Heteronormativity School Climates and Perceived Safety For Gender Nonconforming

Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 187–196
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
Heteronormativity, school climates, and perceived safety for gender

nonconforming peers
Russell B. Toomey a, *, Jenifer K. McGuire b,1, Stephen T. Russell a, 2
a
John & Doris Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Arizona, 650 North Park Avenue, P.O. Box 210078, Tucson AZ 85721–0078, USA
b
Washington State University, Human Development, 512 Johnson Tower, P.O. Box 644852, Pullman, WA 99164-4852, USA
a b s t r a c t
Keywords: Students’ perceptions of their school climates are associated with psychosocial and
Heteronormativity academic adjustment. The present study examined the role of school strategies to promote
Gender nonconformity safety in predicting students’ perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers among
School safety
1415 students in 28 high schools. Using multilevel modeling techniques, we examined
School victimization
student- and school-level effects on students’ perceptions of safety for gender non-
LGBT
conforming peers. We found that older students, bisexual youth, Latino youth, and youth
who experienced school violence perceived their gender nonconforming male peers to be
less safe. Similarly, we found that older students and students who experienced school
violence and harassment due to gender nonconformity perceived their gender non-
conforming female peers to be less safe. At the school-level, we found that when schools
included lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) issues in the curriculum
and had a Gay-Straight Alliance, students perceived their schools as safer for gender
nonconforming male peers.
Ó 2011 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Norms and expectations for gender and sexuality are central in shaping the overall climate of contemporary schools
(Pascoe, 2007). School climates reflect broader pressures of heteronormativity (Chesir-Teran, 2003), or the everyday
expectations and experiences of what is “normal” based on gender and sexuality (Jackson, 2006). Pressures of hetero-
normativity emerge as particularly salient in adolescence: prior studies have shown that middle and high school students are
at risk for victimization at school when they do not conform to norms regarding gender (Aspenlieder, Buchanan, McDougall, &
Sipplola, 2009; Wyss, 2004) or sexuality (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006). Harassment based on actual or perceived
sexual orientation, which is often based on a student’s nonconformity to gender norms (Human Rights Watch, 2001; Pascoe,
2007), is well documented (Greytak, Kosciw, & Diaz, 2009; O’Shaughnessy, Russell, Heck, Calhoun, & Laub, 2004). Recent
events in the United States – including the murder of Larry King in 2008 and the suicides of several boys who were perceived
to be gay or bisexual in 2010 – have brought public attention to real-life instances of nonconformity to gender norms,
perceived same-sex sexual orientation, and school victimization (e.g., Hoffman, 2009; Katz, 2010). In response, researchers
have begun to identify strategies to promote positive school climates with the goal of increasing perceptions and experiences
of safety at school (Griffin & Ouellett, 2003).
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 (520) 429 6496; fax: þ1 (520) 621 9445.
E-mail addresses: toomey@email.arizona.edu (R.B. Toomey), jkmcguire@wsu.edu (J.K. McGuire), strussel@email.arizona.edu (S.T. Russell).
1
Tel.: þ1 (509) 335 2130; fax: þ1 (509) 335 2456.
2
Tel.: þ1 (520) 621 1231; fax: þ1 (520) 621 9445.
0140-1971/$ – see front matter Ó 2011 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.001
10959254, 2012, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.03.001 by University Of Leeds The Brotherton Library, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
188 R.B. Toomey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 187–196
In this study we examine the role of school strategies to promote safety for gender nonconforming students. To date most
of the public and research attention has focused on sexual orientation and identity, or school climates for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, or queer (LGBQ) students (Horn, Kosciw, & Russell, 2009); less attention has been given to gender nonconformity,
even though norms of gender conformity underpin heteronormativity. Further, most research attention has focused at the
individual level, or understanding student characteristics and experiences in predicting their perceptions of school climate.
Yet heteronormativity and school climates are fundamentally social and contextual concepts; indeed, empirical research has
documented that heteronormativity varies from school to school (Russell & McGuire, 2008). In the sections that follow we
present a framework for understanding heteronormativity in contemporary schools. We then review research on school
climate with a focus on school strategies that have been used to promote safe and supportive school climates. Data from the
Preventing School Harassment Survey from California are used to examine the ways that both person-level and school-level
indicators of heteronormative school climates predict students’ perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers.
Heteronormativity in schools
Heteronormativity is a societal hierarchical system that privileges and sanctions individuals based on presumed binaries of
gender and sexuality; as a system it defines and enforces beliefs and practices about what is “normal” in everyday life
(Jackson, 2006; Oswald, Blume, & Marks, 2005). Gender and sexuality norms are intertwined in the everyday experiences of
contemporary adolescents. Further, the notion of heteronormativity (Jackson, 2006; Oswald et al., 2005) suggests that norms
and attitudes about gender and sexuality are deeply linked theoretically as well. The heteronormativity framework is a basis
from which to explain how and why the violence toward gender nonconforming students is perpetuated. We argue that
gender regulation is a critical component of heteronormativity that structures norms and student interactions, placing
students at risk for victimization who violate gender norms.
“Queering” frameworks extend understandings of heteronormativity by allowing for identities that do not fit into the strict
definitions required by heteronormativity (Oswald et al., 2005). A queering approach allows for the presence of “complex”
identities (e.g., queer gender, queer sexuality) in environments that traditionally have only accepted and provided space to
individuals with “normal” identities (Oswald et al., 2005). Queering of the educational system requires that the curriculum,
policies, and practices of schools are inclusive of all individuals and their experiences (Loutzenheiser & MacIntosh, 2004;
Rofes, 1995). Thus, when queering practices and policies are implemented and visible to students, students may perceive
their environments as safer for peers that deviate from gender and sexuality norms (Greytak et al., 2009; Kosciw, Diaz, &
Greytak, 2008; Russell & McGuire, 2008). For example, by acknowledging the presence of gender nonconforming and
LGBQ students and enacting and enforcing policies and practices designed to provide a safe place for them, schools may
provide education in a queering environment instead of the typical heteronormative one (Rofes, 1995). In such schools,
students that challenge gender and sexuality norms may experience less harassment at school.
Thus, schools are important sites for understanding heteronormativity and its enactments and implications in the lives of
young people. In the earliest years of formal education, elementary students understand and engage in the practices of gender
regulation and heteronormativity (Renold, 2002; Thorne, 1993). While heteronormativity in schools is expressed through the
daily interactions among students and teachers, it is also expressed through institutional practices and policies (Chesir-Teran,
2003). The culture of heteronormativity varies between schools because of different societal influences in different locations
(e.g., school boards, local laws and regulations; see Szalacha, 2003); however, there are few between-school investigations of
school cultures. Because of variability across schools, there should be evidence of heteronormativity not only among students,
but also as a characteristic of the school climate (Chesir-Teran, 2003). Investigating heteronormativity across multiple schools
should allow for more complete explanation of how school climates are associated with students’ perceptions of safety for
gender nonconforming peers in school.
School climate and student safety
Nearly 24% of students experience school victimization at least once and nearly 9% experience weekly victimization
(Nansel et al., 2001). Additionally, witnessing victimization at school places youth at risk for negative adjustment (Rivers,
Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009). Negative consequences associated with school victimization based on gender nonconfor-
mity and sexual orientation include poor psychological health (depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suici-
dality; see D’Augelli et al., 2006; Rivers, 2001; Williams, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2005) and risky behavior (substance use,
risky sexual behavior, self-harm; see Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & DuRant, 1998). In addition,
bias-related school victimization is associated with lower grade-point average, fewer perceptions of school safety, less school
connectedness, and higher absenteeism (O’Shaughnessey et al., 2004; Poteat & Espelage, 2007; Rivers, 2000).
