and harassment.
Direct mail to districts. If we did not find a policy online and
did not receive a response from directly contacting the district via
e-mail, fax, and/or phone, we sent a request for antibullying
policies via direct mail to the district central office. In a final
attempt to receive information about their antibullying policies, an
additional follow-up letter was sent to those districts that did not
respond to our first direct mailing.
Classification and content analysis of policies. Districts that
informed us that they did not have an antibullying or harassment
policy, and districts that did not have a policy online and did not
respond to our repeated requests for their policy (e-mail, phone
and/or fax, and direct mail, as detailed previously) were classified
as no/unidentified policy. In cases where a district had multiple
policies that addressed bullying and/or harassment, we combined
those policies into one document for analysis. Therefore, when we
refer to a districts policy in this report, we are referring to any
and all policies that include antibullying language for that district.
We were able to identify antibullying policies from 70.5% (n
9,296) of public school districts in our sample through our search
methods. These policies were examined for language stating pro-
tections to particular groups or categories of studentssuch as
age, ancestry or national origin, gender, race, religion, disability,
and, of particularly interest to this study, protections based upon
students actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or
gender expression. Using automated qualitative coding tools in
QDA Miner and WordStat (Provalis Research, 2012a, 2012b), we
searched antibullying policies for the occurrence and frequency of
keywords and phrases that potentially identified enumeration and
coded relevant sections for potential inclusion in our final results.
We assessed the reliability of computer coding by having research
staff manually code a random selection of policy documents and
comparing them to the automated computer coding, resulting in a
95% agreement between computer and hand coding. In cases
where computer and hand coding did not match, we adjusted our
automated coding scheme and searched for any enumerated poli-
cies that were not captured in previous searches.
Regarding the enumeration of sexual orientation, 42.6% of
districts with antibullying policies, or 30.0% of all school districts
in our sample, enumerated specific protections for students based
upon their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Regarding gen-
der identity/expression, only 14.1% of districts with antibullying
policies, or 9.9% of all school districts in our sample, provided
explicit protections to students based upon their actual or per-
ceived gender identity/expression. All but four district policies that
enumerated gender identity/expression also enumerated sexual ori-
entation.
 410 KULL, GREYTAK, KOSCIW, AND VILLENAS

LGBT student data. To examine the relationship between Table 1

LGBT students safety and victimization experiences and their Characteristics of LGBT Students
districts antibullying policies, we used data from GLSENs 2011
Characteristics n %
National School Climate Survey (NSCS; Kosciw, Greytak, Bart-
kiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012). The NSCS is a biennial survey Race and ethnicity
that examines the school experiences of LGBT students across the White or European American 4,765 68.1
United States. The 2011 NSCS was conducted via an online survey Hispanic or Latino, any race 527 7.5
African American or Black 258 3.7
using multiple recruitment methods. Notices and announcements Asian or Pacific Islander 160 2.3
of the survey, which were available online, were sent through Middle Eastern or Arab American, any Race 13 .2
national and chapter networks (n 35) of the organization con- Native American, American Indian, or Alaska
Native 37 .5
ducting the study, as well as national (n 43), state (n 23), and
Multiracial 1,220 17.4
local (n 501) LGBT and LGBT youth-serving organizations. To Other 14 .2
ensure representation of transgender youth, youth of color, and Sexual orientation
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

youth in rural communities, special outreach efforts were made to Gay or lesbian 4,330 61.9
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Bisexual 1,889 27.0

notify groups and organizations that work predominantly with
Queer 183 2.6
these populations about the survey. We also conducted targeted Other sexual orientation (e.g., pansexual) 331 4.7
advertising on social media sites such as Facebook and Reddit to Questioning or unsure 257 3.7
broaden our reach to LGBT students who may not be connected to Gender
Female cisgender 3,440 49.0
LGBT advocacy, support, or social groups. Male cisgender 2,494 35.4
Youth were excluded from the 2011 NSCS study if they were Transgender 590 8.4
not in a K12 school at some point during the 2010 2011 school Other gender identity (e.g. Genderqueer) 490 7.0
year, were not in school in the United States, or identified as Grade in school
6 11 .2
heterosexual and were cisgender (i.e., not transgender). Among the 7 197 2.8
15,016 who started the 2011 NSCS, 6,432 participants were ex- 8 614 8.8
cluded, leaving 8,584 in the final sample. Participants were elim- 9 1,281 18.3
inated because they were not LGBT (or under the broader umbrella 10 1,721 24.6
11 1,708 24.4
of being a sexual or gender minority, e.g., queer, bigender), were 12 1,474 21.0
not a student in a U.S. school in sixth12th grade during the
Note. N 7,040. Cisgender denotes students whose gender identity is the
2010 2011 school year, or because they did not sufficiently com-
same as their sex assigned at birth.
