University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A multiple comparison case study of Los Angeles Public High Schools: LGBTQA+ policies and facilities, student advocacy, and change in policies and facilities over time

(USC Thesis Other)

A multiple comparison case study of Los Angeles Public High Schools: LGBTQA+ policies and facilities, student advocacy, and change in policies and facilities over time

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A multiple comparison case study of Los Angeles Public High Schools: LGBTQA+ policies
and facilities, student advocacy, and change in policies and facilities over time
by
Rory Patrick O’Brien
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(SOCIAL WORK)
August 2024
Copyright 2024 Rory Patrick O’Brien

ii
ii. Acknowledgments
I am fortunate for the community that has supported me over these many years of
study. To my dissertation committee – Dr John Blosnich, Dr Julie Cederbaum, and Dr Laura
Ferguson - thank you for offering your guidance, challenging me to think, and calming my
nerves. John, thank you all for your encouragement and patience as you helped this “young
scholar” grow and become ever more independent. You help me see things in perspective
and not lose sight of my goals, and you encourage me to set and reach high standards in
my work. Julie, thank you for your support as I explored the professional life I want – I
cherished all our conversations on ethics, methods, and work/life balance. You have often
told me that you trust me to do great work; thank you for this trust and encouragement.
Laura, thank you for helping me stay focused as I inevitably carried mountains of
distracting research ideas and concerns. I could always count on you to boost my
confidence and ground me in my research questions and the overarching goals of my work
to inform efforts to protect human rights.
To Dr Jeremy Goldbach, thank you for encouraging me when pursuing my PhD was
only a kernel of an idea. You told me I belonged in academia and that there was no
question of my success. You have been such an incredible support throughout my PhD.
You’ve comforted me when I was upset, advocated for me when I faced injustice, and
constantly encouraged me in my passions as a researcher. More than that, you’ve become
a dear friend. Dr Harmony Rhoades, thank you for years of support, encouragement, and
laughter. Two years ago, Jeremy and Harmony helped me dream up the ideas that became
this dissertation. Thank you both for guiding and supporting me in my research ideas and

iii
creating the incredible opportunity I’ve had here to do a dissertation that combines my
interests in policy, intervention, civics, and schools. And Dr Shannon Dunlap, thank you for
your friendship and guidance these many years.
Dr Michael Hurlburt, Dr Eric Rice, and Dr Olivia Lee, thank you all for your leadership
as PhD program directors. You always made yourself available to me whenever I needed
help. To Dr Hurlburt, especially, thank you for listening and advocating for me as program
director.
In addition to all of your mentorship and support throughout my PhD, thank you to
Dr Jeremy Goldbach and to Dr John Blosnich for financially supporting my dissertation.
Your support helped me return to California to collect my data, which was a difficult and
expensive undertaking, so I deeply appreciate your help in making it possible. I also greatly
appreciate the support of the University of Southern California Office of the Provost for
providing funding for this dissertation. In addition to funding my first two years and fifth
year of doctoral work with the Diversity, Inclusion and Access Fellowship and the Oakley
Endowed Fellowship, the Office of the Provost funded focus group participant
compensation, study materials, and focus group audio transcription by awarding me with a
Research/Travel Award and a Summer Research Grant.
To my love, Dr. Luis Armando Parra, thank you for being there at my side, hand in
hand through years of difficult studies, everyday stress, and hard-won successes. When I
told you my intention to return to school, you supported me without hesitation. You make
me stronger, inspire me to pursue my ambitious goals, and hold me when I face hardship
or lack confidence. Thank you, boo, for your support, friendship, patience, and love.

iv
To my dear family, Mom, Dad, Brendan, and Conor, I love you all. Thank you for your
patience as I talked your ears off about my work, admittedly sometimes to avoid doing the
work itself. Thank you for celebrating my every success and listening to my everyday
complaints. You all are the first I think of when I have anything to share in this world. I love
you and credit you with this incredible achievement in my life. Y a la familia Parra, gracias
por recibirme en su familia. Me siento agradecide por todos los días relajantes con
ustedes en Oxnard y Aldama, todas las comidas recién echas afuerita (y para llevar)
durante la pandemia, y por supuesto, la oportunidad de practicar mi español para llegar a
conocerlos mejor. And to the Oh-Arvizu family, Janet, John, Nico, and Carina, thank you for
being my LA family.
My dissertation work relied on community partnerships to be successful. Staff at
each school helped me access documents for policy analysis. They helped me to schedule
campus visits and took substantial time out of their workdays to personally give me tours
of their schools, answering questions the whole time, introducing me to their colleagues,
and waiting patiently as I took photographs and notes. They supported me in scheduling
focus groups and facilitated student attendance, which involved coordinating schedules,
reserving rooms, and working with teachers to allow dismissal from class and
administrators to clear their attendance. Finally, liaisons answered repeated emails and
joined zoom calls; they generally made themselves available despite their incredibly busy
schedules. I deeply appreciate the efforts of all of the school staff that made this project
possible.

v
I feel so grateful to the students who joined the focus groups. We met each group of
students for just 60 minutes, in which time they readily shared their insights, feelings, and
experiences with me. Thank you for your bravery in advocating for LGBTQA+ rights at your
schools, and for your vulnerability and willingness to support my work and inform efforts of
future youth advocates and educators.
Collecting and analyzing the data for this dissertation proved to be an overwhelming
effort. Thank you to the campus co-observers, Connor Carey and Alex Haydinger, who
joined me on cold mornings pre-sunrise and blazing hot afternoons to tour school
campuses and walk through smelly locker rooms. To Laura Petry, my dear friend, cohortmate, and companion throughout all of my PhD journey, thank you for your help notating
the focus groups. To the co-coders, Kierstin McMichael, Kevin Yu, and Maiya Hotchkiss,
you patiently, kindly, and thoroughly helped me make sense of thousands of pages of
photographs, observations notes, syllabi, focus group transcripts, school handbooks,
reports, and emails. I could not have gathered and examined all of this data alone, and
moreover, working alongside each of you allowed me to share in exciting moments,
realizations, and the struggles of this effort. Thank you all for giving your time, attention,
and energy to this work. Thank you all, Connor, Alex, Kierstin, Kevin, and Maiya, for being
wonderful companions and supports in the thick of this work.
Thank you to the community activists, policymakers, and LGBTQA+ communities
that fight to protect the rights detailed in this dissertation, as well as my own right to author
and publish these works. State governments have made it illegal in recent years to
implement many of the programs, policies, and supports so necessary to protecting

vi
LGBTQA+ youth, or even to do the research, described in this dissertation. The intervention
study that forms the backdrop structure and support to this dissertation would not have
been legally possible in some of the United States. Thank you to the policymakers who
pass supportive legislation, the educators who day in and day out provide LGBTQA+ youth
with much-needed support, and the researchers – Dr. Jeremy Goldbach, Dr. Harmony
Rhoades, Dr. Bethany Bray, and Dr. Zoë Corwin – who directed this study, advised me in
my dissertation, and continue to disseminate these interventions to other regions of the
United States.
As a Californian academic living in Michigan, I am fortunate to work and live in
states where my intellectual curiosity and voice are not censored and where I do not have
to fear being dismissed or told to alter my work on the basis of my research topic or
identity. Years ago, government workers censored my research on anti-trafficking
interventions with LGBTQA+ youth, migrant youth, and youth of color, literally returning
drafts with the names of these populations struck from the documents. I resisted this
censorship but, ultimately, the findings were never published. While I am privileged that
my work on LGBTQA+ youth is not being censored, today, I write this as universities
nationwide – including the University of Southern California – respond to pro-Palestinian
demonstrations by restricting speech and assembly and partnering with police to surveil,
arrest, and enact violence against students, faculty, and other members of our
communities. I value and hold tight to the tenuous privilege of writing honestly and openly
about issues of social justice and human rights in this volatile historical moment, and I
recognize that this privilege is rooted in my whiteness, education, socioeconomic position,

vii
and choice of topic. In writing this dissertation, I hope to honor the youth who shared their
stories, the educators who offered me their time and expertise, and the thousands of
activists who fought and continue to fight for human rights and the intellectual freedoms
that made this work possible here and now.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................ii
List of Tables........................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures............................................................................................................ix
Abstract.....................................................................................................................x
Chapter 1: Introduction & Significance........................................................................ 1
Overview............................................................................................................ 1
Gender and Sexual Minority Youth and Educational Supports ................................. 2
California Policies that Protect Gender and Sexual Minority Youth........................... 5
Conceptual Frameworks ..................................................................................... 6
Structural Stigma ........................................................................................ 6
The Stream Model of Policy Process.............................................................. 7
Street-Level Bureaucracy............................................................................. 9
Social Justice Youth Development Framework..............................................10
Contributions to the Literature ............................................................................12
Methodology .....................................................................................................13
Overview ...................................................................................................13
Recruitment ..............................................................................................14
The Intervention Context.............................................................................15
Data Collection and Analysis ......................................................................16
Case Characterizations and Liaison Roles ...........................................................19
Aster District..............................................................................................20
Amaryllis District........................................................................................21
Buttercup District.......................................................................................21
Mallow District...........................................................................................22
Lily District ................................................................................................22
Chapter 2: Adoption and Implementation of California State Education policies on
transgender and nonbinary inclusion in Los Angeles-area public schools .....................23
Abstract............................................................................................................23
Introduction ......................................................................................................26
Methods............................................................................................................30
Documents ...............................................................................................31
Observations .............................................................................................32
Member Checks.........................................................................................32
Focus Groups Discussions (FGDs)...............................................................34
Analytical Approach ...................................................................................34
Results .............................................................................................................35
Student Records ........................................................................................36

Gender-Neutral Restrooms .........................................................................46
Private Accommodations............................................................................51
Sexual Health Education.............................................................................56
Innovations................................................................................................58
Discussion ........................................................................................................59
Conclusion........................................................................................................65
Chapter 3: Student civic engagement in Los Angeles area public high schools: A focus
group study..............................................................................................................67
Abstract............................................................................................................67
Introduction ......................................................................................................69
Methods............................................................................................................73
Intervention Description .............................................................................73
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) ................................................................74
Analytical Approach ...................................................................................76
Results .............................................................................................................77
Student-Identified Advocacy Priorities .........................................................78
Group Process ...........................................................................................81
Supportive Relationships ............................................................................85
Hostility as a Barrier to Advocacy.................................................................90
Use and Misuse of Power ............................................................................96
Sociopolitical Awareness Development .....................................................100
Discussion ......................................................................................................104
Conclusion......................................................................................................109
Chapter 4: Change in school adoption and implementation of LGBTQA+ protective
education policies and procedures over time ...........................................................110
Abstract..........................................................................................................110
Introduction ....................................................................................................113
Methods..........................................................................................................115
Data collection ........................................................................................117
Analytical Approach .................................................................................121
Results ...........................................................................................................123
Aster District............................................................................................123
Amaryllis District......................................................................................128
Discussion ......................................................................................................135
Conclusion......................................................................................................139
Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications ......................................................................141
Dissertation Goals ...........................................................................................141
Major Findings and Implications for Policy and Practice ......................................142
Policy Implications ...................................................................................143
Practice Implications................................................................................146
Future Directions .............................................................................................151

Concluding Thoughts .......................................................................................153
Bibliography...........................................................................................................155
Appendices ...........................................................................................................166
Appendix A: California LGBTQA+ Education Policies ...........................................166
Seth’s Law, Adopted 2010.........................................................................166
FAIR Education Act, Adopted 2011.............................................................166
California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA), Adopted 2016 ....................................166
School Success and Opportunity Act (SSOA), Adopted 2013 .......................167
Equal Restroom Access Act (ERAA), Adopted 2016 .....................................168
Senate Bill 760 (Newman), School facilities: all gender restrooms, adopted
2023 ...................................................................................................... 168
Appendix B: Campus Observation Note-Taking Sheet .........................................170
Appendix C: Focus Group Discussion Guide ......................................................173

viii
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Data Collection Activities by School and Semester ........................................17
Table 1.2. California Department of Education School Profile Data Per Case ...................20
Table 2.1. Documents Received and Information Observed from Each School ................33
Table 2.2. Findings by School and District.....................................................................38
Table 3.1. FGD Participants by School..........................................................................75
Table 3.2. FGD Demographics by School ......................................................................77
Table 4.1. School Types, Student Body Size, and Liaison Roles .................................... 117

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. The Stream Model of Policy Process, replicated directly from Howlett, 2019 .... 8
Figure 2.1. A portion of the Buttercup District Gender Transition Plan ............................. 40
Figure 2.2. Aster District Guidance on Non-Legal Name Changes (Non-Alias
Procedure).................................................................................................................41
Figure 2.3. Hibiscus High School GNR Sign...................................................................47
Figure 2.4. Dahlia High School GNR .............................................................................49
Figure 2.5. Daffodil High School, 2 GNRs (Right) and 2 Sex-Segregated Restrooms (Left)..50
Figure 2.6. Dahlia High School Girls’ Locker Room, 3 Non-Toilet Privacy Stalls.................53
Figure 2.7. Hibiscus High School Private Accommodations ...........................................54
Figure 2.8. Marigold High School Girls’ Locker Room/Private Accommodations...............55
Figure 4.1. Dandelion High GSA Fall 2023 .................................................................. 124
Figure 4.2. Dandelion High GSA Fall 2023.................................................................. 124
Figure 4.3. Dandelion High Wellness Center Fall 2023 ................................................ 125
Figure 4.4. Portion of Amaryllis District Pride Advisory Committee Invitation Flyer ........ 128
Figure 4.5. Agapanthus High Staff Badge (bottom half to protect school identity).......... 130
Figure 4.6. Agapanthus High Classroom Window Fall 2023 ......................................... 130
Figure 4.7. Agapanthus High Parent Liaison Desk Fall 2023......................................... 131
Figure 4.8. Agapanthus High New Gender-Neutral Restroom Fall 2023 ........................ 133
Figure 4.9. Chive High Restroom Sign in Main Office, Present Fall 2022 & Fall 2023 ....... 133
Figure 4.10. Chive High Restroom Sign in Counseling Fall 2023 ................................... 133
Figure 4.11. Chive High Instructional Lead Classroom Fall 2023.................................. 134

x
Abstract
Introduction. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and asexual (LGBTQA+)
youth experience unique stressors that help explain for health disparities burdening this
population, and schools are key sites for prevention. California law protects LGBTQA+
students from violence and discrimination and establishes their rights to privacy, to use
facilities and participate in activities according to their gender identities, and have their
communities represented in curriculum. However, the extent of, facilitators, and barriers to
local adoption and implementation of these legal protections remain largely unknown.
Methods. Case studies of 10 public high schools in Los Angeles County focused on
school adoption and implementation of LGBTQA+-protective policies, student activist
efforts to improve school climate, and school policy change over time. Schools
participating in a larger randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of the Proud &
Empowered and Make Space interventions were invited to participate in policy scans and
student focus groups. Policy scans included document collection, campus observations,
and member checks used to characterize school policies, facilities, and procedures. These
policy scans were repeated a year later in six schools to track change in school policies,
facilities, and procedures over time. Policies of interest in this study included nondiscrimination, anti-bullying, and violence prevention; name change and privacy
procedures; comprehensive sexual health education; and facility access and private
accommodations. Focus group discussions (FGDs) with student activists in intervention
schools (n=3) highlighted school- and student-level barriers to student civic engagement,
and student efforts to change school climate. Policy scans were co-coded and extracted

xi
into a structured data matrix to allow for comparison across years, schools, districts, and
treatment conditions to learn how school LGBTQA+-protective policies, facilities, and
procedures differ between schools and change over time. FGD transcripts were
thematically analyzed to explore factors that shape student advocacy.
Findings. Study findings indicate variability in school policies on name changes,
accessibility of gender-neutral restrooms and private accommodations, and sexual health
education. While some schools had established policies and student-led procedures to
accept student asserted names and pronouns and protect student privacy, other schools
lacked formal policies, exhibited inconsistencies and contradictions in staff procedures,
and faced notable data systems barriers to enacting name changes. All schools had at
least one gender-neutral restroom on campus, but only some schools provided more than
one gender-neutral restroom and in most schools, these restrooms were locked and/or
required staff permission for use. Schools also varied in their adoption and implementation
of comprehensive sexual health education and LGBTQA+ visibility on campus. Focus group
participants identified notable barriers to their advocacy, including logistical issues like
time and scheduling, the demands of schoolwork, and anti-LGBTQA+ climate (slurs,
misgendering, and backlash to advocacy). Students also noted that supportive staff
facilitate student activism, but that staffing issues like turnover, retirement, illness, and
teacher discrimination hamper staff capacity to provide support. Finally, assessments of
school policy and facility change over time indicate that substantial and rapid school policy
and facility change can occur when multiple actors, including students, school staff, and
district personnel, work toward common goals.

xii
Discussion and Implications. California schools are required to accept student
asserted gender identities and protect student privacy, provide accessible gender-neutral
facilities and private accommodations, and deliver comprehensive sexual health
education. However, local implementation of these state laws in this sample of 10 public
high schools in Los Angeles County remains highly variable. Schools may accomplish
notable and rapid change to improve implementation of these protections when they
encourage student, staff, and district engagement and coordination. Study results lend
support to multilevel interventions that facilitate common pursuit by multiple student,
school, and district actors and, especially, that encourage student civic development and
address barriers to student advocacy, such as fears of hostile response to civic action by
peers, teachers, and family members. Study findings have been returned to respective
school liaisons to inform local improvements. Policymakers should audit statewide
implementation of these laws and provide training and technical assistance to school
districts, especially on name changes, restrooms, and private accommodations.
Educators should look to practical examples in this dissertation to guide their efforts to
protect student privacy and access to education, such as in publication of student rights
and facilities in handbooks and encouragement of student engagement in social change.