In the past two decades, researchers, practitioners, school personnel, and students have created and implemented
strategies aimed at improving school climates in order to promote safety and prevent the victimization of gender non-
conforming and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) students (Griffin & Ouellett, 2003). Studies have
identified a number of educational strategies that are associated with student safety (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Perrotti &
Westheimer, 2001; Szalacha, 2003), and prior research has shown notable differences between schools in the degree to which
they enact programs and policies, as well as school differences in climates that respect diversity (Russell & McGuire, 2008;
Szalacha, 2003). Included in these strategies are clearly enumerated anti-harassment policies, teacher intervention in
R.B. Toomey et al. / Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 187–196 189
gender and sexual harassment, and the presence of student clubs (such as gay-straight alliances) and curricular content that
challenge heteronormativity.
Enactment of inclusive, enumerated anti-harassment policies is arguably the most important first step to challenge gender
and sexuality norms and promote safe school climates (Russell & McGuire, 2008). The inclusion of sexual orientation and
gender identity in anti-harassment policies can help to break down heterosexism in schools (Szalacha, 2003). For instance,
Goodenow, Szalacha, and Westheimer (2006) found that the school-reported presence of an anti-harassment policy that
included protections for LGBTQ students had a strong negative association with suicidality among LGBTQ youth. The presence
of a school policy (as reported by a principal; e.g., Goodenow et al., 2006) does not, however, assure that the policy is known
by students or that students will report harassment to school staff. Students may not know about a policy, or may believe that
staff will not follow-up with the report or will “out” the student to others (Kosciw & Diaz, 2006). Thus, students’ knowledge of
and independent reports of anti-harassment policies may be particularly relevant, both for individual well-being, and as an
aggregate indicator of the climate of the school.
When teachers are perceived as supportive, students are less likely to experience school problems (Russell, Seif, & Truong,
2001). However, trainings designed to increase teachers’ knowledge and ability to intervene in harassment and to create
supportive classroom environments are rare or limited (Goodenow et al., 2006; Perrotti & Westheimer, 2001). In cross-
sectional studies, researchers have found that teacher and school staff intervention in situations that involve bias-related
harassment is associated with student reports of safer school climates (Blackburn, 2007; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004). One of
the only existing evaluation studies documented that a single-training on LGBTQ students and anti-LGBTQ bias in schools
increased teacher self-awareness about LGBTQ issues and access to information; however, the training did not significantly
increase intervention in LGBTQ bias incidents (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010).
Students who attend schools that have student-led clubs (e.g., gay-straight alliances (GSAs)) are more likely to report
safety for gender nonconforming and LGBTQ youth. The presence of a GSA is associated with fewer reports of victimization
and better academic and health outcomes for students (Goodenow et al., 2006; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Szalacha, 2003).
According to Szalacha (2003) GSAs have the most salient influence on school climate for gender nonconforming and LGBTQ
students. Furthermore, others have shown that the presence of a GSA is associated with safe school climates for all students
(O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009).
Finally, the availability of information or resources at school, and curriculum that challenges gender and sexuality norms,
have both been identified as strategies to promote inclusive school climates. Research has documented that students perceive
their schools as safer and report less harassment because of LGBTQ status or gender nonconformity in schools that have
inclusive curriculum and accessible information (O’Shaughnessey et al., 2004). Other research has shown that in schools
where the majority of students learn about LGBT issues through the school’s curriculum, students report less LGBT bullying
and harassment (Russell, Kostroski, McGuire, Laub, & Manke, 2006); similarly, curricular attention to gender and sexuality
norms may shape perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming students.
In summary, there is important prior research on school climate and safety relevant for understanding heteronormativity
in schools and implications for gender nonconformity. However, prior work has largely focused at the individual student level
and on LGBTQ youth in particular. School victimization, school climate, and school safety are typically conceptualized and
empirically studied at the individual student level, yet they represent constructs that characterize institutions in which
gender and sexuality norms are created, maintained, or reinforced (Pascoe, 2007). Thus, most research does not take into
account the school climate – as characterized by school-level reports or aggregated information about safety strategies – that
may explain differences in levels of acceptance of nonconformity to gender norms between schools. Further, missing from
prior studies has been an analysis of whether policies and procedures at the school-level make a difference for gender
nonconformity, an issue that lies at the heart of peer norms and regulation of LGBTQ youth.
Current study
The purpose of this study is to assess students’ perceptions of the school climate as safe for gender nonconformity, and to
examine how the visibility of safe school strategies may challenge heteronormativity and be associated with greater
perceptions of safety for peers. Most prior investigations have considered only the individual level and have failed to
acknowledge plausible differences across schools due to variability in school climates of heteronormativity. To provide a more
comprehensive examination of individual perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers and the visibility of safe
school strategies, we use multilevel modeling techniques to examine both students’ experiences as well as characteristics of
schools that predict students’ perceptions of safety based on gender nonconformity. At the individual level, we expect LGBTQ,
ethnic minority, and older students (Horn, 2006) to be more aware of inequalities at school and thus more likely to report that
their schools are less safe for gender nonconforming students. More important, we expect that students who experience
harassment due to gender nonconformity will perceive their schools as less safe for gender nonconforming students. We also
expect that students will perceive greater levels of safety for their gender nonconforming peers in schools that implement
one or more school strategies that challenge heteronormativity. At the school-level, we expect that that there will be
significant heterogeneity between schools on the use of these strategies and perceptions of safety, given that hetero-
normativity varies from school to school (Russell & McGuire, 2008). Further, at the school-level, we expect that greater
perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers will be associated with greater visibility of safe school strategies (i.e.,
a greater proportion of students who report one or more of these strategies).
Methods
Procedure and sample
This study was based on data from the Preventing School Harassment (PSH) Survey, which included a total of 2560 middle
and high school students in California (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004). The PSH survey was conducted in three consecutive years
(2003–2005) and was available to participants in both paper and online formats. The participants included lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) youth as well as their straight allies (i.e., heterosexual peers who provide support to
and advocate for the rights of their LGBTQ classmates; Washington & Evans, 1991). Participants were recruited from Gay-
Straight Alliance organizations and LGBT community-based youth groups and centers.
In order to maximize power and minimize exclusion of participants due to missing data, we used PROC MI in SAS to impute
missing data (Graham, Cumsille, & Elek-Fisk, 2003). All numeric variables were entered into the expectation maximization
(EM) algorithm for imputation; measures of demographic characteristics (gender identity, sexual orientation, and race/
ethnicity) were excluded from the imputation procedures. The final analytic sample included data from 1415 respondents for
which full demographic data were available, and who attended 28 schools with at least 20 participating respondents. The
number of students per school ranged from 20 to 199 students and the majority attended public schools (95.27%) compared to
private schools (4.73%).
The majority of the participants were female (59.79%); 38.51% were male and 1.70% were transgender. The sample
included LGBQ students (19.08%) and their heterosexual, straight allies. Over half of the participants reported an ethnic
minority identity: 23.96% Latino, 19.65% Asian, non-Latino, 4.10% Black, non-Latino, 15.83% other or multiple races/ethnicities,
and 3.60% reported no race/ethnicity. Participants were in school grades 6 through 12 (M ¼ 10.48, SD ¼ 1.34) and ranged in
age from 11 to 19 years (M ¼ 16.04, SD ¼ 1.44).
Measures
Perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers

These measures were developed for the current study in consultation with high school student gay-straight alliance (GSA)
club leaders that were contacted through an LGBTQ youth advocacy organization. Two survey questions were developed to
assess perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers in their schools with two items: “My school is safe for guys who
are not as ‘masculine’ as other guys” and “My school is safe for girls who are not as ‘feminine’ as other girls” (1 ¼ strongly
disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ agree, 4 ¼ strongly agree).
Personal experiences of gender nonconformity-based harassment

The California Healthy Kids Survey measure of “harassment causes: hate-related behavior” was included in the PSH survey;
it includes reports of harassment based on race/ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and disability (California
Healthy Kids Survey, 2009). We included two additional harassment causes items to measures gender nonconformity-
based harassment, also developed in consultation with high school student GSA club leaders. Participants in the survey were
asked the following two questions: “During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or
bullied for any of the following reasons: ‘Because you aren’t as ‘masculine’ as other guys’ and ‘Because you aren’t as ‘feminine’
as other girls’?” (0 ¼ never; 1 ¼ 1 time; 2 ¼ 2–3 times; 3 ¼ 4 or more times). We created a single indicator of harassment due
to gender nonconformity that used male reports on masculinity, female reports on femininity, and for transgender students,
we used the maximum reported amount of harassment for either question.
School violence
Participants were asked eight items about their personal experiences of violence at school (California Healthy Kids Survey,
2009). Sample items from this measure include: “During the past 12 months, how many times on school property have you
been threatened or injured with a weapon, such as a gun, knife, or club?” and “During the past 12 months, how many times on
school property have you been in a physical fight?” (0 ¼ 0 times to 3 ¼ 4 or more times). The items were summed together to
create a single measure of school violence (M ¼ 4.68, SD ¼ 4.68, Cronbach’s a ¼ .80).
School safety strategies