plete the survey (respondents had to complete at least the first three
sections of the study, which included questions on biased language
and school safety).
Combined dataset for the current study. To examine the No/unidentified policy. The district does not have an anti-
relationship between LGBT students safety and victimization at bullying policy or we were not able to locate one through
school and their districts antibullying policies for the current our multiple attempts.
study, we combined data from our district policy analysis with data Generic policy. The district has an antibullying policy, but
from the 2011 NSCS. Only those LGBT students participating in the policy does not include explicit protections based upon
the 2011 NSCS who attended public schools and provided a students actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender
district name or zip code that could be matched to the information identity and/or expression (herein referred to as gender
from our district policy database were included in the current identity/expression).
study. We did not include students who attended private schools, Sexual orientation/gender identity/expression-inclusive
as the district policy study only examined antibullying policies (SOGIE-inclusive). The district has an antibullying policy
from public school districts (private schools typically function that explicitly states protections for students based upon
outside of state legislative and regulatory requirements). The final their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity,
and/or gender expression. The inclusion of gender identity/
sample of LGBT students included in the combined dataset for the
expression in district antibullying policies occurred much
current study consisted of 7,040 NSCS participants from 2,952
less frequently than the inclusion of sexual orientation.
unique school districts (therefore, only data from these 2,952
Therefore, for purposes of statistical tests examining the
school districts were included in the analysis for the current study).
relationship between enumeration in policies and LGBT
Table 1 and Table 2 show the demographic and school character-
student experiences, we combined policies that include
istics, respectively, of LGBT students included in the current
sexual orientation alone, gender identity/expression alone,
study, and Table 3 outlines the status of antibullying policies in and those that include both sexual orientation and gender
these students school districts. identity/expression into one category.
Feelings of safety. Participants responded to two separate
Measures items asking whether they ever felt unsafe at school because of
their sexual orientation or gender expression (i.e., how tradition-
Policy type. We classified the status of districts antibullying ally masculine or feminine they were in appearance or behav-
policies into the following three categories for our analyses: ior). We coded each item measuring feelings of safety as dichot-
 ANTIBULLYING, LGBT YOUTH, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE 411

Table 2 Results
Characteristics of the Participants Schools
Results from our analyses are summarized in Table 4 and provided
Characteristics n % support for the studys hypothesis. Results from MANCOVA testing
demonstrated a significant multivariate effect of policy type on
Grade levels
student safety and victimization: Wilks .992, F(18, 13008)
K12 224 3.2
Elementary 2 .0 2.89, p .001, 2 .004. Follow-up univariate ANOVA tests
Lower school (elementary and middle) 29 .4 were conducted on each measure of safety and victimization to
Middle 647 9.2 examine the main effects of policy type on each dependent vari-
Upper school (middle and high) 412 5.9 able measuring LGBT students safety and victimization. Specif-
High school 5,698 81.3
Locale ically, we found that policy type had significant main effects on
Urban 1,948 27.7 LGBT students feelings of safety based on sexual orientation F(2,
Suburban 2,945 41.8 6512) 7.20, p .001, partial 2 .002 and feelings of safety
Rural 2,147 30.5 based on gender expression F(2, 6512) 4.00, p .05, partial
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Region
2 .001. Policy type also had significant main effects on all
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Northeast 1,351 19.2

South 2,326 33.0 three types of victimization based upon students sexual orienta-
Midwest 1,663 23.6 tion and gender expression: verbal harassment based upon sexual
West 1,701 24.2 orientation F(2, 6512) 17.00, p .001, partial 2 .002 and
Note. N 7,040. gender expression F(2, 6512) 7.33, p .001, partial 2 .002;
physical harassment based upon sexual orientation F(2, 6512)
13.19, p .001, partial 2 .004 and gender expression F(2,
6512) 3.57, p .05, partial 2 .001; and physical assault
omous variables (0 did not feel unsafe for that reason, 1 felt based upon sexual orientation F(2, 6512) 8.21, p .001, partial
unsafe for that reason). 2 .003 and gender expression F(2, 6512) 3.82, p .05,
Victimization based upon sexual orientation. Three sepa- partial 2 .001. Finally, we found a significant main effect of
rate items measured participants victimization experiences based policy type on experiences of social aggression F(2, 6512)
on their sexual orientation in the past school year. Participants 12.90, p .001, partial 2 .004.
