Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth: Addressing educational inequities through inclusive policies and practices

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of School Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jschpsyc

Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth: Addressing educational inequities through inclusive policies and practices

T

Jack K. Daya, , Salvatore Iovernob, Stephen T. Russella,b ⁎

a

Department of Human Ecology, SUNY Oneonta, 108 Ravine Parkway, Oneonta, NY 13820, United States of America Department of Human Development and Family Sciences, Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 116 Inner Campus Dr Stop G6000, Austin, TX 78712, United States of America

b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Action Editor: Stephen Kilgus

Inclusive policies that attend to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) are associated with more supportive school environments for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. We use the 2013–2015 California Healthy Kids Survey (n = 113,148) matched with principal reports of school policies from the 2014 California School Health Profiles to examine differential effects of SOGI-focused policies for LGB and transgender youth. SOGI-focused policies had a direct association with less truancy, and moderated the association between sexual orientation/ gender identity and other school outcomes. SOGI-focused policies were associated with more positive experiences and perceptions of school climate for LGB youth and, to a lesser extent, transgender youth. Findings underscore the importance of inclusive policies, especially those that address the unique needs of transgender students.

Keywords: Sexual orientation Gender identity Academic achievement Bullying and harassment Truancy and absenteeism School policy

1. Introduction Recent research provides clear evidence of sexual orientation and gender identity-related disparities in school experiences. For example, a report based on data from the largest nationwide school health surveillance survey in the United States (the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System) documented that 34% of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth were likely to be bullied at school compared to 19% of heterosexual youth (Kann et al., 2016). Another national study of LGB, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth found that 89% had experienced at least one type of victimization; specifically, 67% were victimized because of their sexual orientation and 60% because of their gender expression (Greytak, Kosciw, Villenas, & Giga, 2016). There is also strong evidence of the detrimental impact of discriminatory bullying on the health and well-being of school-age youth (Collier, van Beusekom, Bos, & Sandfort, 2013; Russell, Sinclair, Poteat, & Koenig, 2012), including compromised academic success (Aragon, Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2014; Paul Poteat, Scheer, & Mereish, 2014) and perceiving school climates as hostile (Greytak, Kosciw, & Diaz, 2009; O’Shaughnessy, Russell, Heck, Calhounn, & Laub, 2004). At the same time, a number of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI)-focused school policies and practices – SOGI-inclusive policies, staff professional development, resources and information, and the presence of safe spaces and student-led groups – have been shown to promote positive school climate for all youth and to reduce bullying and discriminatory behavior (Russell, Day, Ioverno, & Toomey, 2015; Russell & Horn, 2016; Russell, Kosciw, Horn, & Saewyc, 2010). Despite these advances, existing knowledge has been truncated due to several notable limitations of prior studies. First, nearly all prior studies have focused exclusively on LGB youth, or LGB and transgender (LGBT) youth as a single combined monolithic group, ⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.K. Day), [email protected] (S. Ioverno), [email protected] (S.T. Russell).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.05.007 Received 21 February 2018; Received in revised form 15 January 2019; Accepted 10 May 2019 Available online 26 May 2019 0022-4405/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of School Psychology.

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

potentially obscuring the distinctive experiences related to gender identity independent of sexual orientation. This gap in the literature is especially concerning given evidence that transgender youth report experiencing particularly harsh school climates related to harassment and feeling unsafe at school (McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010). A second limitation is that nearly all prior studies have been drawn from local, regional, or national studies designed to investigate the school experiences of LGBT youth. These studies are typically based on nonrepresentative or geographically limited community samples. With growing attention to disparities related to sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, more surveillence efforts have begun to include questions about the sexual orientation and gender identity of individual youth. The inclusion of SOGI-focused measures makes possible new efforts to study policies and practices at the school-level linked with information on health and well-being at the student-level (e.g., Russell et al., 2015). This study builds on prior work by examining the effect of multiple SOGI-focused policies on LGBT youth's school experiences and perceptions of school climate. The current methodological approach has several distinct advantages. We use the largest statewide data source from California schools that includes a measure of sexual orientation and gender identity; the unique size of the sample and data structure allows us to examine differential effects of SOGI-focused policies for LGB youth and transgender youth separately. Further, we link multiple indicators of SOGI-focused policies, based on reports from school principals, to assess the global SOGI climate of schools. In the following sections, we review extant literature on SOGI-focused policies in relation to bullying, and the school experiences of LGBT youth in general. We use the phrase “SOGI-focused policies” as a short-hand for a collection of strategies that schools use, ranging from formal policies to everyday practices. We also include a brief overview of the small body of existing research on the effect of SOGI-focused policies on transgender youth's school experience. We then provide findings from our multilevel study on the differential effects of SOGI-focused policies on general victimization, sexual identity and gender (SIG) bullying, truancy, academic success, and perceptions of school climate for LGBT youth. 1.1. The effect of multiple SOGI-focused policies on LGBT youth's school experiences In response to the well-documented problem of bullying and discrimination for LGBT youth, research has begun to document the mechanisms that reduce bias-based bullying (i.e., bullying based on gender identity or expression, or actual or perceived sexual orientation) and other negative school experiences (Fedewa & Ahn, 2011; Russell & Fish, 2016; Toomey & Russell, 2016). Several SOGI-focused policies have been identified in prior studies, including: Policies that prohibit discrimination and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity or expression; training of school personnel on LGBT issues and on ways to intervene when biasmotivated harassment happens; presence of Gay-Straight Alliances (also known as Genders and Sexualities Alliances – GSAs) or other student-sponsored diversity clubs; identification of safe spaces where LGBT youth can receive support; and accessible LGB and transgender-related information and support for youth in schools (Palmer, Kosciw, & Boesen, 2016; Russell et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2015). There is consistent evidence that the enactment of SOGI-inclusive nondiscrimination and anti-bullying policies has the potential to improve the perceived school climate for LGBT youth by sending a message that the school is a welcoming and affirming environment where harassment and discrimination are not tolerated (Black, Fedewa, & Gonzalez, 2012; Russell et al., 2010). Moreover, multiple studies using community (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Kosciw, Greytak, Giga, Villenas, & Danischewski, 2016) and population-based samples of high school students (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Szalacha, 2003) indicate that school policies that include formal protections from bias-based victimization are associated with less harassment for LGB (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Goodenow et al., 2006; Szalacha, 2003) and LGBT youth (Hall, 2017; Kosciw et al., 2016). A national study using a community sample of almost 6000 LGBT students provides evidence that these effects may be mediated by more proximal factors in youth school experiences, such as the presence of SOGI-focused school-based supports (Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, & Greytak, 2013). These findings suggest that the benefits of a comprehensive policy, such as enumerated anti-discrimination policies, may operate indirectly. The presence of an anti-discrimination policy, for example, may clearly signal to teachers and school personnel that LGBT-based discrimination should not be tolerated and prompt them to intervene when witnessing bias-based bullying. In fact, qualitative studies (Meyer, 2008; Norman, 2004; Schneider & Dimito, 2008) have found that teachers’ interventions were influenced by the presence of enumerated school anti-discrimination policies that formally prohibited LGBT-based discrimination. Teachers can serve as another important source of support for LGBT youth within school contexts. According to several studies analyzing data from community (Murdock & Bolch, 2005; Snapp, McGuire, Sinclair, Gabrion, & Russell, 2015) and population-based samples of high school students (Szalacha, 2003), youth report feeling safer in schools with teachers and staff who are supportive of LGBT issues (Murdock & Bolch, 2005; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Snapp, McGuire, et al., 2015). A study on a community sample of about 300 LGBT youth found that the presence of an adult ally at school was associated with fewer days of missed school (Seelman, Walls, Hazel, & Wisneski, 2012). Previous research has also identified that training school staff on issues related to LGBTQ youth is a way to create more positive school climates for youth (Greytak & Kosciw, 2014; Szalacha, 2003). Specifically, Greytak and Kosciw (2014) surveyed a national sample of teachers and found that familiarity with people who identify as LGBT, awareness of bias-based harassment and bullying in their schools, and comfort in intervening when hearing bias-based remarks were associated with more teacher intervention against discriminative behaviors. In an evaluation of a district-wide SOGI-focused training program with more than 450 school educators’, brief trainings were found to be effective in changing attitudes and self-efficacy in preventing bias-based bullying and promoting LGBT youth’s identities (Greytak, Kosciw, & Boesen, 2013). A population-based survey of students also found that teacher training contributed to improvements in school climates related to sexuality diversity (Szalacha, 2003). 30