Five school strategies shown in previous research to improve school climate for LGBTQ students (O’Shaughnessy et al.,
2004) were measured. For school policies, participants were asked: “Does your school have a harassment policy that
specifically includes sexual orientation?” (0 ¼ no/I don’t know; 1 ¼ yes [48%]). To assess whether students knew where to go
for information and support related to gender identity, one item asked: “If you wanted information and support from your
school about sexual orientation, gender identity, or LGBTQ issues, would you know where to go?” (0 ¼ no/I don’t know;
1 ¼ yes [64%]). Inclusion of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum at school was assessed by the following question: “In your classes at
school, have you ever learned about LGBTQ people, discussed LGBTQ history or current events, or received information about
sexual orientation and gender identity?” (0 ¼ no/I don’t know; 1 ¼ yes [58%]). Whether or not the school had a GSA or related
student-led club was assessed by one item: “Does your school have a Gay-Straight Alliance or a similar club?” (0 ¼ no/I don’t
know; 1 ¼ yes [82%]). Finally, to assess whether teachers intervene in harassment, two questions were asked: “How often do
you hear teachers or school staff stop others from making negative comments or using slurs based on sexual orientation?”
(0 ¼ never/rarely; 1 ¼ sometimes/often [58%]) and “How often do you hear teachers or school staff stop others from making
negative comments or using slurs based on gender identity or expression (not being ‘masculine’ enough, or not being
‘feminine’ enough, or being transgender)?” (0 ¼ never/rarely; 1 ¼ sometimes/often [48%]). Because these two items were
highly correlated (r ¼ .69, p < .001), we created a single indicator of teacher intervention that used the highest of the two
scores.
Perceived heteronormativity
School-level measures of each of the five school strategies were created by calculating the average for each strategy
reported by the students within each school. Because the original variables were dichotomous indicators, the result is
a measure of the percentage of students in any given school who reported each school safety strategy.
Plan of analyses
We began with descriptive analyses that document the prevalence of gender nonconformity-based harassment as well as
student perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers. Because previous research has documented important
differences in safety for gender nonconforming males and females (e.g., D’Augelli et al., 2006; Kosciw et al., 2008;
O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004), we tested models for perceptions of safety for male and female peer separately. We first used
multilevel regression models (using SAS PROC MIXED) to predict perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers based
on individual-level sociodemographic characteristics, experience of violence at school, personal experience of harassment or
bullying due to gender nonconformity, and the five safe school strategies. Then, we added information about school-level
characteristics on the five safe schools strategies (Peugh, 2010; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). With the use of multilevel
modeling techniques we aimed to distinguish variability within school (among students) versus between schools in the
associations among safe school strategies and perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers.
Results
A correlation table of all study variables is presented in Table 1. School harassment due to gender nonconformity was
present in the schools in our study: 15.83% of students reported being harassed or bullied because of gender nonconformity.
Table 1
Correlations among key study constructs.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Safety for nonconforming females –
2. Safety for nonconforming males .69*** –
3. Violence at school .17*** .23*** –
4. Harassed/bullied for gender nonconformity .12*** .15*** .50*** –
5. School has policy on sexual orientation .04 .01 .03 .02 –
6. LGBT inclusive curriculum .15*** .14*** .07* .09** .08** –
7. Access to information on LGBT issues .11*** .11*** .00 .01 .06* .29*** –
8. GSA in school .06* .06* .03 .04 .09*** .10*** .27***
9. Teacher intervenes in harassment .06* .07** .06* .04 .09*** .09*** .09***
10. % School has policy on sexual orientation .18*** .18*** .06* .05 .25*** .02 .08**
11. % LGBT inclusive curriculum .11*** .11*** .09** .16*** .01 .44*** .23***
12. % Access to information on LGBT issues .10*** .09*** .01 .03 .05 .23*** .43***
13. % GSA in school .05* .09*** .03 .08** .04 .02 .23***
14. % Teacher intervenes in harassment .03 .01 .03 .02 .06* .11*** .04
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Safety for nonconforming females
2. Safety for nonconforming males
3. Violence at school
4. Harassed/bullied for gender nonconformity
5. School has policy on sexual orientation
6. LGBT inclusive curriculum
7. Access to information on LGBT issues
8. GSA in school –
9. Teacher intervenes in harassment .03 –
10. % School has policy on sexual orientation .08** .05* –
11. % LGBT inclusive curriculum .02 .05* .04 –
12. % Access to information on LGBT issues .28*** .02 .19*** .53*** –
13. % GSA in school .54*** .01 .14*** .05 .53*** –
14. % Teacher intervenes in harassment .01 .22*** .24*** .25*** .08** .03 –
Note. ***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