were asked how frequently they experienced verbal harassment A series of post hoc analyses (Bonferroni method, p .05) were
(e.g., being called names or threatened), physical harassment (e.g., conducted to examine mean differences across the three types of
shove or pushed), and physical assault (e.g., punched, kicked, or policies for each of the dependent variables measuring safety and
injured with a weapon) based on their sexual orientation using a victimization (see Table 4). In terms of student safety, post hoc
5-point response scale (0 never; 1 rarely; 2 sometimes; 3 tests revealed that LGBT students were less likely to feel unsafe
often; 4 frequently). based on their sexual orientation in districts with SOGIE-inclusive
Victimization based upon gender expression. Three sepa- policies (M 0.62) compared to students with generic (M 0.66,
rate items measured participants victimization experiences based d 0.10) and no/unidentified (M 0.68, d 0.17) policies, and
less likely to feel unsafe based upon their gender expression in
on their gender expression in the past school year. Participants
were asked how frequently they experienced verbal harassment,
physical harassment, and physical assault based on their gender
expression using a 5-point response scale (0 never; 1 rarely; Table 3
2 sometimes; 3 often; 4 frequently). Prevalence and Characteristics of LGBT Students District
Antibullying Policies
Social aggression. Participants were asked about the fre-
quency of experiencing more indirect forms of aggression, typi- n (%) of LGBT n (%) of LGBT n (%) of LGBT
cally described as social aggression. Four items measured expe- students with an students with students with
riences of social aggression (deliberate exclusion by peers, target antibullying Generic SOGIE-inclusive
policy (any antibullying antibullying
of mean rumors/lies, electronic harassment, and property/stolen Characteristic type) policies policies
damaged in school) in the past school year using a 5-point re-
All students 6,235 (88.6) 3,310 (47.0) 2,925 (41.5)
sponse scale (0 never; 1 rarely; 2 sometimes; 3 often; Region
4 frequently). A total mean score was calculated for the four Northeast 1,197 (88.7) 406 (30.1) 791 (58.6)
items, with higher scores indicating more frequent experiences of South 2,122 (91.2) 1,625 (69.9) 497 (21.4)
Midwest 1,479 (88.9) 738 (44.4) 741 (44.6)
social aggression (4 items; .796).
West 1,437 (84.5) 541 (31.8) 896 (52.7)
Covariates. In order to control possible cofounding effects of Locale
district characteristics, two variables, district locale and district Urban 1,784 (91.6) 825 (42.4) 959 (49.2)
size, were included as covariates in our analyses. District locale Suburban 2,639 (89.6) 1,324 (45.0) 1,315 (44.7)
Rural 1,811 (84.4) 1,161 (54.1) 650 (30.3)
was categorized as rural, suburban, or urban, as designated by
NCES coding of district locale (United States Department of Note. N 7,040. Generic antibullying policies do not include protections
for LGBT youth (i.e., does not enumerate sexual orientation, gender
Education, 2011). District size was based upon NCES estimates of
identity, or gender expression). SOGIE-inclusive antibullying policies enu-
the absolute number of students in that district (United States merate sexual orientation, or sexual orientation and gender identity/
Department of Education, 2011). expression.