1
Chapter 1:
Introduction and Significance
Overview
Gender and sexual minority youth (GSMY) experience unique and severe stressors
across social contexts, including school, family, social media, religion, and in their
neighborhoods, that inhibit their healthy development and wellbeing (Abreu & Kenny, 2018;
Bouris et al., 2010; Duncan et al., 2014; Goldbach & Gibbs, 2017; McConnell et al., 2016).
GSMY may safely explore their identities at school when the school has sufficient policies,
facilities, and procedures in place (Day et al., 2019; Johns, Poteat, et al., 2019; Mayo, 2022;
Russell & Horn, 2016) to protect GSMY from discrimination and ensure their access to
education. However, school policies, facilities, and procedures generally reflect and
reinforce social norms harmful to GSMY, such as beliefs that queer sexuality is unnatural or
immoral, gender essentialism (the belief that biological sex is an immutable trait
inseparable from gender), and unscientific beliefs in the gender binary (McBride, 2021;
Steck & Perry, 2018).
The institutionalization of these norms in schools, such as in binary gender
restrooms (Porta et al., 2017), induces “structural stigma” that explain for increased risks
of victimization, suspension and expulsion, and school avoidance and dropout among
GSMY relative to their heterosexual and cisgender peers (Castillo et al., 2020; Day et al.,
2018; Grossman et al., 2009; Johns, Poteat, et al., 2019; Kosciw et al., 2020; Palmer &
Greytak, 2017; Steck & Perry, 2018). Compared to cisgender students (including cisgender
sexual minority peers), transgender and nonbinary youth face even greater risk of

2
victimization in schools (Marx & Kettrey, 2016) and unique structural barriers to their
education, such as in accessing affirming facilities consistent with their gender identities,
maintaining privacy, and procuring name and pronoun changes (Day et al., 2019; Evans &
Rawlings, 2021; McGuire et al., 2010; Porta et al., 2017; Testa et al., 2015).
Gender and Sexual Minority Youth and Educational Supports
GSMY include lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, asexual, and many
additional non-heterosexual and non-cisgender identities (LGBTQA+). Youth are more likely
to identify as LGBTQA+ than prior generations, including 21% of people in Generation Z who
have reached adulthood (Jones, 2022). GSMY are heterogeneous in terms of race and
ethnicity (Cyrus, 2017; Morgan, 2013) and socioeconomic status, though they are more
likely to live in poverty than their heterosexual and cisgender peers due to childhood
poverty, family rejection and other factors (Wilson et al., 2020). Multiply marginalized
GSMY, such as GSMY of color, are more likely than white GSMY to report feeling unsafe at
school (Kosciw et al., 2022) and are at increased risk of being targeted by punitive school
practices and dropping out of school (Snapp et al., 2022).
GSMY therefore vary substantially in their needs for social support, access to
services, and protection from harm at school. Given the increased risks of hearing slurs
and being assaulted, relative to their cisgender and heterosexual peers, supportive adults
and the designation of safe spaces are important components creating safe havens for
GSMY (Kosciw et al., 2022). LGBTQA+ inclusion in policies and curriculum, including formal
statements prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity, staff training to intervene when they witness bullying, and positive representations

3
of LGBTQA+ people and topics in curriculum, help set social norms and expectations
regarding GSMY inclusion at school (Day et al., 2019; Johns, Poteat, et al., 2019; Snapp et
al., 2015).
Gender minority youth may need specific policies and supports, such as name
change policies and gender-neutral restrooms (GNRs), to feel welcomed and supported at
school (Evans & Rawlings, 2021; Porta et al., 2017; Russell et al., 2018). GMY often undergo
a social transition, which can include changes in their names, pronouns, and appearance
(i.e., clothing, hair); social transition may involve almost no changes or substantial shifts to
a youth’s self-presentation and can occur in childhood, throughout adolescent
development, and in adulthood (Doyle, 2022; Olson & Gülgöz, 2018). As a result, some
GMY may start high school having already socially transitioned, may socially transition
during high school, or may not socially transition during high school at all. A youth’s needs
for privacy and support in navigating supports, like name changes and facility access, can
therefore vary substantially. For example, peers and teachers may only know an adolescent
who socially transitioned in childhood by that adolescents’ chosen name. Barriers to
having names honored in high school records at the time of enrollment and incidental or
intentional disclosures of the youth’s legal name could out such GMY and induce
unnecessary stress and risk of violence. GMY transitioning during high school, and whose
gender history may therefore be publicly known by teachers and peers, may struggle to
maintain privacy, to the extent that some reportedly transfer schools to start as their
gender in new educational environments, where people do not know their gender history
(Ehrensaft, 2013).

4
GMY who assert their gender identities in school may choose to go by a new name
and pronouns, and use of these chosen names has been linked to reduced psychological
distress (Russell et al., 2018). While schools and districts are required to maintain official
records like legal names in school files, schools can promote GMY inclusion by supporting
their safe social transition in school by facilitating name changes in unofficial records,
protecting student privacy according to their specific needs, and educating staff and
students alike about gender diversity. The California Department of Education
recommends multiple methods to accomplish this, including that official records like birth
certificates be kept in hard copy in locked filing cabinets separate from unofficial school
records that reflect student chosen names and gender identities (California Department of
Education, 2024b).
Sex-segregated restroom and locker room use can also be a stressful experience for
GSMY, and especially GMY, who report avoiding and experiencing peer rejection and
violence in these spaces (Greey, 2023; Wernick et al., 2017). School provision of GNRs and
private accommodations to change for gym are necessary to promoting GSMY inclusion
and safety in schools (Evans & Rawlings, 2021; Meyer et al., 2022; Porta et al., 2017;
Russell et al., 2018). In Porta et al. (2017), GMY shared experiences of harassment, as well
as anxious expectations of harm, in sex-segregated restrooms. Many schools designate
restrooms in nurse’s offices, basements, or side passages of schools, for use by
transgender and nonbinary youth, rather than providing GNR facilities in public and
accessible spaces on campus. Youth interviewed by Porta et al shared that while such
restrooms supervised by a supportive adult can feel positive, separation and distinction of

5
these GMY-designated facilities can induce feelings of isolation and stigma. Youth in the
study shared that the availability of GNRs in public spaces signaled acceptance and
affirmation of their identities by the school and made them feel more welcome in those
environments (Porta et al., 2017).
California Policies that Protect Gender and Sexual Minority Youth
Over the past decade, California has adopted numerous policies that affirm and
protect all of the practices described above (California Healthy Youth Act, 2016; Safe Place
to Learn Act, 2016; School Success and Opportunity Act, 2013; Fair, Accurate, Inclusive,
and Respectful Education Act, 2011). However, the extent of adoption and implementation
of these protections at the local level in California has been underexplored. California is
therefore an ideal environment to study the implementation of these policies and practices
in schools. This section reviews current and upcoming California GSMY-protective policies;
further information on each of these policies is detailed in Appendix A.
Together, California School Success and Opportunity Act (SSOA; 2013) and Safe
Place to Learn Act (2016) require that schools create safe and supportive learning
environments for LGBTQA+ students and that school nondiscrimination, antibullying, and
harassment policies be posted in handbooks and in public spaces on campus. The SSOA
both requires that schools accept student genuinely asserted gender identity (“genuinely,”
as in, a gender identity not asserted maliciously or erroneously), update data systems to
allow for name changes, and protect students’ right to privacy. While schools should
encourage parent engagement in school and educational decisions regarding their child,
state guidance on SSOA implementation notes that students may not feel safe disclosing

6
their gender identities to parents and specifies that school staff may therefore not disclose
student sexual orientations and gender identities to parents without the child’s consent
(CSBA, 2014). Though schools and educators should always encourage parental
engagement and support healthy adolescent development, which may include safely
coming out to family, educators are responsible for protecting the right to privacy of
students of all ages (California Department of Education, 2024b).
Nondiscrimination provisions in the SSOA also require that schools ensure that
students have access to facilities (such as restrooms) and can participate in activities
(such as sports) in accordance with their gender identities. Furthermore, under the Equal
Restroom Access Act (2016), public single-user toilets in the state are required to be
gender-neutral and, as of July 2026, all California schools will be required to provide
accessible and unobstructed GNRs (School Facilities: All Gender Restrooms Act, 2023).
California also has laws mandating delivery of LGBTQA+-inclusive sexual health,
history, and social studies curriculum. The California Healthy Youth Act (2016) requires
delivery of comprehensive sexual health education that discusses diverse sexual
orientations and gender identities. Likewise, the Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful
(FAIR) Education Act (2011) requires that California history and social studies curricula
include the history and social contributions of LGBTQA+ people, women, communities of
color, immigrants, and people with disabilities, among others.
Conceptual Frameworks
Structural Stigma

7
The structural stigma literature argues that the social norms, conditions, and
policies that structure society produce induce stigma by labeling, differentiating, and
promoting discrimination against people on social statuses such as sexual orientation,
gender identity, race, ethnicity, ability, and health status (Link & Hatzenbuehler, 2016). This
institutionalization of stigma into social policies and practices, or structural stigma, helps
to explain for persistent disparities in psychological and physical health for gender and
sexual minorities (Hatzenbuehler & McLaughlin, 2014; Perez-Brumer et al., 2017; Rabasco
& Andover, 2020; Saewyc et al., 2020).
The Stream Model of Policy Process
Policy researchers exploring the dynamics that lead toward the making of new laws
and policies have developed multiple theories, including the policy stages model, the
advocacy coalition framework (ACF), and multiple streams framework (Howlett, 2019).
Until recently, these theories have neglected to examine policy implementation processes
and have been positioned as oppositional rather than complementary theories. To support
research in policy implementation, Howlett (2019) presented an integrated stages,
coalition, and streams model. In this integrated framework, “windows of opportunity” to
enact policy change arise when multiple streams (the process, problem, policy, politics,
and program streams) align. These windows of opportunity occur during any of the five
stages of policymaking: agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision-making, policy
implementation, and policy evaluation. Finally, in accordance with the ACF, the direction
and content of each of these streams is determined by the competing constituents and

8
coalitions within that stream at that stage. A copy of the model of this integrated model is
provided below.
Figure 1.1. The Stream Model of Policy Process, replicated directly from Howlett, 2019
This dissertation can, itself, be located within this integrated policy process model.
The larger goal of producing evidence on the extent of policy implementation in schools
and the role of student advocates and other factors in shaping policy implementation
positions the author and their dissertation in the policy stream at the evaluation stage. In
the program stream at the implementation stage, researchers conducted the Proud &
Empowered and Make Space interventions, which sought to promote school inclusion in
alignment with the School Success and Opportunity Act (2013). Details in this dissertation,

9
such as the role of student advocates in calling for more robust implementation of
California policies (politics stream at the implementation stage) and administrators in
determining access to facilities and services in (dis)accordance with California law
(program stream at implementation stage) reveals the need to further study how
constituents and coalitional actors shape policy implementation processes at local levels.
Street-Level Bureaucracy
Policies as passed by legislatures must undergo a process of reinterpretation that is
sensitive to local context. In fact, research indicates policy drift – the differences between
how a policy is written and how it is enacted on-the-ground – is typical in schools and that
policymaker “expectations concerning schools’ capacity to implement often exceed
reality” (Viennet & Pont, 2017). Administrators, including district leaders and staff and
school principals, registrars, counselors, and teachers, play key roles in making sense of
the implementation of education policy. Theoretical work on “street-level bureaucracy”
stresses the power and discretionary decision-making of these administrators in highly
rule-bound settings like schools (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2022). Given the
discretionary power of street-level bureaucrats to implement or not implement a policy,
policy success and fidelity can be a function of the worldviews, time, and patience of
street-level bureaucrats and the extent of control exerted by supervisory bodies, such as
districts over schools, to ensure consistent policy implementation. In key examples,
Maynard-Moody & Musheno (2022) provide examples of how school staff perceptions of a
particular students’ promise – often in relation to the students’ race and ethnicity, gender,
and socioeconomic status – can shape that staff’s provision of services in accordance or

10
contrast to school rules. Use of discretionary power may exacerbate disparities in policy
implementation but can also serve to promote innovation, as in the case of street-level
bureaucrats who consistently provide additional supports to GSMY beyond that required by
the law. In this dissertation, school staff provided information during member checks,
email exchanges, and campus observations that reveal their procedural departures from
established school, district, and state policy. In some cases, multiple actors within the
same institution behave differently and produce multiple policy realities within the school.
Data collection and analysis in this dissertation are designed to identify and investigate
these multiple realities (Yin, 2017), including differences between written policy and actual
practice or between the practices of multiple staff. As a result, this investigation may help
educators, policymakers, and researchers to better understand the complexities of policy
implementation at the local level and inform recommendations to promote consistent
implementation of LGBTQA+-protective policies.
Social Justice Youth Development Framework
The social justice youth development (SJYD) framework (Ginwright & James, 2002;
Hershberg et al., 2015), itself informed by developmental systems theory (Lerner, 2004),
holds that youth can be active proponents of their own development by engaging in social
change efforts and pursuing social justice for their own communities. The SJYD framework
is distinct from other positive youth development models in its focus on promoting critical
consciousness – “the skills and knowledge necessary to analyze power within society and
its impact on oneself” (Wagaman, 2016) – and developing youth skills in collective action,
knowledge production, and critical analysis (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Shaw et al.,

11
2014). The SJYD framework originated in work with communities of youth of color and lowincome youth (Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Ginwright & James, 2002; Ginwright, 2010)
and has since been argued to carry particular relevance to the oppression and
empowerment of GSMY, GSMY of color, and low-income GSMY and pursuit of
intersectional sexual and gender justice (Wagaman, 2016). This application is further
supported by particular intersecting forms of oppression faced by GSMY of color (DeBlaere
et al., 2014; Santos & VanDaalen, 2018; Wagaman, 2016) and the strong history of GSMY
people of color as leaders in movements for sexual and gender justice (Moradi et al., 2010).
SJYD goals go beyond promoting healthy development to “build a more equitable
society through the engagement of critically conscious citizens” using five principles: 1)
analysis of power in social relationships, 2) centrality of identity, 3) promotion of systemic
social change, 4) encouragement of collective action, and 5) embrace of youth culture
(Ginwright & James, 2002). Additionally, in light of its foundation in systems theories and
the socioecological model, the SJYD framework considers oppression and empowerment
at three levels, intrapersonal, interpersonal, and collective experiences (Wagaman et al.,
2020). Just as oppression can manifest intra-personally (e.g., internalized homonegativity),
interpersonally (e.g., microaggressions), and at the collective level (e.g., discriminatory
institutional practices), liberation and empowerment may manifest individually,
interpersonally, and socially. For example, a young person may feel empowered and proud
of themselves as an individual, have interpersonal connections that support them in
thinking on justice and liberation or interactions in which they support a peer, and be
engaged in collective efforts toward community improvement through collective activism.

12
However, the SJYD framework’s applications to the needs and experiences of GSMY and
ally advocates for sexual and gender justice remain limited (Carey et al., 2021; Wagaman,
2016) and future research may benefit from exploration of the factors that shape the
success of SJYD-based interventions with these youth.
Contributions to the Literature
As reviewed above, the current literature indicates that GSMY face unique and
additional risks to their wellbeing and academic achievement in school relative to their
cisgender and heterosexual peers. Protective policies and supports, such as
nondiscrimination policies, GNRs, and inclusive curriculum, are associated with
reductions in psychological distress and GSMY reports of feeling safe and welcome at
school. However, notable gaps in the literature persist. Population-level findings of
associations with state policies and reduced psychological risk (Hatzenbuehler & Keyes,
2013; O'Brien et al., 2024; Rabasco & Andover, 2020), for example, investigate local
adoption or variation in local implementation of these policies. Research on change in
schools over time likewise rely primarily on large population datasets (Demissie et al.,
2018; Shattuck et al., 2022) and do not investigate the local factors that precede or
coincide with school climate improvements. Limited efforts that have begun to investigate
local adoption of California protective policies did not evaluate implementation at the
school level (Meyer & Keenan, 2020). Researchers focused on SJYD have only recently
begun applying the SJYD framework to LGBTQA+ youth advocacy and have yet to investigate
the factors, including interpersonal, school, family, and community factors, that may
shape their advocacy experiences.