However, this statistic obscures gender and sexual orientation differences in reporting gender nonconformity harassment
(see Table 2): over half of the participants “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that their schools were safe for “guys who aren’t as
masculine as other guys” (66.51%) and “girls that aren’t as feminine as other girls” (75.40%). These percentages were even
lower for students who identified as LGBQ (masculine: 51.85%; feminine: 67.04%). In contrast, straight youth perceived their
schools as safer for gender nonconforming students (masculine: 69.96%; feminine: 77.38%). At the mean-level these differ-
ences were significant, such that LGBQ students compared to straight students reported less safety for gender nonconforming
male peers (t(df ¼ 1413) ¼ 5.32, p < .001; LGBQ ¼ 2.52; Straight ¼ 2.79) and female peers (t(df ¼ 1413) ¼ 2.17, p < .05;
LGBQ ¼ 2.80; Straight ¼ 2.90).
Perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming boys and perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming girls were
highly correlated (r ¼ .69, p < .001). However, only small correlations between perceived safety for gender nonconforming
peers and personal experience with bullying or harassment due to gender nonconformity were found. Among males, being
harassed or bullied for gender nonconformity was negatively correlated with perceived safety for gender nonconforming
male peers (r ¼ .21, p < .001); for females, there was a similar association between gender nonconformity harassment and
perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming females (r ¼ .12, p < .001).
To examine differences at the school-level, we first tested unconditional multilevel models (models with no independent
covariates) to establish the degree to which perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming male and female peers vary
across schools (versus between individual students). Results indicated that a substantial proportion of the variance in
perceptions of gender nonconformity safety existed between schools: differences between schools accounted for 17.88% of
the variance in perceived safety for gender nonconforming males, and 13.26% in perceived safety for gender nonconforming
females. Simply put, some schools were perceived as safer than others for gender nonconforming students.
School safety strategies and gender nonconformity
As shown in model 1 (Table 3), youth who were in higher grades, bisexual, Latino/a, and who had experienced violence at
school reported lower perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming male peers. Transgender youth reported higher
perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming male peers; however, due to the small number of students in this subgroup,
this result should be interpreted with caution. Youth who were in higher grades, who had experienced violence at school, and
who had been harassed or bullied for gender nonconformity reported lower perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming
female peers. At the individual level, three of the five safe schools strategies were predictive of higher levels of perceptions of
safety for gender nonconforming male peers: inclusion of LGBT inclusive curriculum in schools, access to information about
LGBT issues and support, and teacher intervention in sexual orientation- or gender nonconformity-based harassment.
Inclusion of LGBT inclusive curriculum in schools was also associated with greater perceptions of safety for gender non-
conforming female peers.
Model 2 (Table 3) introduces aggregated school-level indicators that reflect the visibility of school strategies. Results
differed for perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming females compared to safety for gender nonconforming males.
Students reported more perceived safety for gender nonconforming males if they attended schools in which higher
proportions of students reported LGBT inclusive curriculum and the presence of a GSA. Notably, in schools in which pro-
portionally more students reported harassment policies that included specific attention to sexual orientation, students
reported less perceived safety for gender nonconforming peers (both male and female). Compared to the unconditional
models, using a Pseudo R2 approach, these results show that the aggregated school-level indicators account for approximately
half of the between-school variance in perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers. Specifically, school-level
indicators accounted for 49.70% of the differences between schools in students’ perceptions of safety for gender non-
conforming males; the school-level indicators accounted for 57.97% of between school differences in perceptions of safety for
gender nonconforming females.
Table 2
Student experiences with gender nonconformity-based harassment or bullying.
Reports of harassment/bullying due to gender nonconformity