 412 KULL, GREYTAK, KOSCIW, AND VILLENAS

Table 4
Differences in LGBT Students Feelings of Safety, Victimization, and Social Aggression by Antibullying Policy Type

No/Unidentified SOGIE-inclusive
policy Generic policy policy
Variable M SE M SE M SE F 2p

Feelings of safety
Sexual orientation .68a .02 .66a .01 .62b .01 7.20 .002
Gender expression .48a .02 .45a,b .01 .43b .01 4.00 .001
Victimization based on sexual orientation
Verbal harassment 3.10a .05 3.07a .02 2.88b .02 17.00 .005
Physical harassment 1.88a .04 1.87a .02 1.71b .02 13.19 .004
Physical assault 1.44a .03 1.40a .02 1.32b .02 8.21 .003
Victimization based on gender expression
7.33
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Verbal harassment 2.59a .05 2.53a .03 2.41b .03 .002

3.57
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Physical harassment 1.63 .04 1.60 .02 1.53 .02 .001

Physical assault 1.30a .03 1.26a,b .01 1.22b .02 3.82 .001
Social Aggression 2.76a .04 2.71a .02 2.59b .02 12.90 .004
Note. N 7,040. Generic policies are those that do not include explicit protections for students based upon their sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or
gender expression. SOGIE-policies are those that include specific protections for students based upon their actual or perceived sexual orientation, or sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression. In each row, means that do not share the same subscript significantly differ from each other at the .05 level
(Bonferroni method). Estimated marginal means are reported. District size and locale were included as covariates in the analysis.

p .05. p .001.

districts with SOGIE-inclusive policies (M .43) compared only
to those with no/unidentified policies (M .48, d 0.14; they did
not differ from those with generic policies in this regard). Further-
more, LGBT students in districts with generic policies and no/
unidentified policies did not differ from each other in their reports
of safety based upon sexual orientation or gender expression.
In general, post hoc Bonferroni tests also demonstrated that
LGBT students in districts with SOGIE-inclusive policies reported
significantly less victimization experiences based upon their sex-
ual orientation and gender expression compared to LGBT students
in districts with generic and no/unidentified policies (see Table 4).
For example, LGBT students in districts with SOGIE-inclusive
policies reported significantly less victimization experiences based
upon their sexual orientation (verbal harassment M 2.88; phys-
ical harassment M 1.71; physical assault M 1.32) than
students in districts with generic (verbal harassment M 3.07,
d 0.17; physical harassment M 1.87, d 0.15; physical
assault M 1.40, d 0.10) and no/unidentified (verbal harass-
ment M 3.10, d 0.23; physical harassment M 1.88, d
0.17; physical assault M 1.44, d 0.16) policies. LGBT
students in districts with generic policies and no/unidentified pol-
icies did not differ in their reports of victimization based upon
sexual orientation. While students in districts with SOGIE-
inclusive policies were also significantly less likely to report
verbal harassment based upon their gender expression (M 2.41)
than students in districts with generic (M 2.53, d 0.10) and
no/unidentified (M 2.59, d 0.16) policies, we did not observe
the same pattern with physical harassment and assault based upon
students gender expression. LGBT students in our sample did not
differ in their reports of gender expression-related physical
harassment based on the type of policy in their district (SOGIE-
inclusive M 1.53; generic M 1.60; no/unidentified M
1.63). Furthermore, while LGBT students reported significantly
less physical assault based upon their gender expression in
districts with SOGIE-inclusive policies (M 1.22) compared to
those with no/unidentified policies (M 1.30, d 0.11), they
did not differ from students with generic policies (M 1.40) in
their reports.