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

Another growing area of research has focused on how peer support groups and student-led clubs, such as GSAs, may improve LGBT youth’s school experiences. Studies in this area have employed various methodologies, including qualitative investigations based on focus groups (Lee, 2002) and quantitative investigations based on community (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Heck, Flentje, Cochran, & Youth, 2011; Ioverno, Belser, Baiocco, Grossman, & Russell, 2016; Kosciw et al., 2016; Walls, Kane, & Wisneski, 2010) or population-based samples (Goodenow et al., 2006; Szalacha, 2003), comparing the experience of students in schools with and without GSAs. The presence of a GSA appears to be the most consistent practice associated with positive school climate and better academic outcomes for LGB (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Goodenow et al., 2006; Lee, 2002; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Szalacha, 2003) and LGBT youth (Kosciw et al., 2016; Walls et al., 2010). Several studies have found that youth who have a GSA in their school report significantly less victimization compared with those who do not have GSAs (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Goodenow et al., 2006; Heck et al., 2011; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004). However, one population-based study on youth in 45 Wisconsin schools (Poteat, Sinclair, Digiovanni, Koenig, & Russell, 2013) and another study on over 300 LGBTQ youth (Walls et al., 2010) found no variation in victimization based on presence of GSAs. Some scholars (Ioverno et al., 2016; Poteat et al., 2013; Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011) suggest that these mixed findings may indicate that GSAs alone may not be sufficient to prevent homophobic victimization at school; rather, GSAs may be more beneficial when they exist alongside other SOGI-focused policies. The identification of “safe spaces” for LGBT youth has emerged in several studies as another important practice associated with more positive school climates (Katz, Federici, Ciovacco, & Cropsey, 2016). Safe spaces are usually associated with “Safe Zone” initiatives aimed to promote inclusivity and support for LGBT youth by providing voluntary training on sexual orientation and gender identity-related issues. Upon completion of Safe Zone trainings, volunteers are provided with “Safe Zone” stickers that they can post to identify spaces where LGBT youth may feel free to openly discuss sexual orientation and gender identity-related issues (Ratts et al., 2013). An ethnographic evaluation (Evans, 2002) and a quantitative study on a community sample of heterosexual and LGBTQ students (Katz et al., 2016) showed that such initiatives contributed to better perceived safety, inclusiveness, and connection at school for LGBT youth (Evans, 2002; Katz et al., 2016). Providing access to SOGI-focused information and health services is another strategy aimed at improving school climates for LGBT youth (Russell & McGuire, 2008). Several studies relying on LGBT-specific (Russell & McGuire, 2008) or population-based samples (Goodenow et al., 2006) have documented that the presence of SOGI-focused information and counseling services are associated with safer and more supportive school climates, as well as stronger school connectedness. Taken together, research demonstrates the benefit of enacting a number of SOGI-focused policies and practices to address disparities in school experiences and academic success based on sexual orientation and gender identity (Kosciw et al., 2016; Seelman et al., 2012). Research also shows notable differences between schools in the degree to which these policies are enacted (Russell & McGuire, 2008; Szalacha, 2003), and mixed findings for studies that consider the effect of single policies on victimization (Hall, 2017). However, few studies have examined the association between the presence of multiple SOGI-focused policies and school experiences of LGBT youth (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Russell et al., 2015; Szalacha, 2003). Researchers examining the effect of the number of SOGI-focused policies have employed a number of methodological approaches to the quantification of SOGI-focused policies within schools. Some of these studies were based on the assumption that more school protections provide incremental benefits, and therefore relied on a sum score of SOGI-focused policies to examine their association with student outcomes (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; McGuire et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2015). Studies using sum scores of SOGIfocused policies found that more policies were associated with teacher reports of less bullying in schools perceived as less safe (Russell et al., 2015); furthermore, LGB youth in states and cities with more SOGI-focused policies reported fewer suicidal thoughts in the past year relative to youth in states or cities without such policies (Hatzenbuehler, Birkett, Van Wagenen, & Meyer, 2014). In a study including a sample of LGBT students and their heterosexual allies, McGuire et al. (2010) computed a sum score for student perceptions of SOGI-focused policies (e.g., sexual orientation-inclusive anti-harassment policy, point person or service for LGBT issues, LGBT-inclusive curricula, and GSAs). The study found a significant association between the number of SOGI-focused policies and perceived safety that was mediated by a greater connection to school personnel. Consistent across each of these studies were positive student outcomes in relation to the number of SOGI-focused policies adopted by schools. Thus, we argue that regardless of the typologies of SOGI-focused policies taken into consideration, a greater number of SOGI-focused policies may reflect a general index of the school’s commitment to a positive climate for LGBT students that may be a critical protective factor per se. 1.2. SOGI-focused policies and school experiences of transgender youth Existing research demonstrates that most transgender youth experience victimization at school because of their gender identities and gender expressions, and have lower academic success relative to their non-transgender peers (Grant et al., 2011; Greytak et al., 2009; Grossman, D'Augelli, & Frank, 2011; McGuire et al., 2010; Sausa, 2005; Wyss, 2004). Recent studies based on representative samples also reveal that experiences of bullying and harassment substantially moderated the relationship between gender identity, substance use (Day, Fish, Perez-Brumer, Hatzenbuehler, & Russell, 2017), and suicidal ideation (Perez-Brumer, Day, Russell, & Hatzenbuehler, 2017). Transgender youth are also more likely to face additional issues related to how school practices and policies handle instances of gender identity-related harassment and discrimination (Grossman et al., 2011; Sausa, 2005). Despite the encouraging research related to SOGI-focused policies, little is known about the school experiences specific to transgender youth relative to these policies. To date, we know of only two studies that have examined the association between SOGIfocused policies and the school experiences of transgender youth. In the first study, McGuire et al. (2010) analyzed data from over 2,000 youth including 68 transgender youth, combined with qualitative data from 35 transgender youth. The results from the qualitative data indicated that the inclusion of transgender youth in school climate policy-making bodies, district-level efforts to train 31