By gender
Male students 20.92%
Female students 11.11%
Transgender students 66.67%
By sexual orientation
GBQ male students 48.81%
Straight male students 15.84%
LBQ female students 31.74%
Straight female students 6.04%
LGBQ transgender students 84.21%
Note. N ¼ 1415.
Table 3
Student- and school-level predictors of students’ perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers.
Safety for nonconforming males Safety for nonconforming females
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Intercept 3.23*** 3.29*** 3.31*** 3.36***
Year of data collection .08* .09* .01 .01
School grade .07*** .07*** .04* .04*
Female .03 .03 .07 .07
Transgender .30* .31* .06 .06
Gay/Lesbian .04 .01 .16 .18*
Bisexual .17* .16 .07 .05
Queer/Questioning .07 .08 .09 .11
No Race/Ethnicity Identified .13 .12 .05 .05
Latino .15** .16** .09 .10
Black .02 .03 .06 .08
Asian .02 .02 .01 .02
Other/Multiple race/Ethnicity .04 .04 .04 .04
Violence at school .03*** .03*** .02*** .02***
Harassed/Bullied for gender nonconformity .04 .04 .06* .06*
School has policy on sexual orientation .03 .04 .03 .02
LGBT inclusive curriculum .13** .12** .16*** .15***
Access to information on LGBT issues .12** .11* .08 .08
GSA in school .01 .03 .03 .02
Teacher intervenes in harassment .08* .09* .06 .06
% School has policy on sexual orientation .97** 1.01***
% LGBT inclusive curriculum .64* .36
% Access to information on LGBT issues .37 .17
% GSA in school .55* .20
% Teacher intervenes in harassment .25 .34
T 00 .08** .05** .04** .03**
s2 .46*** .46*** .43*** .43***
2ResLL 3028.0 3015.7 2926.4 2917.3
AIC 3032.0 3019.7 2930.4 2921.3
Note. N ¼ 1415. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
Perceiving one’s school climate as safe has important implications for academic achievement and other psychosocial
outcomes (Eccles & Gootman, 2002). We examined the prevalence of harassment or bullying due to gender nonconformity, as
well as student- and school-level differences in students’ perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers. To our
knowledge, no other study has examined perceptions of gender nonconformity safety as an indicator of heteronormative
school climates. Consistent with previous research, we found that the forces of heteronormativity continue to be pervasive:
harassment due to gender nonconformity was common among the students in this study (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Poteat
& Espelage, 2007). In particular, male and transgender participants reported less safety based on gender nonconformity than
females: this finding is consistent with the observation that breaking male gender norms elicits more violence than breaking
female gender norms (Brown & Tappan, 2008). Furthermore, our finding that LGBQ identified students report more
harassment based on gender nonconformity than straight youth is evidence of the intersecting binaries of sexuality and
gender (Blackburn, 2007; D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002).
Although gender nonconformity-based harassment is prevalent, it is important to point out that over 50% of the students
in this study perceived their schools to be safe for gender nonconforming students. Although this percentage was lower for
LGBQ students, these findings point to an apparent disconnect between perceived school safety for gender nonconforming
students and actual reports of harassment for the same reason. We argue that this disconnect is in fact an indicator of the
implicit, heteronormative values that are maintained in schools (Oswald et al., 2005). That is, even though students report
being harassed or bullied because of their gender nonconformity, the majority of students perceive that their schools a safe for
gender nonconforming peers. Students may be unaware of the victimization of gender nonconforming peers if the location is
not central to the school as past research suggests (e.g., locker rooms, bathrooms; Sausa, 2005) or may experience this type of
victimization but feel that it is expected and thus do not consider it when rating the overall school climate. These findings
indicate that explicit attention to issues of gender nonconformity is needed in schools to address the problems that students
encounter when they break gender norms.
At the student-level, we found that Latino students were less likely to perceive safety for their gender nonconforming male
peers; Latino students may be more aware of discrimination experienced by others because of their ethnic minority status.
Latinos may be particularly heightened to the consequences of gender norm violations for male students because of their
strict traditional cultural values about masculinity and femininity (e.g., Casas, Wagenheim, Banchero, & Mendoza-Romero,
1994). We also found that older students perceived less safety for their gender nonconforming peers. Recent work indi-
cates that older adolescents have less homophobic attitudes (Horn, 2006) and are more willing to remain friends and attend
school with gay and lesbian peers (Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009); these authors suggested that older youth may have
more exposure to out lesbian and gay peers, or to peers who resist norms for gender conformity. Our finding may indicate that
older youth are more cognizant of heteronormative expectations for their peers, and may therefore be more likely to perceive
a lack of safety for gender nonconformity. Finally, and not surprisingly, students that experienced greater amounts of school
violence were less likely to perceive their gender nonconforming peers as safe at school.
At the individual student level, our findings indicate that when students report inclusion of LGBTQ issues in the curric-
ulum, have accessible information related to LGBTQ issues, and when teachers intervene in sexual orientation- and gender
nonconformity-based harassment, they perceive their schools as safer for gender nonconforming male students. These
findings are consistent with prior research on school safety strategies (Szalacha, 2003). Although inclusive school policies and
the presence of a GSA or similar club were not significant predictors of safety, having a GSA was normative among participants
in this survey, and nearly half reported inclusive policies (indeed, all students attended schools in California, where state
education policy mandates that nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies include actual or perceived sexual orien-
tation and gender or gender identity). Thus, school policies and GSAs may be pre-conditions to school safety. In such contexts,
safety may be more dependent on teacher intervention in LGBTQ bias-related harassment or bullying and access to LGBTQ
information in the school (Russell & McGuire, 2008).
At the school-level, we found considerable variability across schools in reports of safety for gender nonconforming
students (13–18%). Thus, the degree of heteronormativity in schools varies: some schools are perceived as safer for gender
nonconforming students than others. This finding is consistent with other studies that have examined between-school
variability of perceptions of school safety. For instance, Russell and McGuire (2008) found that 11% of the variability in
perceptions of safety for LGBT students and teachers exists between schools. When indicators of the perceived hetero-
normative climate of schools (the proportion of students who reported each school safety strategy) were added to our
models, higher proportions of student reports of LGBTQ-inclusive curricula and the presence of GSAs predicted perceptions of
safety for gender nonconforming male students. It is noteworthy that these are strategies that involve challenging hetero-
normativity in the formal and institutionally authorized (and thus implicitly supported) discourse of schools – that is, in
classrooms and extracurricular activities. Beyond individual experiences, students reported more perceived safety for gender
nonconforming male peers when they attended schools in which the formal curriculum and extra-curriculum included