Finally, we conducted post hoc analyses to examine whether
LGBT students experienced different frequencies of social aggres-
sion (i.e., being purposely excluded, rumors being spread about
them, property damage, and electronic harassment) based upon
their districts antibullying policy (see Table 4). We found that
LGBT students reported significantly less social aggression expe-
riences when they were in districts with SOGIE-inclusive policies
(M 2.59) compared to students in districts with generic policies
(M 2.71, d 0.14) or no/unidentified policy (M 2.76, d
0.22). LGBT students in districts with no/unidentified policy or
generic policies did not differ from one another in their experi-
ences of social aggression.
Discussion
Many safe school advocates and policymakers have advocated
for the enumeration of sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression in local, state, and federal safe school policy efforts
(e.g., Russell, Kosciw, Horn, & Saewyc, 2010). Efforts to provide
explicit protections to LGBT students are grounded in the belief
that generic antibullying policies do not adequately protect LGBT
students from bullying and harassment. The current studys find-
ings suggest that school district antibullying policies specifi-
cally prohibiting bullying and harassment based upon a stu-
dents sexual orientation and/or gender identity/expression (i.e.,
SOGIE-inclusive policies) can be a critical resource for improv-
ing school climate for LGBT students. Specifically, our find-
ings showed that LGBT students in districts with SOGIE-
inclusive antibullying policies reported significantly greater
feelings of safety, less victimization experiences (e.g., harass-
ment and assault based upon sexual orientation and gender
expression), and less social aggression than those students in
districts with generic policies or no/unidentified policy. In fact,
we found that LGBT students with a generic antibullying policy
 ANTIBULLYING, LGBT YOUTH, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
or no/unidentified policy did not differ from one another on
most of our measures of safety and victimization.
This study builds on previous research by linking the actual
content of antibullying policies across the United States to the
experiences of students within many of those school districts.
Because previous research has primarily relied on student and staff
perceptions of their schools or districts policies (California Safe
Schools Coalition, 2005; Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Good-
enow et al., 2006; Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005; Kosciw et
al., 2014; OShaughnessy & Spokane, 2013; Saewyc et al., 2014),
or looked at more distal relationships such as state level data and
mental health (Hatzenbuehler, 2011; Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, &
Hasin, 2009), our study further supports the utility of local anti-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
bullying policies that actually enumerate specific protections to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
LGBT students. This study provides important empirical evidence
to support advocates and policymakers efforts to include explicit
protections to LGBT youth, and possibly all vulnerable groups of
students, in district policy efforts.
Although we observed an overall pattern of SOGIE-inclusive
policies relating to better outcomes for LGBT students in our
study, there were some exceptions in students reports on gender
expression-related victimization based on their districts policy.
We did not observe any differences in physical harassment based
on students gender expression by the type of policy in their school
district, and students reports of physical assault based upon gen-
der expression only differed in SOGIE-Inclusive and No/Uniden-
tified Policy school districts. The reasons for these nuances are not
clear based on the information we have available, but a number of
possibilities exist. The inclusion of gender identity/expression
compared to sexual orientation in district policies is a relatively
new phenomenon, which may have resulted in a lapse between the
adoption of such language and its effects on certain types of gender
expression-based harassment and bullying. It is also likely that nuances
exist between sexual orientation-based and gender expression-based bul-
lying and harassment. Adults responsible for the safety and well-being of
their students may have less knowledge and awareness of gender
expression-based bullying and harassment, and therefore may not prevent
or intervene in these types of behaviors even when they are prohibited in
their school policies. Furthermore, public attitudes toward gender non-
conforming behaviors may be more negative than attitudes toward sexual
orientation, and therefore policy interventions may not yet be as effective
in preventing the perpetration of gender expression-related bullying and
harassment among youth. Further research into our findings related to
victimization based on gender expression is warranted.