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

existing advocates on issues of gender identity, and the presence of GSAs in schools served as important sources of support for transgender youth. Students in the study reported that many schools, however, lacked policies that addressed gender identity-related issues specifically (McGuire et al., 2010). Quantitative data from the study showed that a greater number of SOGI-focused policies reported by the participants was associated with stronger connections to adults at school and more positive perceptions of school climate. Another study was conducted with a sample of over 6,000 LGB cisgender youth and 409 transgender youth (Greytak et al., 2013), and examined the individual contribution of SOGI-focused policies in decreasing absenteeism and victimization experiences for LGB and transgender youth separately. The findings showed that the SOGI-focused policies reported by youth provided similar benefits for transgender and cisgender youth. In summary, while much is known about the detrimental effects of hostile school climates for LGBT youth, previous research is largely based on studies that do not distinguish between the experiences of transgender youth from those of LGB youth. Additionally, previous studies have investigated the effect of individual school policies and practices (e.g., SOGI-inclusive policies, staff professional development, resources and information, and the presence of safe spaces and student-led groups) that may mitigate the harmful effects of negative school experiences. Few studies, however, have examined the effect of multiple SOGI-focused policies, and how they may operate differentially for sexual minority and gender minority youth. 1.3. The current study In the current study we investigate youth’s experiences of general victimization and bullying due to sexual orientation or gender (SOG-bullying), truancy, academic success, and perceptions of school climate in relation to the presence of SOGI-focused policies. Specifically, we address the following research questions: Research question 1: Are SOGI-focused policies associated with more positive school-related experiences for sexual and gender minority youth? We expect that both LGB youth and transgender youth will experience less victimization and SOG-bullying, will have lower truancy, higher academic success, and more positive perceptions of school climates in the presence of more SOGIfocused policies. Research question 2: Are there differential school experiences associated with the presence of SOGI-focused policies for LGB (relative to non-LGB) and transgender (relative to non-transgender) youth? Previous research suggests that SOGI-focused policies may not adequately address gender identity-related issues as such policies often focus more on issues related to sexual orientation (McGuire et al., 2010). For example, some GSAs rarely discuss topics pertaining to gender identity (Poteat et al., 2018), and some SOGI-focused professional development is more likely to include content related to sexual orientation than gender identity (Greytak et al., 2016). Thus, we expect that SOGI-focused policies may be more strongly associated with positive school experiences for LGB youth, and less strongly associated with positive school experiences for transgender youth, as most policies are structured around LGBTQ youth broadly without attending explicitly to the unique experiences of gender minority youth. 2. Method 2.1. Sample The sample for this study was derived from cross-sectional data from public middle and high school students (i.e., students in grades 7, 9, and 11) who participated in the 2013–2015 California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS; N = 911,001), and principals from 274 matched schools that completed School Health Profiles (SHP). The CHKS is administered by WestEd, with support from the California Department of Education to track health risks and resilience among youth in California (Austin, Bates, & Duerr, 2015a). Data are collected biennially, though schools may opt to conduct the surveys annually. Administration occurs at any time during the two-year period, and students are given the option of taking the survey in class or online (Austin et al., 2015a). Beginning with the 2013/14 survey, the CHKS implemented a measure of sexual orientation and gender identity, though school districts were given the option to omit this item from the survey. Beginning on January 1, 2018, the Assembly Bill 677 (A.B. 677, 2017) prohibits schools participating in CHKS from removing this question. The SHP is a self-report questionnaire administered biennially by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in secondary schools across the U.S. to assess reports from principals and lead health teachers on school health programs and policies. We only include principals' reports in the current study, as lead health teachers were not asked about SOGI-focused policies. The data from both the CHKS and SHP are not population-based and therefore are only representative of the schools that participated in the surveys. 2.1.1. Exclusion criteria Our study capitalizes on a unique opportunity to merge student-level data from the CHKS with principal reports of policies from the SHP at the school level using California Department of Education school codes provided by both surveys. We include schools that administered both the CHKS and SHP between 2013 and 2015 (274 schools; n = 120,752). Based on recommendations from WestEd, we excluded youth whose response validity was questionable based on meeting two or more criteria related to inconsistent responses (e.g., responding that they never used a drug, but reporting drug use in the past 30 days), exaggerated drug use, using a fake drug, and indicating that they answered dishonestly to all or most of the questions on the survey (i.e., “how many questions in this survey did you answer honestly?”) (Austin, Bates, & Duerr, 2015b). Excluded youth based on these criteria constituted 1.76% of the sample. Additionally, we excluded schools that did not administer the measure of sexual orientation and gender identity. Of the 274 schools, 32

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of analytic sample and descriptive statistics for school experiences stratified by sexual orientation and gender identity. Full sample (n = 113,148) %/mean (sd) Individual-level characteristics Heterosexual LGB Transgender Unsure Race/ethnicity American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander White Multiple (two or more) races No race reported Hispanic Sex (male) Age

75.80% 4.95% 1.21% 6.17%

Range

LGB youth (n = 5598) ICC

%/mean (sd)

– – – –

– – – –

19.63% – 12.06% 14.97%

3.48% 13.16% 4.48% 1.97% 28.59% 34.02% 14.31% 47.63% 49.49% 14.53 (1.73)

– – – – – – – – – 10–18

– – – – – – – – – –

Outcome variables General victimization SOG-bullying Truancy Self-reported grades School climate

2.10 (2.35) 13.00% 37.48% 4.96 (1.77) −.00 (.65)

0–9 – – 0–7 −2.57–1.81

School-level factors SOGI-focused policies Free and reduced priced meals School size

4.08 (1.16) .42 (.25) 1,776 (915)

0–5 .00–.96 58–3,704

Transgender youth (n = 1364)

Range

ICC

%/mean (sd)

– – – –

– – – –

42.96% 49.49% – 37.76%

4.29% 10.97% 6.75% 2.59% 26.19% 37.42% 11.79% 49.16% 33.98% 14.91 (1.67)

– – – – – – – – – 10–18

– – – – – – – – – –

.03 .02 .07 .10 .07

3.52 (2.79) 50.80% 50.56% 4.50 (1.94) −.27 (.70)

0–9 – – 0–7 −2.57–1.74

– – –

– – –

– – –

Range

ICC

5.06% 12.90% 10.85% 3.96% 24.05% 33.72% 9.46% 46.31% 61.76% 14.67 (1.95)

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – 10–18

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

.03 .02 .05 .06 .03

3.75 (3.22) 48.41% 54.83% 4.54 (2.05) −.38 (.77)

0–9 – – 0–7 −2.57–1.74

.04 .05 .07 .03 .00

– – –

– – –

– – –

– – –

Note. ICC = intraclass correlation; SOG = sexual orientation or gender; SOGI = sexual orientation and gender identity; general victimization was a scale variable constructed using dichotomized items related to youth's experiences of victimization and harassment at school; school climate was a scale variable created using the z-score of 14 items.

11 did not administer this question, which constituted 4.53% of the sample. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to identify differences between schools that did and did not administer the measure, and are included in the interpretation of results in the section on limitations. Our final analytic sample therefore consists of 113,148 youth in 263 middle and high schools. 2.1.2. Sample characteristics Descriptive characteristics of the sample, including demographic information, outcome variable means, and means for schoollevel factors, are presented in Table 1. The sample was racially and ethnically diverse with 34% of youth identifying as multiracial, 29% White, 13% Asian, 4% Black/African American, 3% American Indian/Alaskan Native, and 2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (14% did not report a race). Additionally, 48% of youth in the sample identified as Hispanic. The average age of the sample was 14.5 years old, ranging from 10 to 18, which encompasses youth in middle and high school. Because this study includes youth across a wide developmental period, we conducted sensitivity analyses by excluding youth at the extremes of the age range. Results remained unchanged when these youth were removed; we therefore do not exclude youth from the final analytic models based on age. Regarding sexual orientation and gender identity, 5% of the youth identified as LGB (below the nationwide average of 8% found in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey; Kann et al., 2016), and 1% as transgender (the proportion of transgender youth in the U.S. is understudied, but estimated to be around 0.7% for youth aged 13 to 17 according to the Williams Institute; Herman, Flores, Brown, Wilson, & Conron, 2017). Youth were able to indicate multiple sexual orientations (a more comprehensive description of the measure is discussed below): notably, 20% of the youth who identified as LGB also indicated they identified as heterosexual, a finding not inconsistent with recent research on sexual identity diversity among adolescents (Igartua, Thombs, Burgos, & Montoro, 2009). Just over half of the youth reported their sex as female (51%). Schools in the study varied in size, ranging from 58 to 3,704 students (M = 1,776, SD = 915). Regarding schools’ socioeconomic statuses, the percentage of students who received free and reduced priced meals (FRPM) within a given school ranged from 1% to 96% (M = 42%, SD = 25%). Notably, a majority of principals (68%) who reported on school policies and practices in the SHP indicated their schools had three or more SOGI-focused policies (M = 4.08, SD = 1.16). Nevertheless, there was substantial variability in principals’ reports on SOGI-focused policies: 4% indicated their schools had none, 7% that their school only had one, and 10% that their school had two, 21% that their school had three, 29% that their school had four, and 29% that their school had five SOGI-focused policies. 33