13
Given these gaps, this multiple comparison case study assesses school policies,
facilities, and procedures, student experiences of civic engagement with the Make Space
program, and change in school policies, facilities, and procedures over time. The study is
guided by the following research questions:
1. How do California state education policies, district and school policies, and
observed school environments align or differ from each other?
2. What contextual factors (individual, interpersonal, Make Space group dynamics,
school staff, community, family, and policies) shape student civic engagement
experiences, facilitators and barriers to student civic engagement?
3. In what ways do school policies and facilities change over the course of one year in
intervention and control schools, and what contextual factors shape these
changes?
Study findings will contribute to the literature on policy implementation, school
climate and LGBTQA+ inclusion, and social justice youth development. Study findings are
also intended to support meaningful change in the schools enrolled in the study, by
providing schools with findings specific to their schools, and support and inform the work
of other educators and policymakers seeking to support LGBTQA+ youth in their schools
and jurisdictions. For educators, findings will reveal current practices and discuss best
practices at schools in Los Angeles. Findings will also support educators in adopting and
implementing innovative practices, including promoting inclusion of student voice in
decision-making. For policymakers in California, study findings may inform the necessity of
further legislation, amendment of existing law, audits, or the need for training and technical
assistance from regulatory bodies like the California Department of Education.
Policymakers outside of California may learn from the challenges and successes
experiences in the schools in this sample in implementing California law as they plan,

14
propose, and adopt their own LGBTQA+ protective educational legislation in their own local
school boards and state legislatures.
Methodology
Overview
As a multiple comparison case study, this dissertation sought to develop rich
descriptions of ten public high schools, their adoption and implementation of LGBTQA+-
protective policies and supports, student advocacy at three of the schools, and change in
six of the schools over two academic years. In line with the case study method, the
dissertation involved collection of multiple forms of data (Yin, 2017), including documents,
campus observation notes and photographs, focus group discussions with student
advocates, and member checks with school liaisons and administrators. The multiple case
study approach, with repeat data collection in the six schools that were enrolled for both
years of the study, resulted in a large and detailed dataset and the ability to compare data
sources to triangulate findings and contend with multiple realities – the overlapping
overlaps, similarities, and differences between written policies, staff perspectives and
practices, and student experiences - within schools (Yin, 2017). These rich and complex
data allowed for exploration of school policies, facilities, and procedures, the experiences
of students advocating within these school contexts, and change in school policies,
facilities, and procedures over one year. By providing a high level of detail, the dissertation
aims to inform researcher, policymaker, and educator practices in effectively promoting
implementation of LGBTQA+-protective school supports.
Recruitment

15
Staff with the randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the P&E and Make Space referred
11 public schools for participation in this multiple comparative case study. The primary
author scheduled introductory meetings with school liaisons at each school; liaisons were
staff members, including GSA advisors, counselors, and other staff, who agreed to
facilitate researcher access to the school and students for data collection. The RCT study
compensated schools ($4000 each) and school liaisons ($1000 each) honorarium for their
time supporting their efforts; schools and liaisons did not receive additional compensation
for providing support to this dissertation sub-study. After referral and an initial meeting to
introduce liaisons to the study, one school chose not to move forward, citing district
concerns with the waiver of parental consent and liaison fears of risk to their personal
safety for being involved in an LGBTQA+-supportive intervention research study.
The Intervention Context
Three of the schools that enrolled in Fall 2023 received the P&E and Make Space
interventions. The P&E intervention is a 10-week psychosocial support intervention
specifically for GSMY and is designed for implementation in schools and LGBTQA+
community-based organizations (Goldbach et al., 2021) and is delivered in schools during
the Fall semester. The Make Space intervention is a 5-week social justice youth
development intervention that begins in the early Spring semester. P&E participants are
invited to participate in Make Space, and additional GSMY and cisgender and heterosexual
allies are invited to participate via a survey of P&E participants. The Make Space curriculum
introduces youth to social justice advocacy and, per session, progressively provides youth
with greater leadership and responsibility. By the end of the 5 sessions, participants will

16
have identified LGBTQA+ school climate advocacy priorities and plans to accomplish those
priorities within their school. After the 5th session, students no longer meet with Make
Space intervention facilitators and, instead, the independently organize and pursue their
own advocacy activities over the remainder of the Spring semester.
Data Collection and Analysis
Collection of multiple types of data – including documents, campus observation
notes and photographs, member checks, and focus group discussions (FGDs) - aligns with
the case study method and its orientation toward producing complex, rich, and thick
descriptions of cases. Dissertation activities were embedded within a larger randomized
controlled trial (RCT) study of the P&E and Make Space interventions. Six of the ten schools
in the dissertation study sample enrolled in Fall 2022 and four schools enrolled in Fall
2023. Documents, observations, and member checks were conducted in all ten schools
each year of active enrollment, such that data collection activities were repeated in the six
schools that were enrolled for both years. Additionally, of the six schools enrolled at the
start of the study, three were randomly assigned to the intervention condition and three
were assigned to the control condition. FGDs were only conducted in the three schools,
Dandelion High School, Thistle High School, and Agapanthus High School, that received
the P&E and Make Space interventions in the first year of the study. Table 1.1 lists schools
and types of data collection per school per semester of study enrollment.
Given different years of enrollment and treatment conditions, each of the three
studies in this dissertation use varied parts of the full dataset. Chapter 2 uses document,
observation, and member check data from the first year of data collection at each of the

17
ten public schools, 2022-2023 for the Aster and Amaryllis Districts, 2023-2024 for the
Buttercup, Mallow, and Lily Districts. FGD data supplements analysis of the policies,
facilities, and procedures in intervention schools in Chapter 2. The Chapter 3 sample only
includes the three intervention schools, Dandelion, Thistle, and Agapanthus High, as the
analysis focused on student advocacy data collected in FGDs, with first year document,
observation, and member check data supplementing the analysis. Chapter 4 uses all types
of data from both years of data collection at the six Aster and Amaryllis District schools
that were enrolled for both years of study.
Table 1.1. Data Collection Activities by School and Semester
High School Fall 2022 Spring 2023 Fall 2023 Spring 2024
Aster District
Dandelion DO MC, FGD DO MC
Thistle DO MC, FGD DO MC
Dahlia DO MC DO MC
Amaryllis District
Daffodil DO MC DO MC
Agapanthus DO MC, FGD DO MC
Chive DO MC DO MC
Buttercup District
Delphinium Not yet in study Not yet in study DO MC
Marigold Not yet in study Not yet in study DO MC
Mallow District
Hibiscus Not yet in study Not yet in study DO MC
Lily District
Tiger Not yet in study Not yet in study DO MC
Notes: RCT=Randomized controlled trial; DO=Documents & Observation, MC=Member
Check, FGD=Focus group discussions
Collected documents at each school included school and/or district handbooks,
course listings, syllabi, club lists, campus maps, staff training documents, email
exchanges with school staff, and school reports, such as School Accountability Report

18
Cards and School Plans for Student Achievement. In addition to documents, researchers
conducted campus observations at each school and took notes and photographs to
assess adoption and implementation of California LGBTQA+-protective policies, such as
postage of inclusive nondiscrimination policies in public spaces, as well as evidence of
inclusive environment and safe spaces (i.e., safe space stickers, rainbows, suicide
prevention posters). Throughout data collection, analysis, and report writing, the primary
author conducted member checks with liaisons and other school and district staff to seek
further information, clarification, and to ask for liaison feedback on study findings.
Documents, observation notes and photographs, and member checks were all uploaded
into Atlas.ti, where the primary author and co-coder (a different one each year) familiarized
themselves and coded data according to specific policies and supportive practices. Codes
then acted as flags in the data, which were used to extract into a structured matrix in Excel.
Within the structured data matrix, researchers conducted line-by-line comparisons of
policy, facility, and procedure data between schools, between schools and their districts,
between schools/districts and California policy, and between the 2022-2023 and 2023-
2024 academic years within-schools.
In addition to document, observation, and member check data, FGDs were
facilitated in the three interventions schools where students had participated in the Make
Space intervention. FGDs were audio-recorded, transcribed by a third-party company, and
uploaded into Atlas.ti. The primary author and a co-coder met regularly over six months to
thematically analyze the data, which involved familiarizing themselves with the transcripts,
generating initial codes, and developing, reviewing, and defining themes (Braun & Clarke,

19
2012). The primary author then produced the report provided in Chapter 3. In addition to
the full FGD study provided in Chapter 3, youth testimony from FGDs often provided
information specifically relevant to understanding the availability, accessibility,
acceptability, and quality of school policies, facilities, and supports. Such testimony was
therefore incorporated into the policy analyses conducted in Chapters 2 and 4.
Case Characterizations and Liaison Roles
This dissertation produced case studies of ten public high schools across five
school districts in Los Angeles County. Case characterizations are provided below for each
of these ten schools. Dandelion, Thistle, and Dahlia High Schools (Aster District) and
Daffodil, Agapanthus, and Chive High Schools (Amaryllis District) enrolled in the study in
Fall 2022 and continued to participate through Spring 2024. Delphinium and Marigold High
Schools (Buttercup District), Tiger High School (Lily District), and Hibiscus High School
(Mallow District) enrolled in the study a year later, in Fall 2023. Data on each school from
the California Department of Education’s directory and profiles (California Department of
Education, 2024a) are detailed below using ranges to reduce identifiability of schools.
Among the schools enrolled in Fall 2022, Dahlia, Daffodil, and Chive High Schools
were assigned to the control condition and Dandelion, Thistle, and Agapanthus High
Schools were assigned to the intervention condition in the RCT study. In the three
intervention schools, students who participated in Make Space were eligible to participate
in this study’s focus group discussions. Among the schools newly enrolled in Fall 2023,
Marigold, Hibiscus, and Tiger High Schools were assigned to the control condition. While
Delphinium High School was originally assigned to the intervention condition, students did

20
not enroll in sufficient numbers to allow the intervention to be conducted in the school.
Therefore, none of the four schools that enrolled in Fall 2023 received the interventions.
Table 1.2. California Department of Education School Profile Data Per Case
District &
School Grades
Student
body
Students
of color
Reduced
Price Lunch
Eligible
English
Learners
Multilingual
Instruction
Aster District
Dandelion 9 – 12 +1700 80-90% 50 - 60% 1 - 10% Yes
Thistle 6 – 12 +500 80-90% 50 - 60% 20 - 30% Yes
Dahlia 6 – 12 +1000 80-90% 50 - 60% 1 - 10% Yes
Amaryllis District
Daffodil 9 – 12 +2100 90-100% 70 - 80% 10 - 20% Yes
Agapanthus 9 – 12 +1600 90-100% 70 - 80% 10 - 20% Yes
Chive 9 – 12 +100 90-100% No data No data Yes
Buttercup District
Delphinium 9 – 12 +3600 80-90% 50 - 60% 1 - 10% No
Marigold 9 – 12 +3500 60-70% 30 - 40% 1 - 10% No
Mallow District
Hibiscus 9 – 12 +1700 90-100% 90 - 100% 20 - 30% No
Lily District
Tiger 9 – 12 +2600 60-70% 20 - 30% 1 - 10% Yes
Notes: Student Body exclude middle school populations for Thistle and Dahlia High
Schools; Students of Color includes African American, American Indian or Alaska Native,
Asian, Filipino, Hispanic or Latino, Pacific Islander, and Two or More Races
Aster District
Within the Aster District, Dandelion and Dahlia High Schools provide traditional
public high school education, whereas Thistle High School provides specialized language
immersion (likely the reason for the high proportion of English language learners in the
school) and career preparation programs. At Dandelion High School, one counselor served
as liaison for the 2022-2023 academic year and a different school counselor took on
responsibility for the 2023-2024 academic year. In both years, a Dandelion High School
athletics director provided substantial information and feedback during campus

21
observations. Similarly, the Thistle High School liaison, also a counselor, was replaced by
another counselor liaison in 2023-2024. In both years, a Thistle High School assistant
principal was highly involved in the campus observations and in providing access to
documents. The Dahlia High School librarian served both years as liaison.
Amaryllis District
Among the three Amaryllis District Schools, Daffodil and Agapanthus High Schools
provide traditional public high school education. As a continuation school, Chive High
School serves a shifting student population, mostly Seniors who need an alternative school
environment to complete graduation requirements and who often enroll for just one
semester or academic year. Chive High School had no athletics program, and so analyses
in this study related to locker rooms and athletics did not include Chive High School.
In the 2022-2023 academic year, the Activities Director served as sole liaison for
Daffodil High School; the two GSA advisors joined as liaisons for the 2023-2024 academic
year. The Daffodil High School assistant principal also supported the Fall 2023 campus
observation. At Agapanthus High School, an after-school program coordinator served as
liaison for just Fall 2022; two school counselors then acted as liaisons for Spring 2023
through Spring 2024. A teacher at Chive High School served as liaison both years, with
additional support from the school principal.
Buttercup District
The Buttercup District enrolled in the study in Fall 2023. Both Delphinium and
Marigold High Schools provide specialized career training programs. Two teachers served
as liaisons at Delphinium High School, whereas a counselor and two teachers served as

22
liaisons at Marigold High School. Additionally, Delphinium High School liaisons referred the
author to a district staff member, who facilitated access to additional district documents
on sexual health education and name change policies.
Mallow District
Hibiscus High School enrolled in the study in Fall 2023 and provides a traditional
public high school education and liaisons included a counselor and a teacher.
Lily District
Tiger High School enrolled in the study in Fall 2023 and provides a traditional public
high school education. While two teachers served as school liaisons, an assistant principal
was highly engaged, served as guide for the campus observation, and facilitated access to
most documents received from the school.

23
Chapter 2:
Adoption and implementation of California State Education policies on transgender
and nonbinary inclusion in Los Angeles-area public schools
Abstract
Introduction. Recent political actions against transgender and nonbinary
adolescents (TNBA) have focused on limiting their rights in schools. While some states and
jurisdictions have moved against TNBA rights, other states have increasingly adopted TNBA
supportive policies, including requirements that schools accept and record studentasserted gender identity, allow use of facilities and participation in activities consistent
with student gender identity, and provide gender-inclusive sexual health education.
Understanding the implementation and outcomes of these policies is a necessary step to
amending policies to ensure successful protection of TNBA rights, contributing evidence to
the social benefit of these policies, and supporting diffusion and adoption of these policies
in other states and jurisdictions. However, the success and methods by which state
protective policies are implemented within schools remains largely unknown, and such
evidence is needed to inform policy adaptation and diffusion to other states and
jurisdictions. To address this gap in the literature, case studies at 10 public high schools in
the Los Angeles region examined and compared school policies and facilities to other
schools, districts, and California state law. This paper aims to 1) characterize TNBA-related
policies and facilities at 10 public high schools, 2) compare school and district policies,
and 3) compare school policies to state education laws.

24
Methods. Ten high schools were referred based on their enrollment in a larger study
(NIH R01MD016082-03); schools were eligible if located in the Los Angeles region and if
they agreed to use of an IRB-approved waiver of parental consent. Case study methods
included document collection (n=96), observation notes (n=16) and photographs (n=289),
member checks (n=3), and student focus groups (7 groups, n=39). Documents, observation
data, member checks, and focus group transcripts were thematically analyzed in Atlas.ti
following steps outlined by Braun & Clarke. Additionally, data was extracted into a
structured matrix in Microsoft Excel for school-to-school, school-to-district, and schoolto-state comparisons.
Results. School policies varied in name change procedures, gender-neutral
restrooms (GNRs), private accommodations (i.e., to change for gym), and sexual health
education. California requires that schools update data systems allow name changes and
protect TNBA privacy. Documents and observations revealed that four schools had name
change policies to protect student privacy, yet only three of them permitted changes
without parent consent and no school concealed name changes from parents. Remaining
schools had no name change procedure or “alias” addition procedures that displayed
students’ deadnames alongside aliases (e.g., LegalFirstName “Alias” LastName), thus
insufficiently protecting student privacy. While all schools had at least one GNR on
campus, liaisons at multiple schools, including Dahlia and Chive High Schools, commonly
cited bullying, drug use, and sexual activity in GNRs as reasons to lock and surveil GNRs.
Besides one school with an accessible GNR, school control and surveillance efforts
reduced GNR access. Few schools designated private accommodations; some provided

25
them within gendered lockers, and even then, they were typically only available in girls’
locker rooms. Finally, while California requires comprehensive sexual health education
delivery in high school, only two schools required health course completion for graduation,
five schools incorporated health into other courses, and three schools provided no clear
evidence of sexual health education delivery.
Discussion and Implications. Adoption and implementation of California TNBAprotective state policies largely differed by district. TNBA-protective legislation must
include implementation strategies for policy success in schools (e.g., district-level support
and technical assistance). Identifying persistent issues in implementation of name change
procedures, GNRs, private accommodations, and comprehensive sexual health education
policies may inform both state policy amendments and policy diffusion to other states.