Limitations
Results from this study were partly dependent on the availability
of school districts antibullying policies, which may not wholly
reflect the actual status of antibullying policies across U.S. public
school districts. Therefore, differences that we observed in LGBT
students safety and victimization could have been confounded, in
part, by certain impediments to data collection. If we could not
locate a districts policy after multiple attempts and repeated
requests, we classified the district as unidentified, along with
those districts that explicitly notified us that they did not have such
a policy. Therefore, it is possible that some districts that actually
had an antibullying policy were included with districts that we had
classified as no/unidentified policy. Several factors may have
413
prevented us from identifying an existing policy, such as a dis-
tricts lack of resources to make policies available online or the
failure of a district to respond to our multiple requests (either
purposeful or due to unintentional limitations). Therefore, differ-
ences that we observed in LGBT student safety and victimization
could have been partly driven by certain factors that were not
captured in our analyses, such as a school districts infrastructure
or ability to implement and disseminate policies. Furthermore, any
districts in the no/unidentified group that actually had a policy
could have attenuated the significant differences that we observed
in this study. However, this limitation would likely have led to
more conservative tests of significance that we report on in this
study.
It is also important to note that the status of district policies in
our study reflects those available from 2008 through 2011. Dis-
tricts that had adopted, modified, or amended policies after we had
already collected a policy or identified them as not having an
antibullying policy would not be reflected in our findings. When
examining the relationship between district policies and LGBT
student experiences, we controlled for district factors (i.e., locale
and size) that may have also explained differences in student
experiences, the likelihood of a district having an antibullying
policy, or the likelihood of a district including certain types of
content in a policy. Still, we cannot know for certain that the
district policy itself is affecting student experiences and not factors
omitted from our analyses. However, these limitations do not
diminish the fact that SOGIE-inclusive policies were important
indicators of school climate for LGBT youth in our study.
Conclusions and Implications
There is an urgent need for our nations school districts to
provide students with safe learning environments, and to develop
interventions that demonstrate effectiveness in addressing the bul-
lying, harassment, and overall school safety of LGBT students.
Findings from this study support the application of an ecological
perspective when developing such strategies for improving LGBT
students school climate. An ecological perspective appreciates
that the bullying and harassment of LGBT students occur within
complex institutional and social systems, and suggests that district
antibullying policies can be an important tool in positively affect-
ing the larger school climate in which bullying behaviors take
place. Our findings suggest, however, that antibullying policies
may only be effective in affecting school climate for LGBT
students when these policies specifically enumerate sexual orien-
tation and gender identity/expression as protected categories. In
light of these findings, it is concerning that a minority of LGBT
students in our study, about four in 10 (41.5%), had SOGIE-
inclusive policies. Given that the majority of LGBT students were
in districts with some type of antibullying policyand the likeli-
hood that districts continue to adopt antibullying policies over
timeit is important that efforts are made to ensure that existing
generic policies and newly implemented policies adopt SOGIE-
inclusive language.
Although we found that only a minority of LGBT students
attended schools in districts with SOGIE-inclusive policies, LGBT
students may still have legal recourse for bullying and harassment
experiences if their antibullying policies provided protections
based on their gender and/or sex. Federal education law protecting
 414 KULL, GREYTAK, KOSCIW, AND VILLENAS
students from sex discrimination under Title IX1 has been increas-
ingly applied to experiences of bullying, harassment, and discrim-
ination based upon students sexual orientation, gender identity,
and gender expression. In light of our findings, however, we
believe that reliance upon these interpretations of policy language
may not be a sufficient substitute for explicitly stating sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression as protected character-
istics. The reliance upon legal interpretations of bullying policies
may not have an effect on the daily experiences of students or
overall school climate as the potential targets, potential perpetra-
tors of bullying, and even school staff may not know the nuances
inherent in state and federal laws. Furthermore, sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression are not explicitly included in fed-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
eral civil rights protections. Although it is important to have
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
federally protected categories explicitly enumerated in antibully-
ing policies, victims of these types of bullying have other grounds
for recourse under federal statutes, whereas victims of sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression-based bullying may not.
Future research could build on the findings from this study to
better understand the mechanisms underlying the relationship be-
tween antibullying policies, including those that are SOGIE-
inclusive, and student outcomes. Certain factors that were not
included in the current studysuch as the degree to which anti-
bullying policies were implemented on the school level or adhered
to by staff and administration could provide useful insight for
schools, districts, and states efforts to create and implement
effective antibullying policies.