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

2.2. Measures 2.2.1. General victimization General victimization was measured using a 9-item scale (α = .82) based on student responses to questions assessing victimization on school property within the past 12 months (e.g., “Been pushed, shoved, slapped, hit, or kicked by someone who wasn’t just kidding around?” “Been afraid of being beaten up?” “Had mean rumors or lies spread about you?” “Been threatened or injured with a weapon [gun, knife, club, etc.?]”). Using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, the CHKS administrators assessed the validity of this scale as a construct related to school climate (i.e., WestEd; Hanson, 2012). These analyses identified violence victimization as a sub-domain within the primary domain of violence victimization and substance use. The items were highly skewed and kurtotic. Therefore, we dichotomized and summed them (ranging from 0 to 9). 2.2.2. SOG-bullying Bullying based on students’ sexual orientation and/or gender (SOG-bullying) was a composite variable based on youth’s response to the question, “During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied for any of the following reasons? (You were bullied if you were shoved, hit, threatened, called mean names, teased, or had other unpleasant physical or verbal things done to you repeatedly or in a severe way. It is not bullying when two youth of about the same strength quarrel or fight.)”: (1) “Because you are gay or lesbian or someone thought you were;” or (2) “Your gender (being male or female).” Youth who answered “yes” to either question were coded as 1, whereas “no” to both were coded 0. 2.2.3. Self-reported grades Youth were asked, “During the past 12 months, how would you describe the grades you mostly received in school?” The item was reverse coded so responses ranged from lowest (0 = “mostly F's”) to highest (7 = “mostly A's”). Because the score included more than five categories, we treated it as an ordinal approximation of a continuous variable (Norman, 2010; Sullivan & Artino, 2013). 2.2.4. School climate WestEd developed a school climate measure for the CHKS (Austin, Polik, Hanson, & Zheng, 2016). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses conducted by WestEd identified “supports and engagement” as a primary domain related to school climate (Hanson, 2012). Within this domain were sub-domains related to: (1) school connectedness (“How strongly do you agree or disagree with the following statements [0 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree]:” “I feel close to people at this school,” I am happy to be at this school,” “I feel like I am a part of this school,” “The teachers at this school treat students fairly,” “I feel safe at my school”); (2) high expectations and caring relationships (“At my school, there is a teacher or some other adult [0 = not at all true; 3 = very much true]:” “who really cares about me,” “who notices when I’m not there,” “who listens to me when I have something to say,” “who tells me when I do a good job,” “who always wants me to do my best”); and (4) meaningful participation (“At school [0 = not at all true, 3 = very much true]:” “I do interesting activities,” “I help decide things like class activities or rules,” “I do things that make a difference”). Consistent with recent studies (Day, Perez-Brumer, & Russell, 2018) we created a 14-item summary scale (ranging from −2.35 to 1.57) that has yielded highly reliable scores (α = .89). Because the items included in the measure of school climate were evaluated using different Likert scales, each item was standardized using z-scores. 2.2.5. Sexual orientation and gender identity Sexual orientation and gender identity were assessed using the following question: “Which of the following best describes you? (Mark all that apply): (a) Heterosexual (straight); (b) Gay or Lesbian or Bisexual; (c) Transgender; (d) Not sure; (e) Decline to respond. Cases were coded 1 if, for example, youth marked that they were transgender (0 = non-transgender; 1 = transgender). We were unable to determine if youth identified as cisgender as they were not specifically asked about their natal sex. We therefore use “nontransgender” to refer to youth who did not identify as transgender. For sexual identity, we dichotomized each response to the item detailed above: “heterosexual” (0 = non-heterosexual; 1 = heterosexual); “LGB” (0 = non-LGB; 1 = LGB); “unsure” (0 = non-unsure; 1 = unsure). Youth could select multiple responses (e.g., youth who indicated they were heterosexual and LGB were coded as a 1 for both the “heterosexual” and “LGB” variable). Given the overlapping responses, we were unable to recode this measure into dummy variables. Thus, each sexual orientation variable was initially entered in the regression models. However, due to issues of multicollinearity, we excluded the “heterosexual” variable, and instead we kept the “LGB” and “unsure” options. 2.2.6. SOGI-focused policies School policies related to sexual orientation and gender identity were assessed based on principal reports on five policies: (1) “Prohibit harassment based on a youth’s perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender identity;” (2) “student-led club that aims to create a safe, welcoming, accepting school environment for all youth, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., GSA)”; (3) “identify ‘safe spaces’ (e.g., a counselor’s office, designated classroom, or student organization) where LGBTQ youth can receive support from administrators, teachers, or other school staff;” (4) “encourage staff to attend professional development on safe and supportive school environments for all youth, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;” and (5) “facilitate access to providers not on school property who have experience in providing social and psychological services/health services, including HIV/ STD testing and counseling, to LGBTQ youth.” We created a summary variable based on the total number of SOGI-focused policies within schools (0–5 policies). 34

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

2.2.7. Covariates The following covariates were included to account for demographic characteristics and school-level factors: age; reported sex (“What is your sex,” 0 = female, 1 = male); race/ethnicity; percentage of youth eligible for free and reduced price meals (FRPM); and school size. FRPM and school size were standardized using z-scores for interpretability of significant findings. Table 1 includes descriptive information for all measures included in the study. 2.3. Analytic strategy Multilevel regression and logistic regression models were estimated for continuous and binary outcome variables using Stata 14 (StataCorp, 2015). Complete case analyses resulted in a loss of 8% of the sample. Data were determined to be Missing at Random (MAR) using tests for missingness in Stata 14. We therefore used multiple imputations using chained equations (10 iterations seeded at 53,241) to account for missing data (Enders, 2010). All variables in the models were included in the imputations. In the following section, we first present findings from unconditional multilevel models to obtain intraclass correlations (ICC), or the percent of the variance explained by differences between schools. We then present main effect models adjusted for demographic characteristics and school-level factors for each outcome. Finally, we examine if sexual orientation and/or gender identity moderate the relationship between outcome variables and SOGI-focused policies. Interactions were tested as cross-level fixed effects. Given that SOGI-focused policies have a meaningful zero-point (i.e., 0 = no SOGI-focused policies), this variable was not centered. We tested models with each interaction term included independently and simultaneously. The models were substantively equivalent across both methods, and we therefore report on models that include both sexual orientation and gender identity as moderators simultaneously. 3. Results ICCs showed that, consistent with earlier studies (e.g., Russell & McGuire, 2008), only 2–3% of the variance in general victimization and SOG-bullying were explained by differences between schools (see Table 1). More of the variance in the remaining outcomes was explained by differences between schools; specifically, 7% of the variance in truancy, 10% in self-reported grades, and 7% in perceptions of school climate. Bivariate analyses showed that LGB youth were more likely to be present in schools with more SOGI-focused policies, relative to those with fewer policies (odds ratio [OR] = 1.14, 95% CI [1.08–1.20]). In contrast, no differences were found for gender identity (OR = 1.01, 95% CI [.94–1.08]). Regarding correlations between school-level factors, SOGI-focused policies were moderately related to school size (r = .39; see Table 2 for correlations for all outcome variables), and inversely related to the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced priced meals (r = −.13). 3.1. School experiences and perceptions of school climate In the following analyses, results for LGB youth are relative to non-LGB youth, and for transgender youth are relative to nontransgender youth. In main effect models adjusted for demographic characteristics and school-level factors (see Table 3), both LGB (b = 1.36, p ≤ .001) and transgender (b = .97, p ≤ .001) youth experienced more general victimization relative to non-LGB and nontransgender youth, respectively. Additionally, LGB youth had over 7 times greater odds (95% CI [6.56–7.78]) and transgender youth had over 2 times greater odds (95% CI [1.75–3.24]) of being bullied because of their perceived or actual sexual orientation or gender (i.e., SOG-bullying). LGB (adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.51, 95% CI [1.42–1.60]) and transgender youth (AOR = 1.64, 95% [1.42–1.91]) were also more likely to be truant and reported lower grades (b = −.39, p ≤ .001; b = −.12, p = .038, respectively). Both LGB (b = −.20, p ≤ .001) and transgender youth (b = −.24, p ≤ .001) perceived school climates more negatively than non-LGB and non-transgender youth. The number of SOGI-focused policies was associated with lower truancy for youth, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity (AOR = .94, 95% CI [.90–.97]). Youth in schools with more SOGI-focused policies also had more negative perceptions of school climate (b = −.02, p = .047). Notably, the effect sizes of these findings were small as the values were near the null values of 1.00 for odds ratios, and 0 for coefficients. The number of SOGI-focused policies was not directly associated with victimization, SOGbullying, or self-reported grades. Table 2 Correlation matrix at the student- and school-level for outcome variables.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

General victimization SOG-bullying Truancy Self-reported grades School climate

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

– .453 .089 −.086 −.171

.646 – .058 −.032 −.108

.646 −.114 – −.206 −.144

−.078 −.025 .535 – .277

−.038 −.121 −.323 −.361 –

Note. Student-level coefficients are in the lower triangle, and school-level coefficients are in the upper triangle; SOG-bullying = bullying based on sexual orientation and/or gender.