26
Introduction
Transgender and nonbinary adolescents (TNBA) lack equitable access to education
in the United States compared to their cisgender peers (Day et al., 2018; Johns, Lowry, et
al., 2019; McBride, 2021). TNBA report structural forms of discrimination that impede
access to education, including difficulties updating records and having asserted gender
identities respected by staff, safely accessing restrooms and private accommodations,
and curricular exclusion of TNBA experiences (Day et al., 2019; Evans & Rawlings, 2021;
McBride, 2021). TNBA are at increased risk of verbal and physical violence in schools
compared to their cisgender peers (Johns, Lowry, et al., 2019; Norris & Orchowski, 2020)
and face trans-specific forms of violence, such as misgendering and forcible disclosure of
their gender identities to parents, staff, and peers (Testa et al., 2015; Vance, 2018).
Increased exposures to violence, anticipation of violence, and perceived lack of safety at
school are linked to disproportionate negative academic and health outcomes, including
an increased burden of truancy (Pampati et al., 2020), harsh discipline (Palmer & Greytak,
2017), school dropout and transfer (McGuire et al., 2010), substance use (Johns, Lowry, et
al., 2019), and suicide attempt (Perez-Brumer et al., 2017) for TNBA compared to their
cisgender peers. School efforts to protect TNBA privacy, self-determination, and equitable
access are key features of school policies to promote TNBA safety, inclusive climate, and
academic success.
Schools are highly regulated institutions and implementation of school rules shapes
students’ daily lives, academic outcomes, and wellbeing. Navigating the regulatory
environment of schools – where to be, what to do, how to respond, and who is responsible

27
– can be daunting for both staff and students. For students with unique, misunderstood,
and often maligned social positions – such as TNBA – navigating rules and procedures may
prove even more difficult (Day et al., 2019; Day et al., 2018; Snapp et al., 2022).
Consequently, TNBA must contend with concerns unique to being TNBA in a society
designed for cisgender people as they navigate complex school systems, where wrong
answers and wrong doors can carry serious consequences for their wellbeing. How do I
update my name in student records so that teachers stop misgendering me in class?
Which restroom do I use, where I know I will not be bullied? Where can I privately change
for gym, to avoid disclosing my gender history and becoming a target? These questions
generally sum up to a need for TNBA to exert control over their own privacy as they navigate
their personal, healthy adolescent gender development and social transition in school.
Unfortunately, answers to these questions largely depend on where a student lives.
We live in a historical period where state and local governments across the United States
diverge ever further from each other on youth rights. Even as some governments and
schools seek to protect TNBA rights (Demissie et al., 2018; Jarpe-Ratner et al., 2022; Meyer
& Keenan, 2020; Shattuck et al., 2022), other governments have adopted hostile school
policies to “forcibly disclose” or “out” transgender students to parents and community
members (Movement Advancement Project, 2023), restrict TNBA access to facilities and
sports (Chen, 2021; Kralik, 2016), ban books about gender diversity (Friedman & Johnson,
2022), and prohibit LGBTQ-affirming statements and instruction by teachers (Barbeauld,
2014; Wamsley, 2022). Such hostile laws have clear negative effects on the lives of
transgender and nonbinary youth by promoting and encouraging bigotry, placing youth at

28
risk of violence in school, home, and community settings, and hampering TNBA access to
education (Rabasco & Andover, 2020).
At this pivotal moment in transgender history, California is a leader in passing
protective legislation, including the School Success and Opportunity Act (2013), California
Healthy Youth Act (2016), and Safe Place to Learn Act (2016). A descriptive list of California
LGBTQA+-protective is included in Appendix A. However, little is known of how such
policies, facilities, and programs are actually adopted and implemented in schools. The
complexity of school systems and the need for evidence on policy impact to support policy
transfer to other states adds further need to study implementation of these protective
policies.
Only a few studies have assessed adoption and implementation of California TNBAprotective education policies. In their analysis of inclusive curriculum in California high
schools, Snapp et al (2015) found that positive effects of curriculum on student-reported
school climate were dependent on reaching a high threshold of curricular inclusion:
consistency in curriculum is key to improving school climate. Another study on the
adoption, but not implementation, of antibullying protections (Seth’s Law, 2012), activities
and facilities non-discrimination (School Success and Opportunity Act, 2013), and policies
on transgender students in the San Francisco area identified that school districts differed
in policy adoption, especially with regard to Seth’s law (Meyer & Keenan 2018). In sum, the
literature points to limited impact from partial implementation of inclusive curriculum and
variable district adoption of TNBA-protective policies, but research has not examined the
adoption and implementation of California TNBA-protective policies at the district and

29
school level. Evaluation of local policy adoption and implementation of these policies is
needed to inform policymaker efforts to amend and strengthen these policies and support
success uptake and implementation of these TNBA protective policies in other states and
jurisdictions. Specifically, highly local examination of policy implementation can identify
the potential pitfalls to avoid and innovations to formalize in future efforts to implement
these policies in California and elsewhere.
Policy implementation is a “process of mutual adaptation between policies and
their implementers” (Leonardi & Staley, 2020, p. 755). Upon passage of new school laws,
administrators at the state, district, and school levels must write regulations to translate
the policy into practice, meaning that they engage in discrete professional decision-making
of how to make the new law function within existing professional and local contexts and
frameworks (Braun et al., 2010). As a result, translated copies of passed legislation and
their requirements will look different at state, district, and school levels. Even then, “streetlevel bureaucrats”, or, the frontline staff responsible for implementing policy on-theground, interpret and enact these policies through their personal worldviews (e.g.,
unfamiliarity with, support of, apathy toward, opposition to TNBA rights), knowledge and
training, desires for expediency, and perceptions of youth as “good” or “bad” students
deserving of help (Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2022). Whether or not they are aware of
new policies or familiar with their roles in meeting TNBA needs, street-level bureaucrats
represent legislation in their institutions and exercise discretion as they enact (or do not
enact) these policies; these enactments become de facto school policy regardless of
whether they reflect actual legislation (Leonardi & Staley, 2020; Lugg & Murphy, 2016;

30
Maynard-Moody & Musheno, 2022). The complexity of policy implementation from
adoption through translation to enactment creates ample opportunity for variation in how
these policies actually function within individual districts and schools.
It Is unknown how these variable implementation processes have shaped California
TNBA-protective legislation in schools. This multiple case study describes the adoption
and implementation of California TNBA-protective education policies in ten public high
schools in districts within Los Angeles County. School and district policies on
nondiscrimination, bullying, violence prevention and intervention, equitable access to
facilities and activities, name changes and asserted gender acceptance, tailored supports
like Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSAs), and wellness centers were assessed to develop
characterizations of each case to compare with other schools, districts, and state
education policy.
Methods
This multiple case study examined policies, facilities, and procedures related to
TNBA rights in public schools in Los Angeles County. The case study approach prioritizes
the collection of many types of data from various sources – in this study, documents,
observations, member checks, and focus group discussions (FGDs) – to develop a rich
characterization of each school case. The multiple case study approach seeks to
accomplish this in many comparable cases, produce comparisons of these rich
descriptions of each case, and attempt to describe how and why cases may differ or relate
to one another (Ebneyamini & Sadeghi Moghadam, 2018). The study enrolled schools from
within a larger NIH-funded randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the Proud & Empowered

31
(P&E) and Make Space interventions (Goldbach et al., 2021). Schools were eligible to
participate in this study if they were enrolled in the RCT, located in Los Angeles County, and
agreed to the IRB-approved waiver of parental consent. RCT staff recruited school
personnel (hereafter, liaisons) and introduced those liaisons to this study’s principal
investigator (PI, O’Brien).
In total, 10 schools across 5 districts participated in the study; six schools starting
in 2022-2023 and four schools starting in 2023-2024. One school withdrew from the study
after recruitment before starting data collection in Fall 2023, stating that their district
would not permit the waiver of parental consent given current political hostilities toward
TNBA student privacy rights. Table 1 details these schools and districts, renamed for
confidentiality, and liaison roles at each school. The University of Southern California
Internal Review Board (USC IRB) approved this study. Liaison informed consent was not
required. Prior to completing demographic forms and participating in FGDs, students
reviewed the consent form with the primary author and checked a box indicating informed
assent; the USC IRB granted a waiver of parental consent for this study.
Documents
In introductory emails and zoom meetings, the primary author introduced liaisons
to the study and requested their help accessing school documents. Requested documents
included handbooks, course listings, syllabi, records policies, reports like the School Plan
for Student Achievement (SPSA), and other policies relevant to TNBA. Liaisons provided
documents and school website links via email, e-introduced to appropriate school staff
(e.g., registrars), and provided paper copies during campus observations. A list of

32
documents received, inclusive of documents/digital records observed during campus
visits, is available in Table 2.1 below.
Observations
School liaisons helped plan campus observations and guided researchers around
campus. Observations lasted between 45 minutes to 2.5 hours. When possible,
observations were conducted by two researchers (study PI with a colleague) who took
notes and photographs of offices, gender-neutral restrooms (GNRs), locker rooms,
classrooms, libraries, wellness centers, and the larger campus environment (see Appendix
B for the campus observation note-taking sheet). Observation notes and photographs
focused on documenting implementation of California legal requirements, such as postage
of nondiscrimination policies in public spaces on campus. For example, the observation
notes sheet includes prompts that ask whether staff permission or keys are required to
access gender-neutral restrooms (GNRs) and how long it would take to walk from the
furthest classroom on campus to the nearest GNR. Photographs did not include people.
Handwritten notes were typed, and photographs were captioned immediately after
campus visits.
Member Checks
Given the explorative nature of the study, the study PI followed up with liaisons via
emails with further questions to increase understanding, clarify findings, or pursue leads.
During data analysis, the study PI and co-coders composed case characterizations each
year, which were shared with liaisons with requests to read, review, and provide feedback
on the veracity of preliminary study findings about their respective schools.

33
Table 2.1, Documents Received and Information Observed from Each School
SARC
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Notes. Abbreviations: GSA, Gender and Sexuality Alliance; SPSA, School Plan for Student Achievement; SARC, School Accountability Report
Card. Syllabi include multiple topics, as sexual health was often embedded in other courses
SPSA
X
X
X
X
Records
Policies
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Syllabi
X
X
X
Campus Map
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Course List
X
X
X
X
X
GSA Info
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
School
Profile
X
X
X
School
Handbook
X
X
X
X
X
X
District
Handbook
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
District & School
Aster District
Dandelion High
Thistle High
Dahlia High
Amaryllis District
Agapanthus High
Daffodil High
Chive High
Buttercup District
Delphinium High
Marigold High
Mallow District
Hibiscus High
Lily District
Tiger High

34
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
Researchers invited Dandelion, Dahlia, and Agapanthus High School students who
had participated in the Make Space intervention to participate in FGDs in April and May
2023. FGDs lasted 45-60 minutes in classrooms during the school day, with administrator
clearance. FGDs included 2-8 participants, for a total of 39 participants across 7 groups.
After completing demographic questions on their sexual orientation, gender identity and
transgender status, race and ethnicity, and grade, the participants discussed question
prompts on their experiences as advocates on campus. A secure third-party company
transcribed FGDs, and the primary author then cleaned transcripts of people and place
names.
Analytical Approach
Documents, observation notes, photographs, and FGD transcripts were gathered for
analysis in Atlas.ti, where the study PI co-analyzed the data over two years with the support
of multiple coders. Documents, observation notes and photographs, and member checks
were coded to flag their relevance to California legal requirements to protect LGBTQA+
youth. Coded data was then extracted into a structural matrix in Excel to allow for line-byline comparisons of policy adoption and implementation between schools, schools and
their districts, and schools/districts and California state policy. Member checks included
liaison feedback on written case characterizations produced from initial analysis of
document and observation data; this feedback was then incorporated back into the
dataset to supplement final analysis. FGD transcripts were co-coded thematically
according to steps outlined by Braun & Clarke (2012), including data familiarization,

35
coding, theme development, theme review, theme definition, and writing the report (Braun
& Clarke, 2012). Youth testimony from FGDs were included in this study when relevant to
contextualize policy, facility, and procedure findings from the documents, observations,
and member checks.
The first author, O’Brien, is a white queer nonbinary doctoral candidate, public
health social worker, and mixed methods researcher focused on understanding the
implementation of LGBTQ rights policies. They coded all of the dataset with three
colleagues, who each coded segments of the data (the 2022-2023 documents,
observations, and member checks, 2023-2024 documents, observations, and member
checks, and the FGD transcripts). Co-coders were all LGBTQA+ (cisgender queer woman,
cisgender gay man, nonbinary queer), had varied racial backgrounds (biracial Black/White,
Asian, White), and hold different academic positions and experience, including a research
coordinator with an MSW, an MSW student new to qualitative research, and a PhD student
with substantial qualitative research experience.
Results
Study findings are presented below in five sections: student records, gender-neutral
restrooms, private accommodations, comprehensive sexual health education, and
innovative approaches to promoting LGBTQ inclusion. A large amount of data also speaks
to adoption and implementation of other policies, including non-discrimination, antibullying, and Title IX policies, but are not reviewed in detail as schools generally did not
differ from one another in implementation of these policies. All schools specified gender
identity protections in non-discrimination, anti-bullying, and Title IX statements written in

36
student handbooks and stated on the school websites, though schools varied substantially
in whether they posted these policies and instructions on how to file complaints in public
spaces on campus. All schools except for Chive High School had active Gender and
Sexuality Alliances, as listed in club listings, on school websites, and as observed during
the campus visits. As the only continuation school in the sample, Chive High School
generally had fewer students, and no athletics, compared to other schools. The four
sections below explore the state protections whose implementation revealed the most
variation in the sample: student records, GNRs, private accommodations, sexual health
education, and a final section on innovative practices. Findings are also briefly described
per case in Table 2.1 below.
Student Records
California’s School Success and Opportunity Act (2013) requires that schools
accept students’ “genuinely” asserted gender identities (“genuine” as in, a gender identity
not asserted to harass TNBA peers, e.g. “attack helicopter”), protect their privacy on a
case-by-case basis, and prevent incidental and forced disclosures at school by updating
data systems to allow students to change their names (CSBA, 2014). However, districts and
schools vary widely in their adoption and implementation of these state requirements. Four
school districts have adopted formal transgender student records policies (Buttercup,
Mallow, and Lily Districts) and one, Aster District, has provided school registrars with
instructions detailing district approved name change procedures. A final district, Amaryllis,
did not provide any district-level policies or guidance on name changes. Though schools
clearly shared commonalities within districts, school practices within districts nonetheless

37
varied and indicated school-level discretion in implementation. For example, as seen in
Table 1, two of the three Aster District schools used a common alias addition procedure for
name changes, whereas, for lack of Amaryllis District guidance, the three Amaryllis District
schools had their own procedures. In both Dandelion High School (Aster) and Daffodil High
School (Amaryllis), staff contradicted each other in describing their school’s name change
procedures. The procedures employed by schools and districts when responding to
student requests for name changes, including Gender Transition Plans and Alias Addition
Procedures are detailed below. An additional section discusses school efforts to ensure
that school communications, including student emails and names on web conferencing
platforms, reflect name changes.
Gender Transition Plans. Delphinium, Marigold, Hibiscus, and Tiger High Schools
(and their respective districts, Buttercup, Mallow, and Lily) used planning documents,
called “Gender Transition Plans” or “Gender Support Plans” (See Fig. 2.1), where students
could self-determine how they want to be referred to in various physical and digital spaces
at school, which facilities and private accommodations they needed, and under what
circumstances and to whom school staff should use student’s legal name versus chosen
name and pronouns. As evidenced by accompanying documents that included company
logos and websites, these four schools had all received training from the same
organization, Gender Spectrum.