challenges to heteronormativity, or in which these challenges were visible and known to students. Finally, our results showed
that the school-level indicators included in our multilevel models accounted for almost half of the variability that exists
between schools in perceptions of student safety based on gender nonconformity. The important implication here is that
actions to promote LGBTQ inclusion in the formal discourses of schools are among the strongest predictors of which schools
are safer than others.
There is a notable and counterintuitive finding: higher proportions of students who reported inclusive school policies
predicted lower perceptions of safety based on gender nonconformity. It may be that students are more likely to seek out and
know about LGBTQ-inclusive school policies if they feel unsafe, or if they attend schools that are unsafe for gender non-
conforming youth. Using a different data source from California (over 6000 students in 14 schools) and focusing on students’
reports of anti-LGBTQ slurs at school, Russell and McGuire (2008) found a similarly counterintuitive result when examining
students’ reports of LGBTQ-related slurs at school. In that study, students reported more anti-LGBTQ slurs in schools in which
proportionally more students reported that their teachers intervened in anti-LGBTQ harassment. Because we are using cross-
sectional data, it is not possible to disentangle the possibilities that students in unsafe schools may be more likely to seek
information about (and thus have knowledge of) school policies that may protect them. Further, this study was based in
California, which has a statewide Education Code that includes “actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity” in
its nondiscrimination policy (California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, 2000). Because at the state level
all students are protected based on this law, our measure tapped the proportion of students who were aware of inclusive
policies, which may reflect shared knowledge among students as well as the degree to which their schools conform to and
provide notice of the state’s inclusive nondiscrimination policy. Awareness of a policy could be linked with heightened
sensitivity or knowledge of existing negative climates. For instance, in this study there was a positive association between the
proportion of students who were aware of an inclusive school policy and individual experiences of school violence, suggesting
that more students were aware of inclusive policies in schools where students also reported more violence. Obviously this
counterintuitive finding must be interpreted with caution: it would be wrong to conclude the inclusive policies are associated
with less safety for gender nonconforming students. In fact, such policies provide the context that allows schools to start
taking actions to challenge heteronormativity: they are necessary but not sufficient for changing the school safety climate
(Russell & McGuire, 2008).
Limitations and conclusion
Our findings suggest that the same strategies that promote safe schools for LGBTQ youth are associated with perceptions of
safety for gender nonconforming youth, and show promise for challenging the heteronormative climate of schools. These
results are promising, and are particularly relevant given the glaring absence of published intervention studies (not even
quasi-experimental or observational studies) to test strategies that could promote safe and supportive school climates. It is
reasonable to expect these policies and strategies for improving school safety and reducing heteronormativity actually are
a consequence of the differences that we find between schools; however, our cross-sectional evidence is only suggestive.
This study has other limitations as well. First, no indicator of individual students’ own level of gender nonconformity was
available. Future research should examine gender nonconforming students’ own perceptions of safety in relation to the safe
schools strategies investigated in this study. Second, the sample was designed to maximize recruitment of LGBTQ students
and their straight allies and was geographically limited to California. Third, other work has given attention to the ways that
school structures (e.g., bathroom and locker room facilities) may promote or hinder safe environments for gender non-
conforming youth (Chesir-Teran, 2003). Other characteristics of schools not included here may be crucial for understanding
perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming students and peers. Finally, given the known association between school
victimization and poor psychosocial adjustment, future research should examine how perceptions of safety based on gender
nonconformity affect achievement and psychosocial well-being. Do perceptions of safety for others translate into one’s own
perception of personal safety? Further, if a student perceives the environment to be unsafe for gender nonconforming
students, does this affect personal adjustment?
Our study documented heteronormativity in schools, and provided initial evidence that school policies and programs may
challenge this heteronormativity. In particular, we documented differences between schools, and demonstrated that these
differences are meaningful for students’ perceptions of safety for gender nonconformity, particularly for gender non-
conforming male peers. Importantly, these findings suggest that safe school practices that are inclusive of LGBTQ issues have
implications for student safety over and above the individual-level effect: schools where greater proportions of students
report awareness of safe school strategies are also likely to have less heteronormative climates. We suggest that schools
implement the safe schools strategies examined in this study and reported elsewhere (Szalacha, 2003). Our findings suggest
that school administrators, teachers, and other school personnel who implement safe schools policies and practices need to
be intentionally inclusive to the needs of gender nonconforming students. In particular, promising approaches will focus on
challenging heteronormativity through the intentional discourse of schools – the formal curriculum and extra-curriculum. In
order to do this, however, school personnel and students need to be supported through inclusive nondiscrimination and anti-
harassment policies. Likewise, teachers should be trained in how to support students who do not conform to gender and
sexuality norms. Finally, future research needs to examine the content of LGBTQ-inclusive education and accessibility of
LGBTQ-related information at schools: how much of this information and education includes attention to gender noncon-
formity? Our study suggests that such inclusion would be linked to school safety for gender nonconforming students, and all
students.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a contract from the California Endowment to the California Safe Schools Coalition and
a William T Grant Foundation Scholar Award to the first author, and the Fitch Nesbitt Endowment, Frances McClelland
Institute at the University of Arizona. The authors thank the Gay-Straight Alliance Network for their role in collecting the data,
the California Safe Schools Coalition Evaluation Committee for access to the data and for their thoughtful input, and Cesar
Egurrola, Nicole Lehman, Jacqueline Larriva, and Craig Talmage for assistance with data management.
References
Aspenlieder, L., Buchanan, C. M., McDougall, P., & Sippola, L. K. (2009). Gender nonconformity and peer victimization in pre- and early adolescence. European
Journal of Developmental Science, 3, 3–16.
Blackburn, M. V. (2007). The experiencing, negation, breaking, and remaking of gender rules and regulations by queer youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues
in Education, 4(2), 33–54.
Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 30, 364–374.
Brown, L. M., & Tappan, M. B. (2008). Fighting like a girl fighting like a guy: gender identity, ideology, and girls at early adolescence. In M. Azmitia, M. Syed, &
K. Radmacher (Eds.), The intersections of personal and social identities. New directions for child and adolescent development, Vol. 120 (pp. 47–59).
