EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

Expanding Inclusion: LGBTQ+ Students in the Educational Environment

Katharine Guerrero

kcastril@usc.edu

EDUC 591: Diversity: Power, Equity and Inclusion

Spring 2023

Dr. Christine Mendoza

Rossier School of Education

University of Southern California

EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

Isolation and Exclusion of LGBTQ+ Students

The problem addressed by this paper is the pervasive and, in some cases, intentional

exclusion of LGBTQ+ students in the educational setting, as well as the existing circumstances

that are barriers to inclusion. A consideration relevant to the experiences of students who are

lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, pansexual, or who

choose other categorization is a general lack of inclusion in the lexicon. Terminology can be

confusing and overwhelming; in writing, using all appropriate inclusive letters of the acronym is

cumbersome. The term ‘LGBT’ is frequently used, even in research, which excludes several

recognized gender and sexual identities and attempts to collect experiences under one umbrella

term - frequently ‘queer’ (Tierney & Ward, 2017). This paper recognizes the limitations of its

own use of ‘LGBTQ+’ in an effort to find middle ground. The challenge presented by mere

terminology highlights the difficulties faced by the people represented by those terms. Students

identifying as LGBTQ+ face significant social, climate, and curriculum barriers within and

related to the educational setting which prevent equitable access.

Review of Relevant Research

Social Barriers

Society struggles to understand and interpret what it means to identify as LGBTQ+.

Misinformation regarding the nuances of identities such as bisexuality is common; for many, this

identity is not seen as being “real”, sometimes even from within the LGBTQ+ community itself.

It is perceived by many as a “fad” rather than as a legitimate sexual identity. Transgender

individuals are degraded, seen as confused or mentally ill; limited education exists on

transgender issues, and with that limited information comes limited support (Varjas et al, 2006).

Charitably, this largely results from ignorance; however, how can this pervasive ignorance be
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

subverted if those with power to make change are part of the problem?

The perception of LGBTQ+ identities as being representative of mental illness detracts

from the very real mental health challenges that are faced by students of sexual minorities.

Findings by the World Economic Forum indicate that over 40% of teengers with a marginalized

sexual or gender identity have strongly considered suicide (WEF, 2015). Mental health,

combined with other factors including destabilized homes, single-parent or blended families, and

socioeconomic disadvantagement, are also correlated with youth homelessness, of which

LGBTQ+ youth are disproportionately part. Unlike their heterosexual peers, however, LGBTQ+

youth experiencing homelessness are more likely to have been removed from their homes by

their families rather than finding themselves unsheltered alongside their families (Tierney &

Ward, 2017). This forced removal contributes to isolation, which Johnson and Amella (2014)

identify as manifesting in social isolation, victimization, social withdrawal, emotional isolation,

and concealment of their identity. Having limited or no family support, limited interaction with

or information about the greater LGBTQ+ community, and feeling apart from society makes

LGBTQ+ youth at even greater risk (Harris, Wilson-Daily & Fuller, 2022). When these supports

are not present, it becomes all the more critical for schools to offer resources and to be a safe,

supportive environment to offer hope of emotional, social, and academic success.

School Climate Barriers

With schools across the world seeking to enhance their approaches to Diversity, Equity,

and Inclusion (DEI), it is important that this diversity and inclusion include LGBTQ+ students

and their families. While some US states have state-wide legislation requiring schools to have

policy statements of protection for LGBTQ+ students, school-level policies are in the hands of

school boards, districts, and site administrators, and verbiage makes a difference. Policies
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

explicitly addressing protection of both sexual orientation and gender expression have been

associated with better perceptions and experiences of school climate for LGBTQ+ students and

their families (Bishop and Atlas, 2015). Without clear policy requirements, schools can craft

their statements as best fit the viewpoints of those in power – frequently, this creates

heteronormative expectations, with limited protections for students not fitting those expectations.

Even with policies in place, it is critical that LGBTQ+ students and families be not only accepted

in policy, but in practice. Unfortunately, Bishop & Atlas (2015) found that while

LGBTQ+-inclusive programs exist in some schools, these programs are not well-received by

school faculty and staff or by the general school community, with less than 20% of either group

responding favorably.

Written policies are not the only contributors to school climate – attitudes of other

students, resources and their perceived availability, and attitudes of staff all influence how

LGBTQ+ teens view and experience their school climate. These attitudes include presence and

frequency of discrimination, as well as whether support is implied or overt. When support is

implied or invisible, students need to rely on clues like the way that teachers talk during class,

what decorations are in their classrooms, and whether the teacher is willing to step in and correct

students engaging in offensive or inflammatory behavior. Though counselors are frequently

default “safe” persons in schools, LGBTQ+ students are not always willing to approach them or

entrust them with concerns related to sexual identity and expression. Sometimes this is because

the counselor is perceived as being disinterested in or directly opposed to such concerns; in other

cases, students are hesitant because of previous unrelated experiences with their counselor

indicating lack of competency, availability, trustworthiness (Varjas et al, 2006).