38
Table 2.2, Findings by School and District
Health Education
District has an approved sexual
health curriculum
District-approved curriculum
possibly delivered in 10th grade
History, unconfirmed
District-adopted curriculum
delivered in World History &
Chemistry courses (5 weeks
each)
District-adopted curriculum,
but school only provides 10th
grade “boosters” on HIV &
healthy relationships
No evidence of district
approved curriculum
Curriculum delivered within 9th
Grade Biology course
Curriculum delivered within 9th
grade Biology course
Private
Accommodations
(besides toilet stalls) - Athletic Director’s office
external to locker rooms;
nurse office across
campus
None in boys’ locker;
privacy stalls in girls’
locker; nurse office across
campus
None in boys’ locker
except small alcoves;
privacy stalls in girls’
locker; nurse office across
campus - None in or near lockers;
nurse office across
campus
None in or near lockers;
nurse office across
campus
Gender-Neutral
Restrooms
(n; description) - 1: single stall in nurse
office, permission
required
3: single stall each in
nurse office, admin
office, & middle school
nurse office, permission
required
2: single stall each in
nurse office & main hall,
permission required - 3: single stall each in
nurse office & in main
area, permission
required
1: single stall in nurse
office, permission
required
Name Changes
District has a policy and
instructions on adding aliases,
non-legal name, and legal
name changes
Some staff agree to add
aliases, some do not. Aliases
do not transfer to academic
records
Adds Aliases upon request.
Aliases do not transfer to
academic records
Adds Aliases upon request.
Aliases do not transfer to
academic records
No evidence of district policy
Conflicting reports on name
change procedure (liaison) or
semesterly notification
(counselor)
No name change process,
students ask counselors to
notify teachers semesterly
District & School
Aster District
Dandelion High
Thistle High
Dahlia High
Amaryllis District
Daffodil High
Agapanthus High

39
Table 2.2, Findings by School and District
Health Education
No evidence of district
approved curriculum
No evidence of school sexual
health education delivery
District has an approved sexual
health curriculum
District-adopted curriculum;
delivery not confirmed
District-approved sexual health
curriculum delivered over one
month within 9th grade Biology
Health course provided
Health course provided;
additional Health Assemblies
listed on school calendar
Private
Accommodations
(besides toilet stalls) -No gym/physical
education facilities - Gym facilities under
construction. Plans to
build entirely gender- neutral locker facilities
None in or near lockers;
waist-high areas in girls’
locker; nurse office across
campus
Spaces provided external
and nearby both locker
rooms
Spaces provided external
and nearby both locker
rooms
Gender-Neutral
Restrooms
(n; description) -2: single stall each in
admin & counseling,
permission required - 1: multi-stall in main
area, no key or
permission required
1: single stall in
nurse office,
permission required
2: single stall in
nurse office & main
area, permission
required
3: single stall each in
nurse office, main
hall, & library,
permission required
Name Changes
No evidence of district policy
No information provided
District has a Transgender
Student Policy, Gender
Transition Plans, & a
Transgender Student Guide
Gender Transition Planning,
parent permission not required
Gender Transition Planning,
parent permission not required
Gender Transition Planning,
parent permission not required
Gender Transition Planning,
parent permission required
District & School
Amaryllis District
Chive High
Buttercup District
Delphinium High
Marigold High
Mallow District
Hibiscus High
Lily District
Tiger High

40
Of these four schools, Delphinium, Marigold, and Hibiscus High Schools allowed
students to engage in the Gender Transition Plan with or without parent permission,
whereas Tiger High School required that students get permission from at least one parent.
Despite these differences in
requiring parent
permission, actual changes
to records in those schools
were nonetheless visible on
the parent portal in all four
of these schools, so school
staff in these schools
provided counseling on
managing visibility to
students engaging in these
processes. Students who wanted staff to know their asserted name, without having this
information recorded where parents will see them, could choose that option and specify
which staff be informally notified of the name change. These plans also identified staff
responsible for facilitating and ensuring adherence to the established gender transition
plan.
Aliases. The Aster and Amaryllis Districts use the same third-party student data
management system; this student data management system has fields that permit the
addition of an alias or nonlegal name changes. The Dahlia High School registrar forwarded
Figure 2.1. A portion of the Buttercup District Gender
Transition Plan

41
email exchanges between Aster District and Dahlia High School staff. Those email
exchanges included the Aster District Policy on Transgender Students, which specifically
stated that that “Upon request, [Aster District] will allow prepare data systems to list a
transgender or gender nonconforming student by his or her preferred name and gender.”
Figure 2.2, Aster District Guidance on Non-Legal Name Changes (Non-Alias Procedure)
The email exchanges also included detailed instructions on how to add aliases and how to
make nonlegal name changes in the data management system (see Fig 2.2). Campus
observations in Aster District schools revealed, however, that when they receive name
change requests, they appear to only add aliases (rather than engaging in the district
guidance detailed in Fig 2.2). No such district-level guidance was evident or mentioned by
Amaryllis District schools.
Per Aster District alias addition instructions, the alias appears in quotation marks
between the student’s given first name and last name (e.g. LegalFirstName “Alias”
LegalLastName). As such, the names that students requested to be known by at school
were placed in quotation marks between their legal first and last name, which remain
visible in all student records. However, for those Aster District schools that followed this
district guidance, which include Thistle and Dahlia High Schools, procedures and data
systems did not ensure that requested name changes appear on attendance rosters.

42
During campus observations at these schools, registrars and counselors showed examples
of students who had requested name changes and had had aliases added to their student
records. When asked to then examine whether those aliases appeared on class attendance
rosters, the registrars and liaisons in these schools expressed surprise at learning, in that
moment, that aliases were not transferring onto attendance rosters. Teachers who viewed
students’ profiles on the data system would see both the students’ legal name and
alias/chosen name. In this case, district guidance requires teachers to use the alias and
respect the students’ gender, but nonetheless, providing both legal and chosen names can
result in unnecessary disclosures of student gender identity to staff. If teachers, however,
exported their attendance sheets, only students’ legal names were visible. Exported
attendance sheets therefore do not mention students’ chosen names and directly risk
misgendering students and violating student privacy concerns. These discrepancies also
increased the possibility that substitute teachers and other staff less familiar with
individual students may deadname students (e.g. use a person’s given name rather than
their chosen name).
In addition to names not transferring to attendance rosters, students face
challenges in navigating the name change process in these schools. In a FGD at Thistle
High, a student shared that requesting a name change is “A hassle to do, like even if your
parents are on board with it, it’s still, like, your parent has to, like, really have a lot of free
time” (Alex, Thistle student) to which another student, Sam, added “They gotta call and call
and call and call.” Such extensive advocacy may be harder, if not impossible, to

43
accomplish by parents who lack sufficient time and resources, including single parents
and parents burdened with the time-costs of racial, economic, and gender oppression.
Where Thistle and Dahlia High Schools followed district procedures of adding an
alias, Dandelion did not. When asked about name change procedures, the registrar at
Dandelion High School erroneously but firmly claimed that name changes are against the
law. After leaving the registrar’s office, the counselor/liaison (who had been present for the
communication with the registrar) stated that she had been adding aliases upon request.
She then expressed concerned to learn that she may have been acting in violation of
school policy. In a FGD at Dandelion High, a student shared that requesting a name change
on campus is “Like a speak-easy – you, like, have to know the right, like, codes and… the
right people to talk to and…the right places to go. It’s a mess, and you can’t just [find] one
place to go to and, like, say ‘Hey, can I do this?’ It’s just everywhere.” Despite having a
district-level policy, the lack of school-level policy at Dandelion High School meant that
staff in different offices (registrar and counseling) responded dramatically differently to
name change requests, creating right and wrong doors for transgender and nonbinary
youth seeking support.
Even though the Amaryllis District used the same third-party data management
software as the Aster District, no district guidance was evident and Amaryllis District
schools did not report using the same alias addition procedure. When asked about name
changes at Daffodil High School, the liaison at first claimed that the school had a
procedure and that names transfer to attendance sheets. However, a school counselor
disconfirmed this and stated that there is no formal name change policy or procedure,

44
unless the student has had a legal name change. Instead, the counselor stated that
students requesting to go by a name different than their records can ask counselors on a
semesterly basis to notify teachers of their name. That same semesterly counselor request
process was used at Agapanthus High School, according to a member check with liaisons.
This means that, if the Daffodil High School counselor’s testimony is correct, both Daffodil
and Agapanthus students had to make these requests each semester, and that substitutes
and other staff (e.g., attendance, administrators) who use data system records when
interacting with students likely lacked access to systemically recorded information to avoid
misgendering and/or outing students. Chive High School did not provide information on
name change procedures.
Emails and classroom management software. Schools used multiple overlapping
data systems, such that even if a school did have formal name change procedures, name
changes in student records systems did not necessarily transfer or result in name changes
to classroom management systems (e.g., Canvas, Google Classroom) and student emails.
Emails could involve incidental disclosures to staff and other students if TNBA email
address includes their legal names/initials or if searching or populating a student email
address involved typing in the student’s name. Student name changes occur at the schoollevel and student email addresses are managed at the district-level, so even if schools
have name change procedures and districts have email change processes to reflect name
changes, schools may not have procedures to notify districts when they conduct name
changes.

45
Among schools with Gender Transition Plans (Delphinium, Marigold, Hibiscus, &
Tiger), the Hibiscus High School had the only Gender Transition Plan that specifically asked
students if they want an updated email. In an email exchange on whether name changes
result in email updates, the Tiger High Assistant Principal stated that at the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic,
“When we went into distance learning - trans students and their teachers were
reporting that student’s deadnames were a default setting [on digital platforms].
Early in our Zoom/Google Meet/Canvas usage, we worked with our district tech
department… [which] was adamant that we use whichever name was used to
legally register the student with their email, login, and screen name…Slowly, after
many discussions and a loosening of the controls, teachers were allowed to allow
students to offer their new names, and not have to use a deadname. Additionally,
while…working and educating our district officials – we discovered the Deadname
Remover Google App…We did everything we could to support our trans students as
we navigated through the pandemic and distance learning.”
The Tiger High Assistant Principal’s testimony revealed the complexity and challenges in
updating the multiple data systems used by their school, as well as the professional
development efforts involved in pursuing system changes for TNBA.
As stated above, Aster District guidance on name changes provide multiple options
to conduct non-legal name changes or add aliases, and Aster District schools appear to
only use the alias addition procedure. The district instructions for non-legal name changes
also details how to then request email changes; if Aster District schools used the non-legal
name change procedure instead, they may also be able to start requesting email changes.
While students in FGDs at Dandelion and Thistle High Schools said that they could add
pronouns in classroom management systems on their own, a Thistle High student stated
that “Whenever you have to share a file with someone or email someone, you have to use
their deadname.” At Dahlia High School, email addresses retained student’s legal first and

46
last initials after addition of an alias, but the associated profile name that showed up when
sending the email included student aliases.
Gender-Neutral Restrooms
California’s School Success and Opportunity Act (2013) requires that schools allow
students to access facilities according to their gender identity (CSBA, 2014). Additionally,
the state’s Equal Restroom Access Act (2016) requires that all single-stall public use
facilities in California be designated gender-neutral. In other words, schools must degender single-stall facilities, but are not required to de-gender restrooms with multiple
stalls in them. New legislation will require that, by 2026, all K-12 schools in California
provide at least one GNR that is “unlocked, unobstructed, and easily accessible by any
pupil” (School Facilities: All Gender Restrooms Act, 2023), with clear all-gender signage
and postage of these same legal requirements.
Observation of GNRs facilities focused on key factors that shape access: the
number of gender-neutral restrooms, their location(s) on campus, and barriers to access,
such as staff permissions, locked doors, and distance from other sex-segregated
restrooms and classrooms. Campus observations revealed that all schools provided at
least one, and as many as three, GNRs. At all schools except Delphinium High School,
GNRs were single-stall facilities, were located in monitored spaces on campus such as
nurse’s offices or administrative spaces and required staff permission to access or unlock
the facility.
Some liaisons argued that locating GNRs in supervised spaces allows staff to
regulate the environment and prevent bullying or targeting of students using those

47
facilities. During campus observations, the Dahlia High School liaison noted that school
leadership had made this argument before and the liaison at Chive High echoed this
benefit. The Chive High School liaison stated that having the GNRs in administrative offices
helps assure that students can use these restrooms without threat of becoming a target of
bullying. However, students in FGDs at all 3 intervention schools – Dandelion, Thistle, and
Agapanthus High Schools – learned for the first time from their peers during the FGDs that
GNRs existed in their respective schools’ nurse’s offices; it appears that locating these
options within administrative environments reduced the visibility and accessibility of these
resources. After a Thistle High School student expressed surprise at learning that there is a
GNR in the nurse’s office, multiple other students added and repeated that “The nurse is
always on their lunch break, like, always;” in fact, Thistle High School students shared
stories of unattended injuries and medical problems due to the nurse’s regular
unavailability.
Some schools, including Dahlia, Daffodil,
Hibiscus, and Tiger High Schools, have one GNR in
a nurse’s office as well as GNRs in hallways or
other main areas of campus. Locating GNRs in less
easily supervised spaces creates difficult decisions
for schools that seek to prevent and control drug
use, sexual activity, and bullying, as referenced in
campus observations by liaisons at Dahlia,
Agapanthus, and Hibiscus High Schools. The
Figure 2.3, Hibiscus High School
GNR Sign

48
assistant principal at Hibiscus High School shared during their observation that their GNR,
which is centrally located off a main hallway, was originally unlocked and available to
students throughout the school day. When students were found smoking in the facility,
administrators and teachers debated whether to put a lock on the GNR door. Despite the
assistant principal’s opposition, they ultimately added a master school lock, such that
students must now find an administrator and provide a student ID to gain access to the
GNR (see Fig 2.3). However, notably, Hibiscus High School is the only school in the study
sample to have published the location of the GNR in the student handbook.
As a case, Dahlia High School offers multiple examples of the barriers students may
face in accessing the school’s two GNRs, located in the nurse’s office and off the main hall.
During the Dahlia High School observation, and echoing concerns at Hibiscus and
Agapanthus High Schools, the liaison noted administrator concerns about providing GNRs
on campus in the first place: on the presumption that GNRs must be single-stall facilities
(as discussed below with Delphinium High School, this is not actually necessary),
administrators argued that students will be more able to misuse those more private
spaces. During the campus observation, the liaison/librarian, a counselor, and the
Instruction Lead all said they know there is a GNR on campus (besides the one in the
nurse’s office), but that they did not know its location. An administrator, who stated that
she is responsible for unlocking the GNR upon student request, was ultimately able to
bring researchers to its location. The liaison stated that the GNR sign still says “Staff” on it
and added that it “Has not been christened a gender-neutral restroom, yet.” Moreover, on
arriving at the GNR, it had a sign on it (covering the word Staff), that stated that the GNR

49
was “Out of Maintenance until further notice” (see Fig
2.4). In fact, Dahlia High School’s Plan for Student
Achievement attested that “Our restrooms are in
desperate need of upgrade. We often have plumbing
issues or leaks which force room or space closures.”
The other restroom at Dahlia High School, in the
nurse’s office, may also have been inaccessible to
students, though for other reasons. First, the nurse’s
office was located downstairs; when asked during the
observation about accessibility of the downstairs, the liaison stated that the elevator to get
downstairs typically, but not always, works. When asked about student use of the GNR, the
school nurse shared that she allows girls to use the facility, but she does not allow boys to
use the restroom because they will make a mess of it. When asked about LGBTQA+
students, in particular, the nurse replied that she allows LGBTQA+ students to use the
GNR. Based on the nurse’s response, it appears that students must either be assumed to
be women or LGBTQA+, or they must actually out themselves as LGBTQA+, to gain access
to the GNR in the nurse’s office. In sum, GNRs exist at Dahlia High School but may be
inaccessible by student gender identity and expression, ability to climb stairs, or school
maintenance and funding.
Figure 2.4 Dahlia High School
GNR

50
Daffodil High School differed from other schools in providing two single-stall GNRs
directly alongside single-stall men’s and women’s restrooms. These four single-stall
facilities (two gendered and two gender-neutral) were all side-by-side in a semi-permanent
portable building (see Fig 2.5), with staff present to unlock any of the four facilities upon
student request. In most other schools, gender-neutral facilities were located completely
separate from gendered facilities. While this setup is arguably more equitable, the relatively
limited availability of gender-neutral facilities compared to gendered facilities on this
campus may still present issues for students. The furthest classroom from this facility is a
6-minute walk; with only 6 minutes to spare between classes, students seeking these
specific facilities lack sufficient time to walk to the restroom, request that it be unlocked,
use the facility, and then walk to their next class. Students seeking gender-neutral
restrooms may therefore have to choose between using the restroom and being late for
class or not using the restroom at all.
Figure 2.5, Daffodil High School, 2 GNRs (Right) and 2 Sex-Segregated Restrooms (Left)

51
Delphinium High School differs from all other schools in this sample. Delphinium
has one multiple-stall gender-neutral restroom designated for students that is kept
unlocked and accessible to students during school hours without any staff permission. By
providing an unlocked and unobstructed gender-neutral restroom, Delphinium High School
is the only school in this sample that already complies with components of California’s
new K-12 gender-neutral restroom law (School Facilities: All Gender Restrooms Act, 2023).
It is also the only school to provide a multiple-stall gender-neutral restroom; stall doors
each have locking mechanisms, and stall walls extend from floor to ceiling with no visibility
gaps so as to provide students with additional privacy. The restroom is located inside a
building off the main quad area of campus. However, given that this is the only genderneutral restroom on a relatively large campus, students may need to walk 10 minutes to
access the facility from the most distant classroom, presenting a similar quandary of time
management for students at Delphinium and Daffodil High Schools. So, even in the one
school that meets new state requirements in advance of the 2026 deadline to provide
unlocked and unobstructed gender-neutral restrooms, accessibility of that one facility on a
large campus remains a persistent issue.
Private Accommodations
The California School Success and Opportunity Act (2013) also protects students’
rights to request private accommodations to change, for whatever reason (CSBA, 2014).
Liaisons, gym teachers, maintenance staff, and other staff directed observers to private
accommodations, when available. Private accommodations can include a separate,
otherwise unoccupied room or be as simple as a curtain drawn across a room to provide

52
privacy (CSBA, 2014). With little direction or oversight, the provision (and non-provision) of
private accommodations varied notably from school to school. In general, locker rooms
have restroom stalls within them but teachers at multiple schools – and even signs on the
stalls in the girls’ lockers in Daffodil High School – discourage the use of toilet stalls for
changing. Additionally, liaisons at multiple schools reported that TNBA change for physical
education in the nurse’s gender-neutral restrooms; in all of these schools, that facility is
located in a separate part of campus, which means that TNBA risk tardiness for class as
they cross campus in their gym clothes.
The Thistle gym teacher said that some students in the boy’s locker room will duck
around a corner wall if they want privacy or that they will try to change in the toilet stalls,
which he discourages. In comparison, the girls’ locker at Thistle High has three non-toilet
privacy stalls for changing. Another gym teacher in the girls’ locker stated that students
form long lines to use these privacy stalls, and that she has to direct them out of the lines
so that they can change and get to class on time. This gym teacher added that a trans girl
and a trans boy both use the girls’ locker room; she reported that students had complained
to her about the trans boy being in the locker room. The teacher reportedly struggled to
intervene to explain the situation to the students across a linguistic barrier, as the students
making the complaint were Spanish speaking; the teacher shared that, in simple Spanish,
she was able to tell the complainants that the trans boy “is a girl” and that they do not need
to be worried.