Despite our results demonstrating a connection between SOGIE-
inclusive policies and increased school safety for LGBT youth,
many LGBT youth in districts with SOGIE-inclusive policies still
face high rates of bullying and harassment. Therefore, while
SOGIE-inclusive policies are a critical component of safe and
welcoming schools, they are only one piece of the puzzle. It is
possible that antibullying policies would be more effective when
they are adopted in an environment that also engages in other
efforts to make schools safer and more welcoming for all students,
such as curricula inclusive of positive representations of LGBT
people and topics, establishment of GayStraight Alliances or
similar student clubs that address LGBT issues, and staff support
of LGBT students (Kosciw et al., 2014; Kosciw et al., 2013;
Russell, McGuire, et al., 2006; Szalacha, 2003). Future research
examining the multiple, interacting factors that contribute to a
policys effectiveness in improving school climate could support
continuing efforts to ensure that LGBT students are afforded equal
access to education so that they can thrive and succeed.
1 Pediatrics, 169(10), e152411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C.A.
16811688 (West Supp. 2014).
References
Andersen, R., & Fetner, T. (2008). Cohort differences in tolerance of
homosexuality: Attitudinal change in Canada and the United States,
19812000. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 311330. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1093/poq/nfn017
Bontempo, D. E., & DAugelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victim-
ization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths health
risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 364 374. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00415-3
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513531. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
California Safe Schools Coalition. (2005). Safe schools research brief:
District policies and training. Retrieved from http://www.casafeschools
.org/DistPolFACTSHEET_rev1a.pdf
Chesir-Teran, D., & Hughes, D. (2009). Heterosexism in high school and
victimization among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 963975. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s10964-008-9364-x
Eaton, D. K., Kann, L., Kinchen, S., Shanklin, S., Ross, J., Hawkins, J., . . .
Chyen, D. (2011). Youth risk behavior surveillanceUnited States, 2009.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 59(SS05), 1142. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5905a1.htm
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M. (2003). Research on school bullying and
victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here?
School Psychology Review, 32, 365383.
Galliher, R. V., Rostosky, S. S., & Hughes, H. K. (2004). School belong-
ing, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms in adolescents: An examina-
tion of sex, sexual attraction status, and urbanicity. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 33, 235245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:JOYO
.0000025322.11510.9d
GLSEN, & Harris Interactive. (2012). Playgrounds and prejudice: Ele-
mentary school climate in the United States; A survey of students and
teachers. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.
Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support
groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adoles-
cents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573589. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/pits.20173
Greytak, E., & Kosciw, J. (2013). Responsive classroom curriculum for
LGBTQ students. In E. S. Fisher & K. Komosa-Hawkins (Eds.), Cre-
ating safe and supportive learning environments: A guide for working
with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth and
families (pp. 157175). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gruber, J., & Fineran, S. (2008). Comparing the impact of bullying and
sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of
adolescents. Sex Roles, 59, 113. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-
9431-5
Harris Interactive, & GLSEN. (2005). From teasing to torment: School
climate in America, A survey of teachers and students. New York, NY:
Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2011). The social environment and suicide attempts
in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 127, 896 903. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3020
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Keyes, K. M., & Hasin, D. S. (2009). State-level
policies and psychiatric morbidity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual popula-
tions. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 22752281. http://dx.doi
.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.153510
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Schwab-Reese, L., Ranapurwala, S. I., Hertz, M. F.,
& Ramirez, M. R. (2015). Associations between antibullying policies
and bullying in 25 states. Journal of the American Medical Association
.2015.2411
Hong, J. S., & Espelage, D. L. (2012). A review of research on bullying
and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior, 17, 311322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb
.2012.03.003
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer,
N. A. (2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The experi-
ences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nations
schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network
(GLSEN).
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The
2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay,
 ANTIBULLYING, LGBT YOUTH, AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
bisexual, and transgender youth in our nations schools. New York, NY:
Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
Limber, S. P., & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address
bullying in schools. School Psychology Review, 32, 445 455.
Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for
poor school adjustment in lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) high school
youth: Variable and person-centered analyses. Psychology in the
Schools, 42, 159 172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20054
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2010). Bullying in school: Evaluation and
dissemination of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. American
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 124 134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.1939-0025.2010.01015.x
OShaughnessy, M., Russell, S. T., Heck, K., Calhoun, C., & Laub, C.
(2004). Safe place to learn: Consequences of harassment based on
actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender non-conformity and
steps for making schools safer. San Francisco, CA: California Safe
Schools Coalition.
OShaughnessy, T., & Spokane, A. R. (2013). Lesbian and gay affirmative
therapy competency, self-efficacy, and personality in psychology train-
ees. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 825 856. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0011000012459364
Pearson, J., Muller, C., & Wilkinson, L. (2007). Adolescent same-sex
attraction and academic outcomes: The role of school attachment and
engagement. Social Problems, 54, 523542. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/
sp.2007.54.4.523
Pew Research Center. (2015). Support for same-sex marriage at record
high, but key segments remain opposed. Retrieved from http://www
.people-press.org/2015/06/08/support-for-same-sex-marriage-at-record-
high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Predicting psychosocial conse-
quences of homophobic victimization in middle school students. The
Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 175191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0272431606294839
Provalis Research. (2012a). QDA Miner (Version 3.2) [Computer soft-
ware]. Montreal, Qubec, Canada: Author.
Provalis Research. (2012b). WordStat (Version 5.1) [Computer software].
Montreal, Qubec, Canada: Author.
Ramirez, M., Ten Eyck, P., Peek-Asa, C., Onwuachi-Willig, A., & Ca-
vanaugh, J. E. (2016). Evaluation of Iowas anti-bullying law. Injury
Epidemiology, 3, 15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40621-016-0080-9
E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!
Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!
415
Russell, S. T., Kosciw, J. G., Horn, S., & Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe schools
policy for LGBTQ students. Social Policy Report, 24, 125.
Russell, S. T., Kostroski, O., McGuire, J. K., Laub, C., & Manke, E.
(2006). LGBT issues in the curriculum promote school safety (California
Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief No. 4). San Francisco, CA:
California Safe Schools Coalition. Retrieved from http://www
.casafeschools.org/FactSheet-curriculum.pdf
Russell, S. T., McGuire, J. K., Laub, C., Manke, E., OShaughnessy, M.,
Heck, K., & Calhoun, C. (2006). Harassment in school based on actual
or perceived sexual orientation: Prevalence and consequences (Califor-
nia Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief No. 2). San Francisco, CA:
California Safe Schools Coalition. Retrieved from http://www
.casafeschools.org/CSSC_Research_Brief_2.pdf
Sacco, D., Baird Silbaugh, K., Corredor, F., Casey, J., & Doherty, D.
(2012). An overview of state anti-bullying legislation and other related
laws. Cambridge, MA: Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard University. Retrieved from http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/
cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/State_Anti_bullying_Legislation_Overview_
0.pdf
Saewyc, E. M., Konishi, C., Rose, H. A., & Homma, Y. (2014). School-
based strategies to reduce suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and dis-
crimination among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents in
Western Canada. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Stud-
ies, 5, 89 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.18357/ijcyfs.saewyce.512014
Stuart-Cassel, V., Bell, A., & Springer, J. F. (2011). Analysis of state
bullying laws and policies. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Eval-
uation and Policy Development, U. S. Department of Education.
Swearer, S. M., & Doll, B. (2001). Bullying in schools: An ecological
framework. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2(23), 723. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1300/J135v02n02_02
Szalacha, L. A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned
from an evaluation of Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for Gay and
Lesbian Students. American Journal of Education, 110, 58 88. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1086/377673
Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., Card, N. A., & Russell, S. T. (2010).
Gender-nonconforming lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth:
School victimization and young adult psychosocial adjustment. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 46, 1580 1589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0020705
United States Department of Education. (2011). Elementary/secondary
information system. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/
Received March 7, 2016
Revision received July 23, 2016
Accepted July 25, 2016