Students must also contend with spaces that are set up for a heteronormative, binary
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

population - among them, restrooms and locker rooms. These spaces highlight students’

difference, as well as exemplify areas governed by school policies, enforced by teachers and staff

lacking either training, understanding, or both (Harris, Wilson-Daily & Fuller, 2022).

Experiences in educational settings with gendered bathrooms contribute to negative perceptions

of school climate. Students in such settings are forced either to conform to how they physically

present or how they “pass”, leaving them open to hostility from peers, questions of their being in

the “right” bathroom, and harassment (Seelman, 2016).

Combined, these components of school climate result in feelings of school safety, with

students experiencing a more negative school climate also feeling less safe; in turn, this leads to

higher rates of absenteeism, lower grade-point average, and decreased connectedness with

learning (Toomey, McGuire & Russell, 2016).

Curriculum Barriers

Bishop and Atlas (2015) assert that curriculum falls under the influence of politics, with

decisionmaking power lying in the hands of the political group in power. As a result of this,

similar to policymaking decisions, decisions related to curriculum and its implementation are

very often based on the idea of heterosexual normativity. This is in spite of research suggesting

that up to 52% of parents in the United States support LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum in

elementary schools, which raises to 72% support for inclusion in secondary schools (Ullman,

Ferfolja & Hobby, 2021), suggesting that political forces are more dominant than the voices of

the people that policies should reflect. Even if full support were given to LGBTQ+-inclusive

curriculum, an additional barrier to its implementation is its creation and presentation. Educators

who are ill-trained in LGBTQ+ issues are also ill-equipped to create curriculum that accurately

represents LGBTQ+ experiences; assumptions about LGBTQ+ culture and identity are reliant
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

upon society’s already narrow understanding of those topics (Moore, 2016). Students are rarely

given the opportunity to be exposed to and to interact with curriculum that provides positive

depictions of LGBTQ+ identities and experiences, let alone curriculum that challenges and

subverts existing conceptions and stereotypes (Staley & Leonardi, 2016).

Recommendations

Recommendations for Social Change

Social change is one of the most difficult changes to make, in no small part because it

involves so many small, interpersonal shifts in perception and application. This change is

incremental, but is probably the strongest and longest-lasting; growth will build upon itself and

solidify practices through a process of normalization and legitimization of LGBTQ+ people. To

get this shift started, continued research needs to be done so that findings can be published and

extrapolated, and so that policy changes can be informed. This population needs continued

critical research as well as participatory action research (Tierney & Ward, 2017), and existing

research suggests that it would be beneficial to further research LGBTQ+ teens and their

perceptions and definitions of terminology, in addition to their conceptualization of orientation,

identity, and attraction (Varjas et al, 2006). Within the educational setting, as large as

Departments of Education and as small as individual classroom teachers and students, exposure

to representative and accurate information about the challenges, lived experiences, and identities

of LGBTQ+ individuals is critical, and can be achieved through professional developments,

course curriculum, and visible representation.

To combat the barriers resulting from homelessness, lack of family and social support,

and cognitive isolation, legislative changes can be put into place. Programs liaising social

workers and resources for LGBTQ+ teens experiencing homelessness can partner with schools to
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

ensure that these students are aware of and have access to the existing resources that are already

available to them, such as McKinney-Vento and related assistance (Tierney & Ward, 2017).

Recommendations for School Climate

Schools with clear and holistic nondiscrimination policies are associated with more

positive school climates; therefore, a step toward improving school climates would be to enact

nondiscrimination policies which address both sexual orientation and sexual expression (Bishop

& Atlas, 2015; Harris, Wilson-Daily & Fuller, 2022). According to GSLEN, such policies

protect not only LGBTQ+ students but all students, creating a safer and more welcoming

environment for all. GSLEN also found that at least 23% of educational organizations under

mandate to have such policies did not have them (Ridings, 2020), indicating that increased

oversight and enforcement of existing legislative mandates is called for.

Increased visibility in the school environment is also important for improving school

climate. Schools have been increasingly proactive in educating students and families about forms

of diversity such as race and ethnicity, socioeconomic variance, and types of families (blended,

single-parent, step, interracial), but are still struggling to provide similar education about

LGBTQ+ families, students, identities, and experiences. Similarly, diversity trainings are

increasingly provided, but in order to most effectively improve school climate, these trainings

should be expanded to include information on LGBTQ+ topics. Educators need to be given more

opportunities to reflect upon their own experiences with LGBTQ+ issues and to confront their

biases; additionally, they need better access to resources that will allow them to be familiar

enough with LGBTQ+ topics such that they can discuss them with students in meaningful,

informed ways (Bishop & Atlas, 2015). Additional steps toward visibility include actions as

simple as adding Safe Zone signage (a signifier of Safe Zone program training) in classrooms
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

and offices, which research suggests helps all students to feel more comfortable with

participating faculty (Katz et al, 2016), as well as the addition of student organizations such as

Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA), which help to improve LGBTQ+ student adjustment, acceptance,

and perception of school safety (Ioverno et al, 2016).