53
Dahlia High School also only provides private accommodations within the gendered
locker rooms. In the boy’s locker room, there is a restroom stall and there are two alcoves,
each of which have doors leading to a public outdoor space. A gym teacher reported that
students use these alcoves to change and accept the risk of the door opening while they
are undressed; the gym teacher reported that he discourages this practice. Therefore, as
with Thistle High School, gym teachers at Dahlia High School reported during observations
that students in the boys’ locker
room duck around corners into
hallways and passageways in
attempts to secure some level of
privacy. Also like Thistle High, the
Dahlia High girls’ locker room
includes a restroom and three
privacy stalls (see Fig 2.6).
As compared to the other schools in the Aster District with private accommodations
in gendered locker rooms, Dandelion High School provided private accommodations
external to the gendered locker room. Students walking toward the girls’ locker room pass
the Athletic Director’s office, through which they can access an inner room that the Athletic
Director makes available for students to change. When asked how often students use the
space to change, she replied all the time, and she further confirmed that the space is used
daily by transgender students seeking privacy. The school liaison/counselor present for this
conversation added that she was unaware of this resource on campus; when asked about
Figure 2.6, Dahlia High School Girls' Locker Room, 3
Non-Toilet Privacy Stalls

54
student awareness of the space, the Athletic Director stated that word of mouth had
ensured that students know of the resource.
In the Amaryllis District, the locker rooms at both Agapanthus and Daffodil High
School had bathrooms but no private accommodations within the space or nearby. School
liaisons at both schools stated that students generally use the nurse’s restroom to change,
about 6 minutes’ walk away from the gym on both campuses. As previously mentioned in
the Agapanthus FGDs, some Agapanthus students were unaware of the GNR in the nurse’s
office. When asked about private accommodations, the Agapanthus coach who was
present stated that there is a single stall faculty restroom by the lockers that could be made
available to students, but that no student had ever asked to use it. There was no gym or
physical education class offered at Chive High, and so there was no specific need for
private accommodations to change clothing.
Hibiscus High School provides private accommodations nearby both locker rooms –
upon request, students can privately use either a small room marked “Coaches Office,”
which was observed to be partially used for storage
(see Fig 2.7), near the girls’ locker or a large and
typically empty Varsity changing room to the side of
the boys’ locker. Likewise, Tiger High School provides
private accommodations upon request in a Coach’s
office, similarly used partly for storage, that is near the
girls’ locker and across the gymnasium from the boy’s
locker. Both schools report that students do request
Figure 2.7, Hibiscus High School
Private Accommodations

55
and use these options. In Tiger High, the locker rooms also had non-toilet privacy stalls
available, though there were more in the girls’ locker than in the boys’ locker.
The two schools within the Buttercup District provided vastly different options to
students. Marigold High School provided no private accommodations internal or external
to the locker rooms, so TNBA may either change in the gender locker space or use the
gender-neutral nurse’s restroom and walk across campus. A maintenance person present,
when asked about private accommodations while in the girls’ locker room, noted the
structure throughout the locker room provided privacy: similar to the girls’ locker rooms at
Dahlia High School (except that they also had privacy stalls), 3-4-foot-tall pink walls formed
squares that clearly once served
as shower facilities. These
facilities only provide partial
privacy for students (see Fig 2.8).
In comparison, Delphinium High
School’s locker room was under
construction and could not be
viewed, but liaisons stated during observation that the school had adopted a policy (no
written policy was provided) of requiring that the future facility’s locker room be entirely
gender neutral. As a result, the new gym structure would look like the school’s current
gender-neutral restrooms, with long-sided lockable stalls to provide privacy to all students.
The liaisons reported that public release of these plans was met with anti-trans community
pressure at a school board meeting, which stalled construction efforts. However, the
Figure 2.8, Marigold High School Girls' Locker
Room/Private Accommodations

56
liaison stated that the school remains committed to providing all students, including TNBA,
with privacy.
Sexual Health Education
The California Healthy Youth Act (2016) requires the provision of comprehensive
sexual health education inclusive of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities and
gender expression. Gathering information on comprehensive sexual health education in
this set of schools proved difficult, as liaisons often did not know or have access to
information on when, where, or how the curriculum is delivered. A few high schools
provided clear information, including health syllabi and course listings, that attested to
their provision of comprehensive sexual health education in accordance with the California
Healthy Youth Act. Both Tiger and Hibiscus High Schools listed Health as a standalone
course required for graduation and provided copies of their Health syllabi. Tiger High
School’s syllabus specifically stated that the course is LGBTQ-inclusive (Hibiscus High’s
syllabus did not explicitly state this) and Tiger High School additionally provides school
rallies focused on health on a semesterly basis. Delphinium High School staff referred to
Buttercup District staff, who provided district-level documentation of health curriculum, a
parent notification form, and reporting forms that teachers are required to complete and
return to the district verifying provision of lessons on gender and sexual orientation, healthy
relationships, and others. Despite having referred researchers to district staff, school
liaisons at Delphinium High School did not provide any documentation of school-level
implementation of the district-approved sexual health education curriculum. On the other
hand, a Marigold High liaison stated that they deliver the district-approved curriculum,

57
which includes appendices on working with LGBTQA+ youth, for one month of instruction
within the 9th grade Biology course.
The Aster District had formally adopted a comprehensive sexual health education
curriculum, and Dandelion, Thistle, and Dahlia High Schools all reported having adopted
this curriculum in their School Plans for Student Achievement. However, actual
implementation of the curriculum looked different at each school. The Dahlia High School
science teacher responsible for delivering health education stated that students attend a
health course in 7th grade with 8th and 10th grade “booster” events on HIV and Healthy
Relationships. Dahlia High School provided no health course and did not incorporate
health curriculum into other courses. Despite limited implementation of sexual health
education at Dahlia High School, the liaison provided an ACLU California-produced
document outlining the requirements of the California Healthy Youth Act. At Thistle High
School, the liaison confirmed with teachers and reported via email that the 10-week
curriculum is split in half, such that 5 weeks occur within the school’s World History
(“social issues of health including gender identity, abuse, etc.”) and another 5 weeks were
embedded in Chemistry courses (“biological side…to include diseases, condoms, etc.”).
That curriculum reached all 10th graders, except those who were “out of grade level in
science.” The Dandelion High School replied in an email that “I think our Sex ed happens in
10th grade history, but I’m not 100% sure,” offered to look into it and provide detail, but did
not provide further information upon follow up.
The Amaryllis District Student Handbook had a section devoted to the requirements
of the California Healthy Youth Act. The Daffodil High School liaison stated that their sexual

58
health education was delivered in 9th Grade Biology, but no course description was
available in any available school documents. When asked for course information, the
liaison stated that the school principal did not want syllabi shared, as syllabi have teacher
contact information on it and may compromise that staff members’ privacy. School
liaisons at Agapanthus High School stated that they believe the curriculum is not provided;
FGD participants disconfirmed this and stated that they receive “Only, I think, one month or
a few weeks toward the end of freshman biology, and we wanted to extend that…” (Star,
Agapanthus student). The liaison at Chive High School stated that they do not provide a
health class, and that they are unsure whether such curriculum is integrated into their
history curriculum; a review of world history, government, and economics syllabi (but not
US history, which was not provided) revealed no mention of sexual health curriculum.
Innovations
A number of schools adopted innovative strategies to support and protect student
access to books. In anticipation of requests to ban books, the liaison/librarian at Dahlia
High School composed a policy proposal for consideration by the Aster District that clearly
outlined book acquisition, community complaint, and reconsideration processes. The
document included ethical commitments, including statements of support for intellectual
freedom, and connected these ethical commitments to the Library Bill of Rights (American
Library Association, 2016). Library efforts to protect intellectual freedom were evident in a
number of other schools, as several observations were conducted during Banned Books
Week and some school libraries (Hibiscus, Tiger, Delphinium, and Marigold High) had

59
elaborate displays of caution tape and rainbows surrounding titles such as Beyond
Magenta (Kuklin, 2014).
School wellness centers, which were observed in addition to nurse’s offices at the
Dandelion, Agapanthus, Daffodil, Tiger, and Marigold campuses, also provided
opportunities for targeted supports. For example, a local LGBTQA+ organization regularly
conducted on-campus events and provided support services at the Marigold High School
wellness center. Daffodil High School had substantial health programming, including a
health center, provided by a community clinic that provided health services on campus,
and a wellbeing center. As part of its mindfulness programming, the Daffodil Wellness
Center provided trauma-informed yoga sessions, including separate yoga sessions
specifically for LGBTQA+ students.
Discussion
TNBA must navigate complex systems that are only recently shifting to
accommodate their needs. Given the extent of policymaking to protect TNBA in California,
the state presents an opportunity to study school implementation of many state policymandates, including name changes, restrooms, locker rooms, and comprehensive sexual
health education. However, this study coincided with increasingly hostile and active
movements to curtail TNBA rights, and the Los Angeles region has not been immune to this
effect as multiple districts in the region sought to ban books and require forcible disclosure
of students’ gender identities to parents (Barbeauld, 2014; Chen, 2021; Friedman &
Johnson, 2022; Kralik, 2016; Wamsley, 2022; Yarbrough, 2023). Study results come at a

60
pivotal moment in transgender history when states that pass TNBA-supportive legislation
can serve as examples for other states of how to protect TNBA in school.
Most schools in this sample had a name change procedure. However, no school
fully protected student privacy from parent view when records were changed, few schools
allowed name changes without parent permission, and many faced issues with
transferability of information in data systems from student profiles to attendance records,
classroom software, and email addresses. Current implementation of name change
policies present multiple risks for incidental disclosure of TNBA private information to
peers, teachers, and parents. For TNBA who need or desire privacy, misgendering can be
harmful to their gender development and induce severe stress and suicidal ideation
(Russell et al., 2018). Solutions to these technological problems can be approached with
simple strategies at low cost, which, importantly, can facilitate policy success in lowresource schools lacking in strong data infrastructure. The California Department of
Education recommends that schools retain hard copies of official documents in file
cabinets separate from unofficial documents, with changed names, for use at school.
Schools seeking to better facilitate name changes may also build upon the strategies used
at Delphinium, Marigold, Tiger, and Hibiscus High Schools by adopting Gender Transition
Plans to allow students to guide their own disclosure process, publishing instructions and
providing counseling on how to change names, and ensuring data system consistency and
integration.
School implementation of gender-neutral restrooms interacts with school pressures
to surveil and control restroom environments. California’s newest legislation on school

61
restrooms requires, by 2026, that schools provide access to gender-neutral restrooms that
are unlocked and do not require staff permission for use; in this study, only Delphinium
High School currently meets these requirements. These new requirements will introduce
challenges for schools that seek to manage drug use and sexual activity in restrooms;
currently, these typically single-stall facilities (except at Delphinium High School) create a
“tragedy of the commons,” where students over-use the private facility and cause them to
become unavailable to all. Delphinium High School’s use of multi-stall gender-neutral
restrooms with high walls and locking mechanisms protects individual privacy in a larger
commonly shared room, thus reflecting the same risk as any other multiple-stall gendered
restroom and, hopefully, avoiding this “tragedy of the commons” scenario. Schools may
address gender-neutral restroom accessibility issues by providing gender-neutral
restrooms in public areas of campus in the same areas as other gendered restrooms and in
enough areas of campus to ensure access during breaks between periods. Fortunately,
especially for schools like Dahlia High School that suffer from chronic facility maintenance
issues, the new California legislation requiring GNRs in schools further specifies state
responsibility to reimburse schools for upgrades to meet these state requirements and sets
an additional requirement that all future school modernization projects must include
GNRs.
System complexity, knowledge of resources, and communication appear to shape
access to name changes, restrooms, and private accommodations. No school details in its
student handbook that students may change their names or provides information on how
to make such a request. Students must, instead, seek out this information from individual

62
staff; at some schools like Dandelion High School, the information they receive may differ
based on who they ask. Likewise, multiple people had to be asked to successfully locate
the gender-neutral restroom at Dahlia High School, and some students in FGDs were
unaware of restrooms at Thistle, Dandelion, and Agapanthus High Schools. Notably, where
TNBA in other studies have reported that GNRs in nurse’s offices and far-flung locations
can feel stigmatizing (Porta et al., 2017), some students in FGDs in this sample noted that
they did not even know these GNRs existed. Even when policies are implemented and
supports exist for TNBA, students are unlikely to benefit from supports if those supports
are not published for student access. Where Hibiscus High School is the only school in the
sample to have published the location of their GNR in the student handbook, the Buttercup
District attended to this issue with publication of a two-page Transgender Student Guide,
posted online and on campus at both Delphinium (administrative area) and Marigold
(wellness center) High Schools. The Buttercup District Transgender Student Guide details
information on the gender transition plan and student rights to gender-affirming restroom
and locker room access, participation in sports and activities, and dress codes.
Implementation of comprehensive sexual health education varied notably between
schools. Agapanthus and Chive Highs provided no health education, and Dahlia High
School only provides “booster” events in the 10th grade. Thistle and Daffodil High Schools
integrate health education into other courses. Out of the 10 schools, three – Delphinium,
Tiger, and Hibiscus – provided entire semester health courses. Unfortunately, Marigold and
Dandelion High Schools provided no information on their provision of sexual health
education, even though their respective districts have adopted health curriculum to

63
implement. Districts may seek to ensure that district-approved health education is
implemented at the school level. Likewise, where a semester-long dedicated health course
provides more time to cover all required content under the California Healthy Youth Act
(2016), schools may integrate sexual health curriculum into other courses, as was done at
Thistle and Daffodil High Schools, to accommodate other course offerings and graduation
requirements.
Schools varied substantially in their adoption and implementation of state
education requirements to protect TNBA. While schools within districts tended to share
similar name change policies, schools within districts also substantially differed from each
other in restrooms, private accommodations, and provision of health education, which
indicated that districts may exert limited oversight of implementation of these policies.
Multiple examples, on the other hand, attest to how street-level bureaucrats exercise
substantial power and discretion in these schools, with key examples of the Dahlia librarian
writing a new intellectual freedom policy and the Dandelion registrar proclaiming that
name changes are illegal. Schools wishing to support their TNBA students can encourage
staff to identify and address policy gaps, like in the instance of the Dahlia High School
librarian. Staff training on TNBA-supportive policies and strategies, including how students
can change names and how name changes appear in records, may improve
communication and prevent differences in policy implementation between offices on
campus.
As a qualitative study, findings cannot be assumed to reflect the extent of adoption
and implementation of these policies statewide in California and in other states. Besides

64
this study and another that focused on anti-bullying policy adoption in Bay Area school
districts (Meyer & Keenan, 2020), no study has yet examined adoption and implementation
of TNBA-protective California policies outside of the metropolitan San Francisco and Los
Angeles regions. Further research should investigate implementation of these protections
in other regions of the state. Additionally, a key purpose of this study was to understand
implementation of these policies to inform their adoption and successful implementation
elsewhere in the United States. Further research may investigate adoption and
implementation of these protections in states with similar policies to California and in
protective areas of states that lack such state-level protections. Nonetheless, study
findings that schools face financial, training, and technological barriers to implementing
TNBA-protective policies may resonate with the needs and experiences of schools and
TNBA in California and elsewhere in the United States.
Interpretation and use of this study’s findings are subject to additional limitations.
FGDs helped to contextualize policy findings in three of the schools, and in some cases
disconfirmed and complicated policy findings. Student testimony would almost certainly
have enriched, disconfirmed, and complicated findings for the other seven schools in the
sample. Unfortunately, FGDs were only conducted in the three schools that received the
Make Space intervention in the first year of the study, as the FGDs specifically sought to
understand student advocacy experiences. The benefit of student voices in those three
schools was evident; future studies on school policy implementation should more
substantially incorporate student voices. Campus observations were cross-sectional; on
multiple occasions, liaisons shared of upcoming or past changes on campus that were not

65
evident at the time of observation. Dependence on school liaisons may have introduced
bias, including social desirability bias. Liaisons – and especially liaison counselors - often
reported being understaffed or substantially busy, and this may have affected
responsiveness to document requests and follow-up inquiries.
Despite these limitations, this study collected multiple types of data from many
sources (document, observation, member checks, and FGDs), allowing for triangulation of
evidence in each case study. The use of the multiple case study approach allowed for
comparisons from school to school, school to district, and school to state. The explorative
approach to collecting data typical to case studies, where findings led to requests for
further information, allowed for deeper and more complex insights into policy adoption and
implementation at each school (Yin, 2017). Provision of full case characterizations to
school liaisons and requests for edits – to which liaisons from Dahlia, Tiger, Daffodil, Chive,
and Marigold High Schools replied with no changes – strengthened the trustworthiness of
study findings. While additional schools, like Dandelion High School, replied to case
characterizations in the first but not second year, all schools replied to member checks and
provided input throughout the study, even if they did not reply specifically to the final case
characterizations. Study findings may be transferable to other school settings, such that
California educators may ask how their own schools are implementing each of these
policies.
Conclusion
This multiple case study described the adoption and implementation of TNBAsupportive California education policies in ten Los Angeles region schools. Findings reveal

66
substantial variation in the adoption and implementation of name change policies, genderneutral restrooms, private accommodations, and comprehensive sexual health education.
Study findings can support educator and school social worker efforts to effectively
implement TNBA-supportive school policies. Findings may also inform California state and
school district efforts to support, such as through training and technical assistance, or
extend further oversight over implementation of these policies. As new laws – such as
California’s new regulations on accessibility of gender-neutral restrooms in K-12 schools –
are passed, future research may examine local adoption, implementation challenges, and
outcomes of new policies. Future research may explore school administration and staff
decision-making in interpretation and enactment of civil rights policy and the extent of
adoption and implementation of key California policies, like the School Success and
Opportunity Act and the California Healthy Youth Act.