35

36

LGB Transgender Unsure Race/Ethnicity American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Multiple (two or more) races No race reported Hispanic Sex (male)

LGB Transgender Unsure Race/Ethnicity American Indian/Alaska Native Asian Black/African American Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Multiple (two or more) races No race reported Hispanic Sex (male) Age School-level factors SOGI-focused policies (sum) Free and reduced priced meals School size Cross-level interactions LGB × SOGI-focused policies Transgender × SOGI-focused policies

Main effects b (se)

Cross-level effects OR [95% CI]

−.39 .53 −.67 −.17 −.33 −.32 −.37 −.40

1.30 [1.20–1.40]⁎⁎⁎ .79 [0.73–0.85]⁎⁎⁎ 1.09 [0.96–1.23] 1.21 [1.07–1.37]⁎⁎ 1.07 [1.03–1.12]⁎⁎⁎ .96 [0.89–1.02] 1.14 [1.10–1.19]⁎⁎⁎ .90 [0.87–0.93]⁎⁎⁎

(.05)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.06)⁎⁎⁎ (.05)⁎⁎ (.02)⁎⁎⁎ (.04)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎

−.39 (.03) −.12 (.06)⁎ −.06 (.02)⁎

1.28 [1.00–1.64] 1.68 [1.07–2.61]⁎ 1.12 [1.05–1.19]⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

Model 4: self-reported grades

−.12 (.04)⁎⁎ .09 (.10)

– – Model 3: truancy

−.02 (.02) .04 (.03) −.09 (.03)⁎⁎

−.02 (.02) .04 (.03) −.09 (.03)⁎⁎

(.05) (.04)⁎⁎⁎ (.06) (.06)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.02)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎

.03 −.25 .11 .33 .11 −.23 −.16 −.24 −.11

.03 −.25 .11 .33 .11 −.23 −.16 −.24 −.11

(.05) (.04)⁎⁎⁎ (.06) (.06)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.02)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎

1.86 (.16)⁎⁎⁎ .60 (.35) .29 (.04)⁎⁎⁎

b (se)

b (se) 1.36 (.05)⁎⁎⁎ .97 (.14)⁎⁎⁎ .29 (.04)⁎⁎⁎

Main effects

Cross-level effects

Main effects

[1.01–1.28]⁎ [0.77–0.91]⁎⁎⁎ [0.91–1.23] [1.08–1.44]⁎⁎ [1.03–1.17]⁎⁎ [0.79–0.93]⁎⁎⁎ [0.78–0.88]⁎⁎⁎ [0.68–0.76]⁎⁎⁎ [0.90–0.94]⁎⁎⁎

−.39 .53 −.67 −.17 −.33 −.32 −.37 −.40

(.05)⁎⁎⁎ (.04)⁎⁎⁎ (.06)⁎⁎⁎ (.05)⁎⁎⁎ (.02)⁎⁎⁎ (.04)⁎⁎⁎ (.03)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎

−.13 −.05 −.12 −.05 −.07 −.11 −.06 .02

(.01)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎ (.02)⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎ (.01)⁎⁎⁎

−.20 (.01) −.24 (.02)⁎⁎⁎ −.06 (.01)⁎⁎⁎

−.39 (.12) −.58 (.17)⁎⁎⁎⁎ −.06 (.02)⁎

⁎⁎⁎

Main effects

Model 5: school climate

.93 [0.87–0.99]⁎ 1.13 [0.89–1.42]

b (se) ⁎⁎

[1.02–1.28]⁎ [0.77–0.91]⁎⁎⁎ [0.91–1.23] [1.08–1.44]⁎⁎ [1.03–1.17]⁎⁎ [0.79–0.93]⁎⁎⁎ [0.78–0.88]⁎⁎⁎ [0.68–0.76]⁎⁎⁎ [0.90–0.94]⁎⁎⁎ 1.01 [0.98–1.05] 1.00 [.096–1.05] .97 [0.92–1.03]

1.14 .84 1.06 1.24 1.10 .86 .83 .72 .92

9.73 [7.40–12.79]⁎⁎⁎ 1.44 [0.61–3.40] 1.75 [1.59–1.92]⁎⁎⁎

OR [95% CI]

Cross-level effects

b (se)

Cross-level effects

– –

1.01 [0.98–1.05] 1.01 [0.96–1.05] .97 [0.92–1.03]

1.14 .84 1.06 1.24 1.10 .86 .83 .72 .92

7.14 [6.56–7.78]⁎⁎⁎ 2.38 [1.75–3.24]⁎⁎⁎ 1.75 [1.59–1.92]⁎⁎⁎

OR [95% CI]

Model 2: SOG-bullying

Model 1: general victimization

Table 3 Multilevel regressions for association between SOGI-focused policies and school experiences and perceptions of school climate.

(continued on next page)

−.13 (.01)⁎⁎⁎ −.04 (.01)⁎⁎⁎ −.12 (.01)⁎⁎⁎ −.05 (.02)⁎⁎ −.07 (.01)⁎⁎⁎⁎ −.11 (.01)⁎⁎⁎ −.06 (.01)⁎⁎⁎ .02 (.01)⁎⁎⁎

−.32 (.04)⁎⁎⁎ −.32 (.08)⁎⁎⁎⁎ −.06 (.01)⁎⁎⁎

b (se)

Cross-level effects

– –

.94 [0.90–0.97]⁎⁎ 1.14 [1.08–1.20]⁎⁎⁎ 1.07 [1.00–1.15]⁎

1.3 [1.21–1.40]⁎⁎⁎ .79 [0.74–0.85]⁎⁎⁎ 1.09 [0.96–1.23] 1.21 [1.07–1.37]⁎⁎ 1.07 [1.03–1.12]⁎⁎⁎ .96 [0.90–1.02] 1.14 [1.10–1.19]⁎⁎⁎ .90 [0.87–0.93]⁎⁎⁎ 1.27 [1.25–1.30]⁎⁎⁎

1.51 [1.42–1.60]⁎⁎⁎ 1.65 [1.42–1.91]⁎⁎⁎ 1.12 [1.05–1.19]⁎⁎⁎

OR [95% CI]

Main effects

Model 3: truancy

J.K. Day, et al.

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

−.01 (.02) −.26 (.03)⁎⁎⁎ −.08 (.03)⁎⁎ – –

.94 [0.90–0.97]⁎⁎⁎ 1.14 [1.08–1.20]⁎⁎⁎ 1.07 [1.00–1.15]⁎ 1.04 [0.98–1.10] 1.00 [0.90–1.11]

−.00 (.03) .11 (.04)⁎⁎

−.02 (.02) −.26 (.03)⁎⁎⁎ −.08 (.03)⁎⁎

−.05 (.01)

1.27 [1.25–1.30] −.05 (.01) ⁎⁎⁎

b (se) ⁎⁎⁎

b (se)

OR [95% CI] ⁎⁎⁎

Main effects

Cross-level effects

Cross-level effects

Model 4: self-reported grades

Model 3: truancy

– –

−.02 (.01)⁎ −.07 (.01)⁎⁎⁎ −.07 (.01)⁎⁎⁎

.00 (.00)

b (se)

Main effects

Model 5: school climate

.03 (.01)⁎⁎ .02 (.02)

−.02 (.01)⁎ −.07 (.01)⁎⁎⁎ −.07 (.01)⁎⁎⁎

.00 (.00)

b (se)

Cross-level effects

Note. SOGI-focused policies was a summary variable (range 0–5); LGB = lesbian, gay, or bisexual (0 = non-LGB; 1 = LGB); transgender (0 = non-transgender; 1 = transgender); unsure (0 = not unsure about sexual orientation/gender identity; 1 = unsure about sexual orientation/gender identity); race was a nominal variable (White = reference group); Hispanic (0 = Non-Hispanic; 1 = Hispanic); cross-level effects models include both sexual orientation and gender identity as moderators. ⁎ p ≤ .05. ⁎⁎ p ≤ .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p ≤ .001.