California Healthy Kids Survey. (2009). Technical report narratives. Retrieved June 24, 2009, from. WestEd: California Health Kids Survey. Web site. http://
www.wested.org/cs/chks/print/docs/chks_reportnarratives.html.
California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000. (2000). Retrieved June 24 2009 from California Department of Education. Web site: http://
www.cde.ca.gov/re/lr/sv/.
Casas, M. J., Wagenheim, B. R., Banchero, R., & Mendoza-Romero, J. (1994). Hispanic masculinity: myth or psychological schema meriting clinical
consideration. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 16, 315–331.
Chesir-Teran, D. (2003). Conceptualizing and assessing heterosexism in high schools: a setting-level approach. American Journal of Community Psychology,
31, 267–279.
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2006). Childhood gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462–1482.
D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17, 148–167.
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Kessel, S., Palfrey, J., & DuRant, R. H. (1998). The association between health risk behaviors and sexual orientation among a school-
based sample of adolescents. Pediatrics, 101, 895–902.
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.
Graham, J. W., Cumsille, P. E., & Elek-Fisk, E. (2003). Methods for handling missing data. In J. Shrinka, & W. Velicer (Eds.), Research methods in psychology.
Handbook of psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 87–114). New York: Wiley.
Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2010). Year one evaluation of the New York City Department of education respect for all training program. New York: GLSEN.
Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Harsh realities: The experiences of transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.
Griffin, P., & Ouellett, M. (2003). From silence to safety and beyond: historical trends in addressing lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender issues in K-12 schools.
Equity & Excellence in Education, 36, 106–114.
Hoffman, J. (2009, November 6). Can a boy wear a skirt to school? The New York Times. Retrieved from. http://www.nytimes.com.
Horn, S. S. (2006). Heterosexual adolescents’ and young adults’ beliefs and attitudes about homosexuality and gay and lesbian peers. Cognitive Development,
21, 420–440.
Horn, S. S., Kosciw, J. G., & Russell, S. T. (2009). New research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: studying lives in context. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 38, 863–866.
Human Rights Watch. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in U.S. schools. New
York: Human Rights Watch.
Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality, and heterosexuality: the complexity (and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7, 105–121.
Katz, N. (2010 October 11). Schools battle suicide surge, anti-gay bullying. CBS News. Retrieved from. http://www.cbsnews.com.
Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2006). The 2005 National school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s
schools. New York: GLSEN.
Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). 2007 National school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our
nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.
Loutzenheiser, L. W., & MacIntosh, L. B. (2004). Citizenships, sexualities, and education. Theory Into Practice, 43, 151–158.
Nansel, T. R., Overpeck, M., Pilla, R. S., Ruan, W. J., Simons-Morton, B., & Scheidt, P. (2001). Bullying behaviors among US youth: prevalence and association
with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, 2094–2100.
O’Shaughnessy, M., Russell, S., 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.
Oswald, R. F., Blume, L. B., & Marks, S. R. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: a model for family studies. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P.
Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 143–165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Perrotti, J., & Westheimer, K. (2001). When the drama club is not enough: Lessons from the safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Peugh, J. L. (2010). A practical guide to multilevel modeling. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 85–112.
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Predicting psychosocial consequences of homophobic victimization in middle school students. The Journal of Early
Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Willingness to remain friends and attend school with lesbian and gay peers: relational expressions of
prejudice among heterosexual youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 952–962.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Renold, E. (2002). Presumed innocence: (hetero)sexual, heterosexist and homophobic harassment among primary school girls and boys. Childhood, 9,
415–434.
Rivers, I. (2000). Social exclusion, absenteeism and sexual minority youth. Support for Learning, 15, 13–18.
Rivers, I. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: its nature and long-term correlates. Educational and Child Psychology, 18, 32–46.
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school: the mental health implication of witness status. School Psychology
Quarterly, 24, 211–223.
Rofes, E. (1995). Making our schools safe for sissies. In G. Unks (Ed.), The gay teen: Educational practice and theory for lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents
(pp. 79–84). New York: Routledge.
Russell, S. T., Kostroski, O., McGuire, J. K., Laub, C., & Manke, E. (2006). LGBT issues in the curriculum promotes school safety (California Safe Schools Coalition
Research Brief No. 4). San Francisco: California Safe Schools Coalition.
Russell, S. T., & McGuire, J. K. (2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) students. In M. Shinn, & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.),
Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 133–149). New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth empowerment and high school gay-straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
38, 891–903.
Russell, S. T., Seif, & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: evidence from a national study. Journal of
Sausa, L. A. (2005). Translating research into practice: trans youth recommendations for improving school systems. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in
Education, 3, 15–28.
Szalacha, L. (2003). Safe 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.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Washington, J., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. J. Evans, & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus
(pp. 195–204). Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.
Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 471–482.
Wyss, S. E. (2004). ‘This was my hell’: the violence experienced by gender non-conforming youth in US high schools. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 17, 709–730.

Heteronormativity School Climates and Perceived Safety For Gender Nonconforming

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heteronormativity School Climates and Perceived Safety For Gender Nonconforming

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Adolescence 35 (2012) 187–196

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heteronormativity, school climates, and perceived safety for gender

School climate and student safety

Procedure and sample

Perceptions of safety for gender nonconforming peers

Personal experiences of gender nonconformity-based harassment

School safety strategies

Note. p < .001. p < .01. p < .05.

School safety strategies and gender nonconformity

Reports of harassment/bullying due to gender nonconformity

Safety for nonconforming males Safety for nonconforming females

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Limitations and conclusion

You might also like