67
Chapter 3:
Student civic engagement in Los Angeles-area public high schools: A focus group
study
Abstract
Background and purpose: School-based civic engagement programs seek to
promote youth-led efforts to improve school climate, with the purpose of promoting youth
civic development, policy improvements, and school climate benefits for all students.
Youth leadership programs position youth as experience experts and interventionists, yet
facilitators and barriers to youth-led advocacy have been largely unexamined. This study
links social justice youth development (SJYD) literature with implementation research to
examine student-reported factors that shape LGBTQA advocacy in schools in Los Angeles.
Methods: Students (n=39) at three Los Angeles regional public high schools
enrolled in an SJYD school-based intervention, Make Space, participated in focus group
discussions (FGDs) to discuss facilitators and barriers to their LGBTQA school advocacy.
All students had attended Make Space and were actively engaged in LGBTQA-supportive
advocacy on campus. Two to three one-hour FGDs occurred at each campus during school
hours. Audio recordings were transcribed via an online service, scrubbed for identifiers,
and thematically analyzed by two nonbinary doctoral student co-coders.
Results: Students at the three schools prioritized advocacy for campus awareness
events, name change procedure improvements, gender neutral restroom access, sexual
health education, and access to non-mandated reporter mental health supports. Five key
themes emerged that shaped student-led LGBTQA advocacy: 1) intra-group dynamics, 2)

68
adult relationships and support, 3) hostile school climate and backlash, 4) use and misuse
of administrative power, and 5) sociopolitical awareness development. Youth spoke of their
reliance upon specific staff known to be supportive, but that reliance upon these
individuals resulted in lapsed support when those adults took sick leave or left for other
jobs. Youth advocacy for LGBTQA education rights met with backlash, including red herring
excuses by school administrators for not meeting youth demands and on one campus, a
rainbow flag burning by peers. Even as youth gained greater sociopolitical awareness, they
identified challenges to participation in civic action, such as the normalized use of slurs by
peers, deadnaming and non-intervention in bullying by staff, and fears for how their civic
engagement may risk outing them to unsupportive parents.
Conclusion and implications: SJYD and other youth-led advocacy interventions
can promote youth civic leadership. Planning for LGBTQA youth-led advocacy
interventions, in particular, should account for some youth lacking parental support and
the potential for community backlash, and provide opportunities for youth to determine for
themselves how they want to engage in civics safely. Moreover, youth advocacy initiatives
focused on LGBTQA+ rights must account for the risks youth face in being openly LGBTQA,
including risks of family rejection and hostile backlash to advocacy.

69
Introduction
Gender and sexual minority youth (GSMY), including lesbian, gay, bisexual,
pansexual, asexual, queer, transgender, and nonbinary youth, face unique academic and
health inequities in high school compared to their cisgender and heterosexual peers. GSMY
face interpersonal violence from peers, staff, and families (Abreu & Kenny, 2018; Bouris et
al., 2010; Duncan et al., 2014; Goldbach & Gibbs, 2017; McConnell et al., 2016) and
structural exclusion from activities, prohibitions from accessing facilities, and erasure from
curriculum based on their sexual orientations, gender identities, and expressions (Day et
al., 2020; Day et al., 2019; Evans & Rawlings, 2021; McGuire et al., 2010; Perez-Brumer et
al., 2017). These minority stressors produce health and academic disparities for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and asexual (LGBTQA+) youth (Goldbach & Gibbs, 2017),
including increased risk of suicide ideation (Fulginiti et al., 2020; Hatzenbuehler & Keyes,
2013; Johns, Lowry, et al., 2019) and substance use (Gilreath et al., 2014; Goldbach et al.,
2014; Reisner et al., 2015) compared to heterosexual and cisgender peers. These sources
of minority stress in schools are therefore key targets of efforts to prevent further harm to
LGBTQA+ people through the promotion of internationally recognized LGBTQA+ human
rights, including the rights to education, privacy, state protection, and sanitation (ICJ,
2007).
LGBTQA+ rights have been key battlegrounds for LGBTQA+ justice over the past
century in the United States. Persistent stereotypes that portray LGBTQA+ people as
“groomers” seeking to recruit youth have been used to argue for discriminatory hiring
practices and bans on LGBTQA+ curricular and library content (Barbeauld, 2014; Friedman

70
& Johnson, 2022; Wamsley, 2022). Beliefs that LGBTQA+, and specifically trans and
nonbinary, people are mentally ill and violent have motivated laws to define sex as binary
and restrict access to facilities and activities according to binary assigned sex (Chen, 2021;
Kralik, 2016). Such laws continue to be increasingly proposed and enacted today
(Warbelow et al., 2023). Today, these movements seek to exclude and limit LGBTQA+ youth
access to and representation in education, including restrictions and bans on LGBTQA+
library and curricular content, name changes, student clubs, cultural events, gender
expression, facility access, and political expression. These political attacks on LGBTQA+
inclusion in school cover five domains of school climate: safety, relationships, teaching,
institutional environment, and school improvement processes (Thapa et al., 2013), and
point to the need for concerted counter efforts to protect LGBTQA+ rights across each of
these domains.
As highly active anti-LGBTQA+ movements continue to push legislation targeting
LGBTQA+ rights in educational spaces, youth civic engagement focused on promoting
LGBTQA+ rights can be beneficial to protecting and expanding LGBTQA+-supportive policy
and programming, fostering inclusive communities, and encouraging increased solidarity
and sense of belonging among GSMY advocates. The social justice youth development
(SJYD) framework posits that youth can develop critical consciousness, or an analytical
perspective on power and social systems as it affects oneself and community, and lead
efforts for social change. This process benefits youth personal civic development while
contributing to the wellbeing of the larger community (Hershberg et al., 2015). This
development of critical consciousness involves first intrapersonal (how is one shaped by

71
social conditions?), then interpersonal (how do social conditions shape people’s lives
differently by gender, sexuality, race, or class?), and global levels of empowerment (how
does one’s struggles for justice connect with common global social justice movements)
(Ginwright & Cammarota, 2002; Wagaman, 2016). This development of critical
consciousness can be supported by following key principles: power analysis, identity
centrality, promotion of systemic social change, encouragement of collective action, and
embrace of youth culture (Ginwright & James, 2002). Notably, the encouragement of
collective action is thought to increase youths’ political self-efficacy, or the sense of ability
to change social conditions (Ginwright & James, 2002).
Given this promotion of critical consciousness and political self-efficacy, civic
engagement promotes future social action, voting, and democratic participation for youth
of color and impoverished youth (Diemer & Li, 2011; Terriquez, 2015). However, the SJYD
framework has only recently been extended to issues of youth sexual and gender justice
(Carey et al., 2021; Wagaman, 2016). For GSMY specifically, civically engaged GSMY have
reported lower suicide ideation and psychological distress than GSMY who are unengaged
in activism (Frost et al., 2019). However, SJYD programs with GSMY and other groups
typically focus on outcomes like empowerment, critical consciousness, and health risk
reduction, without investigating the barriers and facilitators to GSMY advocates
accomplishing their civic goals and how supports may be needed to facilitate youth-led
social change to protect LGBTQA+ rights.
SJYD studies have only recently begun to investigate LGBTQA+-focused youth-led
advocacy, and some work has investigated advocacy in the context of Gender and Sexuality

72
Alliances (Kosciw et al., 2020; Poteat et al., 2018; Poteat et al., 2015; Russell & Horn, 2016).
Within that field, limited research has identified that sociocultural (e.g., parents,
community), school-level (e.g. administrators, school policy), intragroup (e.g.,
communication dynamics and scheduling), and individual (e.g., personal experiences,
attitudes, and knowledge) factors shape the outcomes of GSA-related advocacy (JarpeRatner et al., 2022; Watson et al., 2010). In highly coordinated examples, GSA members
have conducted their own research and successfully advocated for local and state-level
changes in GSMY-relevant school policy (Laub & Burdge, 2016). Highly active GSAs are
examples of the power of youth to effect change for LGBTQA+ school inclusion. However,
GSAs vary notably from school to school in structure and youth leadership, degree of adult
advising and support, and the groups’ focus on peer support versus advocacy (Mayberry,
2013; Poteat et al., 2022). Therefore, while GSAs can be useful for understanding some
grassroots advocacy efforts, they do not necessarily match the SJYD framework principles.
Gaps remain in understanding the feasibility of such SJYD school-based
interventions with GSMY. In the SJYD literature more broadly, studies have not investigated
facilitators and barriers experienced by youth advocates participating in SJYD programs as
they develop critical consciousness and pursue local change. Studies on GSMY
experiences in SJYD school-based interventions can therefore provide unique and yet
unexplored information on the facilitators and barriers to LGBTQA+ advocacy during a
historical moment of hostility toward LGBTQA+ youth rights. Understanding GSMY
experiences in youth-led efforts and what supports and hinders their social justice
engagement is important to identify scaffolds that adults can provide to support youth-led

73
efforts, anticipate and plan for facilitators and barriers in SJYD interventions with GSMY,
and inform staff engagement with GSMY advocates in their schools.
Methods
Focus group discussions (FGDs) at three schools receiving a SJYD-informed
intervention, called Make Space, investigated youth experiences advocating for LGBTQA+-
supportive school policy and climate changes. The three schools were located within Los
Angeles County and were eligible based on their enrollment in a larger NIH-funded
randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the Proud & Empowered (P&E) and Make Space
interventions. School liaisons (school counselors) were referred by RCT staff to support
planning for on-campus FGDs with intervention participants during school hours. Schools
were eligible for participation if currently enrolled in the RCT study as an intervention (not
control) site, agreed to the IRB-approved waiver of parental consent, and were located in
the greater Los Angeles area. Students were eligible to participate in the FGDs if they had
participated in the Make Space intervention.
Intervention Description
LGBTQA+ youth and cisgender heterosexual allies in intervention schools were
invited to participate in a SJYD intervention, Make Space, delivered early in the Spring
semester. Some students were referred to the study based on their participation in the
LGBTQA+-specific social support intervention, P&E, the preceding Fall semester. Additional
Make Space participants, including heterosexual and/or cisgender students, were
identified for recruitment by P&E participants, school liaisons, or a school survey. Make

74
Space sessions began in late January and early February 2023 and were completed by the
end of March 2023. The Make Space curriculum was delivered over 5 sessions, including:
Session 1. Group forming exercises to meet each other and identify common
values, collaboratively define advocacy and allyship, and learn about and discuss
local Los Angeles histories of student advocacy.
Session 2. Conduct a group power and skills assessment activity, review policy and
climate data for their school, and plan their own brief citizen research projects.
Session 3. Revisit school data and findings from citizen research, discuss evidenceinformed LGBTQA+-supportive school policies and strategies, identify student
priorities and strategies for change on campus, and nominate and elect student
leaders.
Session 4. Power map, identify coalition partners, develop timelines, and plan for
how to enact school change priorities and strategies.
Session 5. Extra time as needed to facilitate student-led initiatives, introduce
students to key school staff they need to know for their change priorities, etc.
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)
FGDs were held in the last week of April and first week of May 2023. Two to three
FGDs of up to 8 participants each were held during a single school day per school, for a
total sample of 39 participants in 7 FGDs. All Make Space participants were eligible and
invited to participate. School liaisons and administrators pre-authorized student release
from class and liaisons supported efforts to create groups that were balanced in terms of
school grade. In one participating school, Thistle High School, FGDs coincided with Senior
Ditch Day (a covert student-led effort for which staff do not receive advanced warning),
resulting in lower sample size and no senior participants at Thistle High School.
On arriving at the study classroom, students were provided with time to review the
informed consent document and ask questions prior to completing short demographic

75
forms and starting the FGD. The researcher compensated each participant $25 cash at the
end of each FGD. Study procedures were approved by the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (USC IRB). The USC IRB approved a waiver of parental consent
with minors and additionally required that demographics be collected anonymously and
not be linked to individual student responses. Given this, students adopted celebrity
names (“Rue,” as in Rue McClanahan), joke names (“Red” as in Red Lobster) or went
without names; those who did not name themselves were assigned gender-neutral names
(Sam, Alex). Pronouns were not asked, collected, or used, except in quotations or to refer
to multiple students (they, them, their) as a group. Schools and districts have been
renamed to protect confidentiality and are listed with number of participants and focus
groups in Table 1.
Table 3.1. FGD Participants by School
School District # participants # FGDs
Agapanthus Amaryllis 14 2
Thistle Aster 9 2
Dandelion Aster 16 3
FGD questions inquired into youth advocacy priorities, experiences of support and
lack of support from school staff, peers, and family, institutional response to advocacy,
and how school climate affected their advocacy (see Appendix C for the IRB-approved FGD
guide).
In addition to FGDs, researchers collected documents and conducted campus
observations during the Fall semesters directly preceding and following the Spring focus
groups (Fall 2022 and Fall 2023). Documents included student handbooks, registrar
policies, course syllabi, and school equity plans. Campus observations investigated the

76
availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of campus facilities, including genderneutral restrooms, locker rooms and private accommodations, Gender and Sexuality
Alliance (GSA) classrooms, wellness centers, and administrative offices (see Appendix B
for the campus observation note-taking sheet). Findings from document and observation
analysis or environment scans were provided to participants during the first session of
Make Space to help inform their advocacy efforts. Those same findings are incorporated
into this paper as necessary to provide context for school climate, student experiences,
and their advocacy efforts.
The first author facilitated FGDs; another doctoral student of social work helped by
taking notes to support transcription and keeping time. FGD audio was transcribed by a
third-party online service, and then the research team further cleaned the transcriptions
and scrubbed them of all identifiers.
Analytical Approach
The first and second author collaboratively followed the six steps for thematic
analysis outlined by Braun & Clarke (Braun & Clarke, 2012): to familiarize themselves with
the data, generate codes, develop themes from notable patterns, review themes, define
themes, and produce the current report. Initial codes were supplemented with codes from
two sensitizing theories, the SJYD framework and the model of school climate (Thapa et al.,
2013). Both authors are white, nonbinary doctoral students of social work who share a
common history of engagement in LGBTQA+, anti-racist, and anti-violence social justice
activism. Co-coders participated in a process of establishing interrater reliability by
meeting regularly at each stage of thematic analysis, including comparing use of the

77
codebook and discussing the meanings and applications of codes. After completing data
analysis, Cohen’s κ was computed to assess the degree of inter-rater reliability (O’Connor
& Joffe, 2020) and test results indicated moderate agreement between the two raters, κ
= .729 (95% CI, .665-.790), p <.001.
Results
In total, 39 youth participated in seven FGDs. Demographics per FGD are provided in
Table 2. Schools differed demographically, with all Agapanthus students identifying as
Latinx, most Dandelion students identifying as multiracial or youth of color, and most
Thistle students identifying as white. Transgender status and gender identity are compiled
in table 2, having been assessed by two separate questions, “Do you identify as
transgender or nonbinary?” with “Yes,” “No,” “Questioning,” and “Decline to answer”
responses and “What is your gender identity?” with “Man,” “Woman,” “Nonbinary,”
“Questioning,” “Another gender,” and “Decline to answer” responses. Most participants
across all three schools were cisgender young women.
Table 3.2. FGD Demographics by School
Total
(N=39)
Agapanthus
(n=14)
Thistle
(n=9)
Dandelion
(n=16)
Grade
First year 5 2 2 1
Sophomore 10 4 4 2
Junior 9 3 3 3
Senior 15 5 - 10
Race & ethnicity
White 10 - 6 4
Latinx, Latino/a, or Hispanic 15 14 - 1
Asian 2 - - 2
Black or African American 1 - 1 -
Multiracial 9 - 2 7
Decline to answer 2 - - 2

78
Table 3.2. FGD Demographics by School
Total
(N=39)
Agapanthus
(n=14)
Thistle
(n=9)
Dandelion
(n=16)
Trans Status & Gender Identity
Cisgender man 6 2 1 3
Cisgender woman 19 8 5 6
Cisgender, questioning gender identity 1 1 - -
Transgender nonbinary/genderqueer 6 - 2 4
Transgender man/demiboy 3 1 - 2
Questioning trans status, genderfluid 1 - 1 -
Decline, nonbinary/genderqueer 1 1 - -
Decline, questioning gender identity 1 1 - -
Decline to answer both questions 1 - - 1
Sexual orientation
Asexual or demisexual 8 2 1 5
Bi/pansexual 12 5 2 5
Bi/pansexual & Asexual or demisexual 3 1 2 -
Gay or Lesbian 8 4 3 1
Heterosexual 4 1 - 3
Queer 1 - 1 -
Questioning 2 1 - 1
Romantic orientation
Aromantic 3 - - 3
Demiromantic 1 - - 1
Bi/panromantic 17 6 4 7
Homoromantic 4 2 2 -
Homo/demiromantic 1 1 - -
Heteroromantic 5 2 - 3
Queer 1 - 1 -
Questioning 6 2 2 2
Decline to answer 1 1 - -
Student-Identified Advocacy Priorities
While participating in the Make Space intervention, students determined their own
advocacy priorities in each school. This first section of results details what was learned
from students about their advocacy priorities and provides information on the school

79
policy and climate context for these priorities, based on FGD participant and policy scan
findings.
At Thistle High School, students sought to turn their annual Day of Silence activity
into a week of educational events. Day of Silence is an annual nationwide student-led
advocacy event where students practice silence throughout the school day to bring
awareness to discrimination and harassment of LGBTQA+ youth. By expanding Day of
Silence, Thistle students hoped to increase awareness and knowledge of LGBTQA+ history
and sexual health education and bolster LGBTQA+ visibility on campus. As secondary
priorities, Thistle High School advocates identified the need to increase access to name
change procedures and gender-neutral restrooms on campus and to revitalize their Gender
and Sexuality Alliance (GSA). Students stated that they want the school to adopt an easily
accessible Google Form where students can request a name change, and they identified a
need for changes to official school email addresses along with name changes to prevent
students from being outed and deadnamed. Policy findings from documents and
observations at Thistle High School the prior semester revealed that the school allows
name changes by adding an alias (e.g., LegalFirstName “Alias” Lastname), but that these
aliases do not transfer to attendance rosters, nor do they result in changes to email
addresses. District guidance also specifies instructions for name changes (rather than
alias addition) and email address changes, but no school in the Aster District appears to
use this procedure. Policy findings also revealed that there was a gender-neutral restroom
in the nurse’s office on campus and another behind the front desk in the administrative
office.