Recommendations for Curriculum

Changing and expanding curriculum to be inclusive in ways that are meaningful and

relevant is straightforward enough in theory – locate texts of trustworthy authorship which depict

LGBTQ+ experiences, ideas, and identities in a positive manner; incorporate them into existing

text sets, organized either thematically or chronologically. In practice, however, this integration

is much more challenging. First, authenticity is difficult to verify due to the nebulous nature of

what it means to be ‘authentic’, compounded by the expansive set of identities included in

LGBTQ+ as well as the limited availability of LGBTQ+ texts. These are not cause for giving

up. Research by Staley and Leonardi (2016) suggests approaching this issue through

anti-oppressive education; that is, through intentional disruption of norms and perceptions, first

dismantling ideas perpetuated through existing texts and attitudes, then progressing into study of

gender and sexual diversity (GSD) through GSD-specific text and content (Staley & Leonardi,

2016). Such an approach would allow for harmful and inaccurate conceptions to be gradually

replaced through reflection, moving beyond checking a diversity box and into meaningful

inclusion and representation. Having curriculum that teaches LGBTQ+ students about issues

that directly affect them and which expand the understanding of all students, which provides

relevant examples and role models of character and circumstance, and which show difference in

a positive context rather than a context of victimization would help diminish instances of student

isolation, and would embolden students to express themselves in accordance with their identities.
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

References

Bishop, C. M., & Atlas, J. G. (2015). School Curriculum, Policies, and Practices Regarding

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Families. Education and Urban Society, 47(7),

766–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513508580

Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. J. (2020). Gay‐Straight Alliances,

Inclusive Policy, and School Climate:LGBTQYouths’ Experiences of Social Support and

Bullying. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 30(S2), 418–430.

https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12487

Harris, R., Wilson-Daily, A. E., & Fuller, G. (2021). ‘I just want to feel like I’m part of everyone

else’: how schools unintentionally contribute to the isolation of students who identify as

LGBT+. Cambridge Journal of Education, 52(2), 155–173.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2021.1965091

Ioverno, S., Belser, A. B., Baiocco, R., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. J. (2016). The protective

role of gay–straight alliances for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning students: A

prospective analysis. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(4),

397–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000193

Kattari, S. K. (2016). Transgender Adults’ Access to College Bathrooms and Housing and the

Relationship to Suicidality. Journal of Homosexuality, 63(10), 1378–1399.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1157998

Katz, J., Federici, D. J., Ciovacco, M., & Cropsey, A. (2016). Effect of exposure to a safe zone

symbol on perceptions of campus climate for sexual minority students. Psychology of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(3), 367–373.

https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000186
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

Moore, A. R. (2016). Inclusion and Exclusion: A Case Study of an English Class for LGBT

Learners. TESOL Quarterly, 50(1), 86–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.208

Respect for All: Policy Recommendations to Support LGBTQ Students. (n.d.). GLSEN.

https://www.glsen.org/activity/respect-all-policy-recommendations-support-lgbtq-student

Staley, S., & Leonardi, B. (2016). Leaning in to Discomfort: Preparing Literacy Teachers for

Gender and Sexual Diversity. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(2), 209.

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-4321331827/leaning-in-to-discomfort-prepa

ring-literacy-teachers

Tierney, W. M., & Ward, J. (2017). Coming Out and Leaving Home: A Policy and Research

Agenda for LGBT Homeless Students. Educational Researcher, 46(9), 498–507.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17733964

Toomey, R. B., McGuire, J. K., & Russell, S. J. (2012). Heteronormativity, school climates, and

perceived safety for gender nonconforming peers. Journal of Adolescence, 35(1),

187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.001

Ullman, J., Ferfolja, T., & Hobby, L. (2021). Parents’ perspectives on the inclusion of gender and

sexuality diversity in K-12 schooling: results from an Australian national study. Sex

Education, 22(4), 424–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2021.1949975

Varjas, K., Ms, W. C. M., Meyers, J. D., Bs, L. B., Lopp, G., MA, & Dew, B. J. (2006).

Assessing School Climate Among Sexual Minority High School Students. Journal of

Lgbt Issues in Counseling, 1(3), 49–75. https://doi.org/10.1300/j462v01n03_05

Why LGBTI people face barriers to education and employment. (2020, February 4). World

Economic Forum.
EXPANDING INCLUSION FOR LGBTQ+ STUDENTS

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/08/why-lgbti-people-face-barriers-to-education-a

nd-employment/