Age School-level factors SOGI-focused policies (sum) Free and reduced priced meals School size Cross-level interactions LGB × SOGI-focused policies Transgender × SOGI-focused policies

Table 3 (continued)

J.K. Day, et al.

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

37

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

Fig. 1. Sexual orientation/gender identity moderating association between SOGI-focused policies and school experiences (general victimization, SOG-bullying, self-reported grades, and perceptions of school climate). Note. SOGI-focused policy was a scale variable (ranging from 0 to 5 SOGI-focused policies); LGB = lesbian, gay, or bisexual (0 = non-LGB; 1 = LGB); transgender (0 = non-transgender; 1 = transgender); general victimization was a scale variable (ranging from 0 to 9 forms of victimization); SOG (sexual orientation and gender) bullying was a dichotomous variable (0 = no SOG-bullying; 1 = experienced SOG-bullying); selfreported grades was a scale variable (0 = mostly Fs; 7 = mostly As); perceptions of school climate was a scale variable (ranging from −2.35 to 1.57).

3.2. Moderated models We included two interaction terms in models to test if sexual orientation or gender identity moderated the relationship between the number of SOGI-focused policies and the outcomes (see Table 3). The results show that sexual orientation moderated, on the one hand, the relationship between SOGI-focused policies in schools and general victimization (b = −.12, p = .002; Model 1), SOGbullying (AOR = .93, CI [.87–.99]; Model 2), and school climate (b = .03, p ≤ .001; Model 5). On the other hand, gender identity moderated the relationship between SOGI-focused policies and self-reported grades (b = .11, p = .008; Model 4). No significant interactions were found for truancy (Model 3), and the interactions between SOGI-focused policies and sexual orientation for SOGbullying and school climate were notably near the expected values for null. Simple slopes were examined to further elucidate significant interaction terms (see Fig. 1). Regarding the interaction between the number of SOGI-focused policies and sexual orientation related to general victimization, the simple slope for LGB youth was significant (b = −.13, p = .004), although the simple slope for non-LGB was not (b = −.02, p = .470). The results indicate that LGB youth experienced less victimization in schools with more SOGI-focused policies relative to LGB youth in schools with fewer SOGIfocused policies. Similar to the interaction for general victimization, simple slope tests showed that SOGI-focused policies were associated with less SOG-bullying for LGB youth (b = −.02, p = .048) but not for non-LGB youth (b = .00, p = .797). Regarding the moderated effect of the number of SOGI-focused policies by gender identity-related to self-reported grades, transgender youth had higher grades in schools with more SOGI-focused policies relative to schools with fewer SOGI-focused policies (b = .12, p = .017), but the association was not found for non-transgender youth (b = −.02, p = .552). Finally, the simple slopes for the moderation between SOGI-focused policies and sexual orientation related to school climate showed that non-LGB youth reported less positive perceptions of school climate in schools with more SOGI-focused policies (b = −.02, p = .040). The slope of SOGIfocused policies was not significant for LGB youth (b = .01, p = .309). 38

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

3.3. Sensitivity analyses We conducted ad hoc sensitivity analyses to determine if factors related to the proportion of LGBT youth within schools accounted for the relatively weak association between SOGI-focused policies and outcomes. We were especially interested in whether or not the interactions between SOGI-focused policies and sexual orientation/gender identity were explained by having a higher percentage of LGBT youth within schools. We therefore added terms accounting for the percentage of LGB and transgender youth at the school-level to each model. All significant findings reported above were robust to the inclusion of these terms (results available upon request). 4. Discussion This study provides unique insight into whether SOGI-focused policies, broadly writ, improve outcomes for LGBT youth by addressing key limitations of prior research. First, with some exceptions (e.g., Greytak et al., 2013; McGuire et al., 2010), transgender youth are often underrepresented in studies on SOGI-focused policies or are treated as a monolithic group with LGB youth. The current study included a sample large enough to distinguish between sexual and gender minority youth in order to account for their unique experiences within schools. Second, with few exceptions (Goodenow et al., 2006; Russell & Horn, 2016; Szalacha, 2003), prior studies have typically relied on student reports of school policies (Black et al., 2012; Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Greytak et al., 2013; Hall, 2017; Kosciw et al., 2016), which can lead to spurious results. We matched students’ reports of their experiences at school with independent reports by principals of SOGI-focused school policies. Third, prior studies have typically studied SOGI-focused policies individually; the summary measure of the number of SOGI-focused policies reflects a general index of the school’s commitment to creating a positive climate for LGBT students. Before discussing our research questions, we want to note that the youth in our study were less likely to be truant in schools with more SOGI-focused policies, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Although the effect size for this finding was modest, the presence of multiple SOGI-focused policies may indirectly promote school factors that, according to the literature (Havik, Bru, & Ertesvåg, 2015), mitigate students’ risk of school refusal, such as effective classroom management, positive peer relationships at school, and positive teacher-student relationships. Our first research question examined whether or not the presence of multiple SOGI-focused policies was associated with more positive school-related experiences for transgender as well as LGB youth. We found that more SOGI-focused policies were associated with less victimization and, to a modest extent, with less SOG-bullying for LGB youth. Notably, schools with more SOGI-focused policies had a higher proportion of LGB youth, which could be a protective factor given the increased visibility of sexual minority youth. However, sensitivity analyses showed that the interactions between SOGI-focused policies and sexual orientation remained even after accounting for the proportion of LGBT youth in schools. We also found that transgender youth had higher self-reported grades in schools with more SOGI-focused policies. These results are generally in line with the literature documenting that SOGIfocused school policies are associated with positive school climates for all youth, and thus are a school-wide protective factor for reducing bullying and discriminatory behavior (Russell et al., 2015, 2010; Russell & Horn, 2016). The differential findings for LGB and transgender youth brings us to the second research question that examined whether or not SOGI-focused policies are associated with different school experiences based on youth’s sexual orientation or gender identity. We found that more SOGI-focused policies were associated with less victimization and, to a lesser extent, SOG-bullying for LGB youth but not for transgender youth. On the one hand, these findings support previous research showing that general SOGI-focused policies are often not directly responsive to the unique needs and experiences of transgender youth and therefore may not adequately address issues related to bullying and general victimization based on gender identity (Grossman et al., 2011; McGuire et al., 2010; Sausa, 2005). On the other hand, more SOGI-focused policies were associated with higher self-reported grades for transgender youth but not for LGB youth. Transgender students are among those who may most need explicitly inclusive school environments that meet their learning needs. In fact, excluding gender identity-related issues from curricular activities is a common practice; even when curricula may seem LGBT-inclusive, they often leave out gender identity-related topics, negating these youth’s experiences (Greytak & Kosciw, 2013). The findings in this study suggests that schools with multiple SOGI-focused policies may provide more opportunities for transgender students’ academic participation and success. For example, multiple SOGI-focused policies may prompt the discussion of gender identity-related issues or equip teachers to use inclusive language and gender identity-inclusive curricula. Notably, some of the moderated effects observed in this study were relatively modest (the significance values were near the trend level, and the effect sizes were small. Therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution as they may be attributable to the large sample size). More research is therefore needed to determine the mechanisms through which SOGI-focused policies are implemented to more fully understand when and how they effectively meet the needs of youth in schools. We also found that non-LGB youth perceived school climates less positively in schools with more SOGI-focused policies relative to schools with fewer policies. Even though the effect size for this simple slope was modest, this finding was unexpected. An earlier study of over 6,000 students in 17 public schools in California showed that factors such as teacher intervention in harassment were linked to more homophobic slurs (Russell & McGuire, 2008). As suggested in that study, it may be that schools that have negative school climates adopt more SOGI-focused policies and practices. Longitudinal studies are needed to determine whether this association is found in schools with newly adopted SOGI-focused policies versus schools that have longer standing policies. In fact, previous research suggests that inclusive school practices may have stronger influence after they have been instituted for a longer period of time (Saewyc, Konishi, Rose, & Homma, 2014). Another possible explanation for this finding is that in the presence of more SOGI-focused policies, non-LGB students could 39

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

become more informed and aware of the potential risks that their LGB peers face at school. Our analyses showed that LGB and nonLGB youth’s perceptions of school climate were more similar in schools with more SOGI-focused policies relative to schools with fewer polices. This is consistent with previous studies showing that the presence of some SOGI-focused policies, such as LGBTQinclusive curricula or GSAs, are associated with more students’ awareness of bias-based bullying at school (Griffin, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer, 2004; Snapp, McGuire, et al., 2015). Conversely, non-LGB youth may feel excluded from such policies as they may not address general harassment and victimization experienced by all students, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Ultimately, there are likely to be multiple other factors that shape the school climate experiences of non-LGB students not captured here. 4.1. Limitations These results should be interpreted in the context of several limitations. This was a school-based sample and therefore did not include youth who were not attending school. The results may underrepresent youth who have dropped out – or been kicked or pushed out – of school, factors for which transgender youth are disproportionally at risk (Snapp, Hoenig, Fields, & Russell, 2015). The CHKS also only provides information on subjective self-reported grades, which are likely an imprecise measure of actual grades. However, a meta-analysis suggested that self-reports of grades show relatively high correlations with actual academic performance and that the use of self-reported grades is often adequate (Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005). Nevertheless, results related to academic success should be interpreted with caution. The measure of general victimization was based on a sum score of dichotomized items related to victimization and harassment. While this measure accounts for youth who experience more or less victimization overall, it does not address the frequency or severity of the harassment. This study therefore does not address how policies might (fail to) address the most severe and chronic forms of harassment in schools, which is an issue worthy of future study. The item documenting transgender identity has notable limitations. Sexual and gender identity were not assessed independently and students could mark multiple categories. Some youth therefore only indicated a sexual orientation or a gender identity. Further, it is unknown whether youth who do not identify as cisgender or as transgender (e.g., youth who may identify as genderqueer or gender nonconforming) would answer such a question. Future studies should follow recommendations to employ a two-step method to assess both natal sex and gender identity, in addition to sexual orientation, to improve this measure (Reisner et al., 2014). Future research should also attend to youth who do not conform to historically traditional gender norms by considering gender expression as well as gender identity. The inclusion of the measure of sexual orientation and gender identity was also voluntary, and it is therefore important to consider how schools that administered the measure may differ from those that did not. Bivariate analyses showed that schools that included the measure of sexual orientation and gender identity were larger, and had a higher percentage of students that were eligible for free and reduced priced meals. Youth in schools that included the measure also reported lower school connectedness and selfreported grades, and were more likely to be truant. However, students in schools that did not administer the measure were more likely to report having experienced SOG-bullying. Therefore, the sample in this study may over-represent schools in which there are more risk factors (e.g., lower income schools), though underrepresent schools with higher rates of bias-based bullying related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Finally, the measures of SOGI-focused policies reported by principals indicate the presence or absence of each policy or practice; accordingly, the sum score cannot distinguish differences in the influence or importance of individual policies. Further we were unable to distinguish between schools in which policies are actively publicized, promoted, or enforced, and those that are simply adopted by a governing body and ignored. Further, the data were cross-sectional so we were unable to determine if negative school climates preceded the implementation of policies and if policies are more effective the longer they are in place, as has been found in previous studies (Saewyc et al., 2014). These questions point to the need for a new generation of research that hones-in on the implementation of specific school policies, programs, and practices designed to create positive climates for LGBTQ and all students. 4.2. Implications for practice While previous research has identified specific policies, practices, or resources (e.g., GSAs) that may serve as protective factors for LGBT youth in schools, this study highlights the importance of considering multiple SOGI-focused policies in relation to a number of outcomes. It is in the presence of multiple policies that we observe important benefits for LGBT youth. While more research is needed to identify combinations of policies that may be most effective for improving school climates for all students, our findings suggest that a multipronged approach that includes teacher trainings and student-level supports (e.g., providing “safe spaces” and access to student-led SOGI clubs) is needed to better support youth in school settings. Additionally, our findings underscore the need to consider how the school experiences of sexual and gender minority youth converge and diverge. This makes it possible to identify students most at risk for experiencing hostile school climates and to inform the development and implementation of supportive policies. Consistent with the majority of literature on sexual and gender minority youth (Kann et al., 2016), LGB and transgender youth in our study were more at risk for negative school experiences, and perceive school climates more negatively, than their non-LGB and non-transgender peers. Thus, it is important to examine how policies improve school climates and for whom. As shown by the association between higher academic success and SOGI-focused policies, it seems that more SOGI-focused policies may be beneficial for transgender youth in improving the relationship between students and school personnel. However, we found that LGB youth may benefit more than transgender youth from SOGI-focused policies when it comes to bullying and victimization. It may be that SOGI-focused policies may not have the same beneficial impact in influencing 40

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

peer relationship dynamics with regard to gender identity-related issues. These findings suggest that schools should develop policies that address the unique risk factors for victimization and bias-based bullying that are a pervasive reality for transgender youth. 4.3. Conclusion In this study, the number of SOGI-focused policies in schools was associated with less victimization and SOG-based bullying for LGB youth and with higher grades for transgender youth. Additionally, a greater number of SOGI-focused policies was associated with lower truancy for all students. Therefore, the policies operate differentially for LGB and transgender youth, though are associated with positive school experiences for both. Schools are adopting new and broader metrics beyond test scores, such as absenteeism and school connectedness, to track student success and equity under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Schools should therefore look to SOGI-focused policies and practices to address pervasive issues related to bullying and harassment that lead to disparities in school experiences and to create more positive school climates for all youth. The findings in this study also suggest that a “one size fits all” approach to school policy may support LGB youth more than transgender youth. Given transgender youth are especially at risk of bias-based bullying and harassment, school absenteeism, and lower academic success (Day et al., 2018), policies that are directly responsive to the unique experiences and needs of transgender youth may be necessary to reduce these disparities. Human and animal rights The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas at Austin and has been performed in accordance with the ethical standards established by the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent This study uses secondary data under license from WestEd. In accordance with Education Code 501938(b), and in accordance with school board policy, passive consent was used for administration of the surveys. Acknowledgements The California Healthy Kids Survey was developed by WestEd under contract to the California Department of Education. Administrative support for this research was also provided by grant, R24HD042849, Population Research Center, awarded to the Population Research Center at The University of Texas at Austin by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors acknowledge generous support from the Communities for Just Schools Fund Project at the New Venture Fund, and for Russell the Priscilla Pond Flawn Endowment at the University of Texas at Austin. Authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose. Declaration of Competing Interest None. References A.B 677, Secretary of State (2017). Chapter 744 (California 2017–2018). Aragon, S. R., Poteat, P. V., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2014). The Influence of peer victimization on educational outcomes for LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ high school students. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.840761. Austin, G., Bates, S., & Duerr, M. (2015a). Guidebook for the California Healthy Kids Survey part II: Data use and dissemination (2013-14 Edition). San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Austin, G., Bates, S., & Duerr, M. (2015b). Guidebook to the California Healthy Kids Survey part II: Survey content core module (2013-14 edition). San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Austin, G., Polik, J., Hanson, T., & Zheng, C. (2016). School climate, substance use, and student well-being in California, 2013-2015. Results of the fifteenth Biennial Statewide Student Survey, Grades 7, 9, and 11. San Francisco, CA: WestEd Health & Human Development Program. Black, W. W., Fedewa, A. L., & Gonzalez, K.a. (2012). Effects of “safe school” programs and policies on the social climate for sexual-minority youth: A review of the literature. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9, 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2012.714343. 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, 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-008-9364-x. Collier, K. L., van Beusekom, G., Bos, H. M. W., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2013). Sexual orientation and gender identity/expression related peer victimization in adolescence: A systematic review of associated psychosocial and health outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 299–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2012. 750639. Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Perez-Brumer, A. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Russell, S. T. (2017)Transgender youth substance use disparities: Results from a population-based sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 61, 729–735. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.06.024 Day, J. K., Perez-Brumer, A., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Safe schools? Transgender youth’s school experiences and perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47, 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0866-x. Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Ner York: The Guildford Press. Evans, N. J. (2002). The impact of an LGBT Safe Zone Project on campus climate. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. celrep.2011.1011.1001.7.

41

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

Fedewa, A. L., & Ahn, S. (2011). The effects of bullying and peer victimization on sexual-minority and heterosexual youths: A quantitative meta-analysis of the literature. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 398–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2011.592968. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20173. Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2013). Responsive classroom curriculum for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning students. In S. Fisher, & K. KomosaHawkins (Eds.). Creating safe and supportive learning environments: A guide for working with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth and families (pp. 156–174). New York, NY: Routledge. Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2014). Predictors of US teachers’ intervention in anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender bullying and harassment. Teaching Education, 25, 410–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2014.920000. Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Boesen, M. J. (2013). Putting the “T” in “resource”: The benefits of LGBT-related school resources for transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10, 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2012.718522. Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Harsh Realities: The experiences of transgender youth in our nation’s school. New York, NY: GLSEN. Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., Villenas, C., & Giga, N. M. (2016). From teasing to torment: School climate revisited. A survey of U.S. secondary school students and teachers. New York, NY: GLSEN. Griffin, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (2004). Describing roles that gay- straight alliances play in schools. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues In Education, 1(3), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v01n03. Grossman, A. H., D'Augelli, A.R., & Frank, J. A. (2011). Aspects of psychological resilience among transgender youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 8, 103–115. doi:https:// doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2011.541347 Hall, W. (2017). The effectiveness of policy interventions for school bullying: A systematic review. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 8, 45–69. https:// doi.org/10.1086/690565. Hanson, T. L. (2012). Construction of California' s School Climate Index (SCI) for high schools participating in the safe and supportive schools program. Los Alamitos, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from https://data.calschls.org/resources/SCI_Methodology071712b.pdf. Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Birkett, M., Van Wagenen, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). Protective school climates and reduced risk for suicide ideation in sexual minority youths. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 279–286. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301508. Havik, T., Bru, E., & Ertesvåg, S. K. (2015). School factors associated with school refusal- and truancy-related reasons for school non-attendance. Social Psychology of Education, 18, 221–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9293-y. Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., Cochran, B. N., & Youth, T. L. (2011). Offsetting risks: High school gay-straight alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. School Psychology Quarterly, 26(2), 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023226. Herman, J. L., Flores, A. R., Brown, T. N. T., Wilson, B. D. M., & Conron, K. J. (2017). Age of individuals who identify as transgender in the United States. Los Angeles, CA: The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/TransAgeReport.pdf. Igartua, K., Thombs, B. D., Burgos, G., & Montoro, R. (2009). Concordance and discrepancy in sexual identity, attraction, and behavior among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45, 602–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.019. Ioverno, S., Belser, A. B., Baiocco, R., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (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, 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000193. Kann, L., Olsen, E. O., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., ... Zaza, S. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-related behaviors among students in grades 9 – 12 — United States and selected sites, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Surveillance Summaries, 65(9), 1–208. https://doi. org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6509a1. Katz, J., Federici, D., 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, 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000186. Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Giga, N. M., Villenas, C., & Danischewski, D. J. (2016). The 2015 National School Climate Survey. New York, NY: 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 yuth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12, 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2012.732546. Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001063. Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High School Journal, 85(3), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2002.0005. McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experiences and school responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-010-9540-7. Meyer, E. (2008). Gendered harassment in secondary schools: understanding teachers’ (non) interventions. Gender and Education, 20, 555–570. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09540250802213115. Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjustment in LGB “high school youth”; variable and person centered analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 159–172. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10459-010-9222-y. Norman, J. (2004). A Survey of teachers on homophobic bullying in Irish second-level schools. Dublin: Dublin City University. O’Shaughnessy, M., Russell, S. T., Heck, K., Calhounn, C., & Laub, C. (2004). Safe place to learn: Consequences of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender non-conformity and steps for making schools safer. San Francisco, CA: California Safe Schools Coalition. Palmer, N. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Boesen, M. J. (2016). Disrupting hetero-gender-normativity: The complex role of LGBT affirmative supports at school. In S. T. Russell, & S. S. Horn (Eds.). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling. The nexus of research, practice, and policy (pp. 58–74). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Perez-Brumer, A., Day, J. K., Russell, S. T., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of suicidal ideation among transgender youth in California: Findings from a representative, population-based sample of high school students. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 56, 739–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac. 2017.06.010. Poteat, P. V., Calzo, J. P., Yoshikawa, H., Miller, S. J., Ceccolini, C. J., Rosenbach, S., ... Mauceri, N. (2018). Discussing transgender topics within gay-straight alliances: Factors that could promote more frequent conversations. International Journal of Transgenderism, 2739(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/15532739.2017. 1407983. Poteat, P. V., Scheer, J. R., & Mereish, E. H. (2014). Factors affecting academic achievement among sexual minority and gender-variant youth. Advances in Child Development and Behavior. 47. Advances in Child Development and Behavior (pp. 261–300). . https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2014.04.005. Poteat, P. V., Sinclair, K. O., Digiovanni, C. D., Koenig, B. W., & Russell, S. T. (2013). Gay-straight alliances are associated with student health: A multischool comparison of LGBTQ and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x. Ratts, M. J., Kaloper, M., McReady, C., Tighe, L., Butler, S. K., Dempsey, K., & McCullough, J. (2013). Safe Space programs in K-12 schools: Creating a visible presence of LGBTQ allies. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839344. Reisner, S. L., Conron, K. J., Tardiff, L. A., Jarvi, S., Gordon, A. R., & Austin, S. B. (2014). Monitoring the health of transgender and other gender minority populations: Validity of natal sex and gender identity survey items in a US national cohort of young adults. BMC Public Health, 14(1), 1224. Russell, S. T., Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Toomey, R. B. (2015). Are school policies focused on sexual orientation and gender identity associated with less bullying? Teachers’ perspectives. Journal of School Psychology, 54, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.005. Russell, S. T., & Fish, J. N. (2016). Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12, 465–487. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153. Russell, S. T., & Horn, S. S. (2016). Sexual orientation,gender identity, and schooling. The nexus of research, practice, and policy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

42

Journal of School Psychology 74 (2019) 29–43

J.K. Day, et al.

Russell, S. T., Kosciw, J. G., Horn, S., & Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students. Social Policy Report, 24(4), 1–25. Russell, S. T., & McGuire, J. K. (2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. In M. Shinn, & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.). Changing schools and community organizations to foster positive youth development (pp. 133–158). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Russell, S. T., Sinclair, K. O., Poteat, P. V., & Koenig, B. W. (2012). Adolescent health and harassment based on discriminatory bias. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 493–495. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300430. Saewyc, E. M., Konishi, C., Rose, H. A., & Homma, Y. (2014). School-based strategies to reduce suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and discrimination among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents in western Canada. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 5, 89–112. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.07-1072. Sausa, L. A. (2005). Translating research into practice: Trans youth recommendations for improving school systems. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 3, 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n01. Schneider, M. S., & Dimito, A. (2008). Educators’ beliefs about raising lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender issues in the schools: The experience in Ontario, Canada. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361650802223003. Seelman, K. L., Walls, E. N., Hazel, C., & Wisneski, H. (2012). Student school engagement among sexual minority students: Understanding the contributors to predicting academic outcomes. Journal of Social Service Research, 38, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2011.583829. Snapp, S. D., Hoenig, J. M., Fields, A., & Russell, S. T. (2015). Messy, butch, and queer LGBTQ youth and the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30, 57–82. Snapp, S. D., McGuire, J. K., Sinclair, K. O., Gabrion, K., & Russell, S. T. (2015). LGBTQ-inclusive curricula: why supportive curricula matter. Sex Education, 15, 580–596. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1042573. StataCorp (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5, 541–542. https://doi.org/10. 4300/JGME-5-4-18. 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. https://doi.org/10.1086/377673. Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2016). The role of sexual orientation in school-based victimization: A meta-analysis. Youth & Society, 48, 176–201. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0044118X13483778. Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2011). High school Gay–Straight Alliances (GSAs) and young adult well-being: An examination of GSA presence, participation, and perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15(4), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2011.607378. Walls, E. N., Kane, S. B., & Wisneski, H. (2010). Gay-straight alliances and school experiences of sexual minority youth. Youth & Society, 41, 307–332. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0044118X09334957. 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(5), 709–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839042000253676.

43