80
Students at Dandelion High School prioritized changes to and promotion of the oncampus wellness center. Some students wanted to see the wellness center to be a brighter
and more welcoming space. Students identified that mandated reporting, such as when
students express suicidal ideation, presents a barrier to seeking support at the wellness
center. However, students across the three Dandelion FGDs disagreed on whether
mandated reporting was a problem that should or could be addressed, with some
proposing having non-mandated-reporter peer advocates or anonymous ways to
communicate personal struggles and complaints (like anonymous comment boxes).
Students identified other needs on campus, as well, including increased knowledge of and
access to the name change process, expanded access to gender-neutral restrooms, and
student-delivered staff training on LGBTQA+ issues like how to use pronouns. Regarding the
name change form, one student expressed a hope to call for the school to implement
name changes into course registration, so that all students have the opportunity to selfdetermine and confirm their names and pronouns on an annual basis. Policy findings from
Dandelion High School indicated that the wellness center was present the prior Fall and
that the school had a peer advocates program; however, the wellness center was locked
and unavailable at the time of the observation. Students could request alias name
changes, with the same restrictions as at Thistle High School, but some staff refused to do
name changes (the registrar) whereas other staff would help with these requests
(counselors).
Finally, students at Agapanthus High School advocated to allocate empty and
unused spaces on campus for use as gender-neutral restrooms and locker rooms, having

81
the option to change names in records without parents ever knowing, expansion of the
sexual health curriculum, and anti-bullying interventions such as school rallies. Policy
findings from Agapanthus High School the prior Fall semester indicated that there was one
gender-neutral restroom in the nurse’s office on campus and that there was no name
change policy or procedure. While counselors stated that the school does not provide
sexual health education, FGD participants disconfirmed this, stating that they receive a few
weeks of sexual health education in 9th grade biology.
Group Process
In general, groups at the three schools identified shared issues around group
formation, developing trust and comfort with each other, and pursuing common goals.
Group formation can take time and the FGDs were held within a month after students
completed 5 weeks of Make Space sessions. These 5 weekly sessions may have been
insufficient to support group formation, and the end of these sessions and loss of supports
meant that the students had to facilitate their own arrangements, agendas, and actions.
Group dynamics therefore reflect the challenges and accomplishments experienced by
FGD participants in the month after program sessions ended and they no longer had the
benefit of a program facilitator and established agenda.
Group Forming. While some students noted positive relationships within the group,
other students reported challenging group dynamics. Where Thistle student Cameron said,
“Everyone here is very nice and cool. Yay! Well, the collective of, like, organizing is hard, but
everybody is nice,” another student, Sam, offered a different perspective in another FGD,
sharing that “We didn’t talk to each other enough and…I feel like half of us weren’t

82
comfortable talking to each other ‘cause we’re all very like, socially isolated.” Agapanthus
students shared a similar sense of isolation, as Hunter stated, “Sometimes [the group] can
be awkward…I don't know most of these people.” The FGD that Hunter participated in was
notably quieter and younger than the other Agapanthus FGD, which included substantially
more talkative juniors and seniors. A participant of the more talkative Agapanthus FGD,
Julia, reflected that:
“I would always talk, like, because I wanna not waste time and just put it out there
and give my opinion. But I do feel like a lot of other students could have had a voice
and didn’t feel...I don't know if they didn't feel comfortable, or they just felt
intimidated that we were talking so much and, like, didn’t get time. Um, but I would
definitely make a system for every person to get a few minutes of talking.”
Julia showed a level of introspection and self-awareness of how communication dynamics
in the group developed and could change with intentional effort. Comments by Agapanthus
students in both FGDs reveal a shared interest to collaborate and effect change, an
awareness of challenging group dynamics, and a desire for greater comfort and more
frequent participation by all group members.
Where Thistle and Agapanthus students noted low comfort and a need to develop
greater ease within their groups, Dandelion students noted that two students dominated
the space and that group decision-making processes created simmering contention.
Dandelion student Seth shared that “When we did find, like, a topic to work towards,...we
were voting… [and] not everyone was agreed…but, I mean, that's how it is.” While a
majority of students voted to focus on updating and changing policies at the Wellbeing
Center, other students wanted to pursue more manageable goals like having the school
adopt a name change policy or advocating for teacher training. Some Dandelion students

83
identified a benefit to such debate, as Rue expressed, ”You don't talk about it too much
during school, you know, so it was nice being an open space where everyone's opinions
were heard, even though many of them ended in arguments, but…it was still interesting to
hear their viewpoints.” Other Dandelion students like Kyle argued that, “The meetings
were, like, all over the place…There was just two people talking and then when others
wanted to talk…their voices weren't really heard.”
While differing perspectives served as potential learning opportunities, reportedly
domineering personalities inhibited successful collaboration between all participants as
they sought to effect change. When asked how they would facilitate improved group
communications in future, Dandelion student Leo offered, “I think maybe just reaching out
and telling them to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, because it's not really
about the debate that they're having, it's more of how people, how we wanna impact
people.” Even with a more contentious and challenging group, students were able to name
ways to facilitate a more amenable and productive path forward to engage in advocacy.
Talk (no action). Students at all three schools shared frustration with how lengthy
discussions, distractions, and logistical challenges made them feel that they were not
enacting change in their schools. For their initial goal of expanding Day of Silence to a full
week, Thistle students were able to meet midweek that Wednesday (prompted by the
larger randomized controlled trial gathering follow-up survey data) and plan for events for
the rest of the week on Thursday and Friday. Thistle student Brook described how “The
meetings were just like, day of, we were like, ‘Oh, we're meeting,’…so no one really knew
when we were? So, yeah. Communication was not there.” Thistle student Sam shared a

84
feeling of surprised success in bringing two of their five days of events together in stating,
“It just felt like we'd…sit down and talk a lot about what we were going to do...And it felt
like, ‘Oh, wow. We're actually starting to do something now.’ This feels really good.”
Students shared a sense of having accomplished some of their efforts at consciousnessraising on LGBTQA+ history and rights, despite reported scheduling and communication
challenges.
Considering the lengthy debates reported at Dandelion High, Dandelion students
reported that distractions and unclear objectives inhibited their ability to accomplish
goals. As Kyle, Leo, and Matthew discussed,
Kyle: …We didn't like really follow the agenda, soLeo: Yeah, there was no follow-through.
Matthew: Yeah.
Facilitator: Okay. So, you set prioritiesKyle: And we did not carry them out.
Dandelion students clearly felt that group communication dynamics prevented them from
staying focused, despite having an agenda. In another FGD, Deez normalized these
distractions, stating, “We kept on getting a little distracted, um which, I don't blame
anyone. That's just how groups usually are…I don't think that was enough time for us to be
able to like fully plan everything out and get the ball rolling.” Deez’s comments normalized
the group’s lack of focus and challenges with using time effectively.
At Agapanthus High, students also struggled with a sense of talking more than
acting. As Lilith described the meetings, “A lot of it was, like, discussions, but I feel like
there's not enough action towards it. So, like, we can talk about it, but then, well, what's
next, then?” Extensive conversation without action may actually be a concern for not

85
knowing strategies to approach a given social problem through advocacy. In the other
FGD, Agapanthus student Hunter reported that, “I mean, we really have just talked to the
principal, so it's all just waiting now.” Meeting with the principal is an important step to
advocating for change, yet this comment reveals the limits of the student’s engagement in
other efforts up to that point, such as consciousness-raising efforts with peers and staff or
building solidarity with other student groups, that could increase pressure on school
administrators to enact change. Supporting youth with further information on options for
how to pursue their goals, aside from meeting with the principal, such as organizing peers
and staff to put pressure on administrators to act, could have helped address these
feelings of inaction.
Supportive Relationships
Students at all schools spoke extensively on how the quality of their relationships,
including staff, parents, and peers outside of the Make Space group, shape their school
experiences, advocacy priorities, and advocacy approaches.
Availability and Retention of Supportive Staff. In all three schools, students
identified specific adults who they rely on, but that issues with the availability of these
individual staff hampered those staff members’ ability to provide support. Thistle student
Martin stated that the GSA advisor is “Never there,” to which Kaden added “We need to find
a new classroom” for the GSA to meet. In the other Thistle FGD, Alex stated that the GSA
advisor “Was supposed to get some pins, but I think he was out that day, too. So we never
ended up getting the pins. Um, so Day of Silence kind of didn’t really happen.” A Dandelion

86
student, Robin, shared how their GSA advisor being out sick resulted in GSA members
being exposed to harm:
“All of the kids…in [the GSA] were also in his advisory. He got sick and…was gone
for months. There was one [substitute teacher]...who, um, he was deadnaming
people. And he just refused to stop, and he did not care. I had a panic attack trying
to talk to him about this…I told one of my teachers who is very supportive what was
going on and also, uh, someone else who had sort of been arguing with him
apparently reported what had happened…It’s not fun to have someone deadname
you and others, especially if you’re in advisory for the kids for whom that is a risk.”
The reliance on one full-time staff member to advise the GSA means that, when that
teacher needed to take leave, GSA students were entrusted to the care of an unsupportive
substitute teacher.
Where Thistle and Dandelion students spoke of GSA advisors being out on sick
leave, Agapanthus students highlighted how staff turnover affects their sense of support
and ability to effect change at school. Agapanthus student Lilith spoke about the recent
departure of the interventionist, who had served as school liaison for this study:
“A lot of the people that…would, like, help us out on things are no longer in the
school system, so our support systems have slowly been decreasing… 'Cause a lot
of [staff] I feel are, like, you don't have a mutual connection with them
so…asking…them for something is kind of a hard wall to pass through… I had a
close connection with [study liaison] so anything, any little problem or advice that I
needed,…I knew I can count on her or, um, someone from the college career center.
But, like I said, a lot of our supporters have been slowly decreasing so we lose that
security of getting things done, because they have been leaving themselves.”
Lilith specifically linked staff turnover to reduced student sense of safety and capacity to
effect change on campus. Lilith’s comments attest to the importance and quality of the
relationships with specific staff, and how that staff turnover creates void of social support
that hampers student advocacy.

87
Action and Follow-Through. Students at Thistle High School noted broad support
from staff, parents, and peers, with limited exceptions. Students repeatedly expressed that
the majority of school staff are supportive but added that staff do not devote time to make
improvements on campus. Thistle student Brook shared how administrators “Want to help
us, like, find ways to change stuff…but…it's difficult ‘cause they’re kind of expecting us
to…follow through with stuff, and then we’re really busy, and they’re also busy...I definitely
know a lot of them, they want to see change, and they are interested in exploring it.” Martin
echoed Brook, stating, “I feel like [Thistle High] is just more…It’s just neutral to queer
people. Like, there’s support, but there’s a lack of action.”
Students at Dandelion High reported more mixed support among staff than at
Thistle, with Dandelion student Kiwi emphasizing that “I don’t think they’re necessarily like
homophobic or transphobic, I think a lot of them are just ignorant and they don’t know.” Leo
then added that if mandated to attend a staff LGBTQA+ competency training, “They
wouldn’t really listen.” Like at Thistle High, Dandelion High School students spoke of
receiving emotional support from staff, but they also observed those very same staff being
bullied. In response to being asked how teacher support shapes their advocacy, Dandelion
student Matthew shared about a transgender teacher on campus, saying “They’ve come up
to me and…said, ‘Oh, I’m so sorry that teacher misgendered you. I know how it feels.’”
Matthew then added that:
“He’s willing to help, but he also faces discrimination from the students…
misgendering all the time, and some other teachers. Or instead of saying Mr., they’ll
just say, ‘Oh, here’s the last name.’ They won’t use any Mr., Miss…They’ll just say the
last name to avoid having to acknowledge… that the gender is different.”

88
Even as students looked to this teacher for support and understanding, they also reported
witnessing students and teachers mistreat the transgender teacher on the basis of his
gender identity.
As with Dandelion High School, Agapanthus High School students spoke of a few
trusted adults, but these adults more actively motivated students to be civically engaged.
Julia shared about one teacher, stating, “I feel that she is always pushing me to speak up,
and always supporting me, and I think that’s something that has given me, like, the
confidence to talk about issues.” Lilith likewise shared how “There's a teacher here who
has, like, pride flags up in her classroom…and I feel like, not necessarily saying…a teacher
should do that to make it obvious but just at least mentioning or just being comforting
towards…topics like that, like it's not seen as a touchy subject.” Finally, Tyler shared how,
after going to speak to the district about personal experiences of being bullied, Agapanthus
counselors “Saw the video and so, one of the counselors reached out to me, they pulled
me out of class and were all, ‘What can we do?’ I just thought that was cool. Oh, wow. They
actually care.” In a school where Sofia reported that teachers “Don’t really wanna say
anything [to advocate for LGBTQA+ students] because then they might get in trouble by,
like, the administration,” these relatively uncommon supportive relationships, compared
to Thistle and to a lesser extent, Dandelion High, were clearly central to these youth feeling
supported and feeling like they can make a difference at Agapanthus High School.
Parent and Student Advocacy. While some students shared of parental support of
their identities and advocacy efforts, students mostly spoke of a lack of parental support.
When asked how people outside of school shape their advocacy efforts, several Thistle

89
students shared that they feel supported by their parents, with Sawyer affirming “My
parents are very supportive, they’re very, uh, pro-gay.” Some Thistle students also felt
comfortable seeking support from parents. Sam shared how, after carpooling with a
student who made homophobic comments, Sam called his parents and “They talked to
him. It was great…Because the kid’s the problem. Both parents are great.” Sam’s story is
distinct in the sample in showing a youth seeking support and allyship from another
student’s parents. However, students spoke more commonly of how lack of parental
support for LGBTQA+ people leads them to keep their advocacy activities at school secret
and separate from their family life. In comparison to Thistle peers who were out to their
parents, Nico stated,
“‘Cause my parents are not supportive…I feel like this has to do, like, ‘cause they’re
immigrants...And like, the way they’ve grown, how the laws where they were from
kinda just like, are fully against that…So like, I kinda can’t say anything…And I know
if I say, ‘Oh, I’m doing this thing,’ they’re gonna be like, ‘Why?’ It’s like, what’s the
reason?’ So yeah.”
While many Thistle High School students said their parents are supportive, Nico’s example
shows how some students engaged in advocacy on-campus may feel a need to keep those
activities secret from parents. Nico’s story also conveys how intersectional experiences of
being both LGBTQA+, a person of color, and from an immigrant family differentially shapes
youth capacity to publicly engage in advocacy. This sentiment was repeated at
Agapanthus, where Mars, Mari, Sofia, Dash, and Hunter all shared how they have to keep
their advocacy efforts secret from their parents because their parents are unsupportive of
LGBTQA+ people. For example, Mari shared that “My parents don’t even, like, know I’m in
this club at all...I don’t tell them about any of it ‘cause my dad, he’s pretty, uh transp-

90
transphobic and uh, homophobic. My mom, she doesn’t really care, but I feel like if they
start saying stuff then she kind of joins in on it, so I just, like, don’t mention it.” Agapanthus
students generally shared a fearful apprehension that their parents do or would treat them
with either derision or dismissiveness for their LGBTQA+ identities and advocacy.
Where Thistle and Agapanthus students respectively spoke of parents being
generally supportive and unsupportive, Dandelion students spoke of disconnection and
disengagement. Victor shared,
“In general, parents aren’t really involved…You’ll have like some parents
complaining once in a while, but…there isn’t this, um, organized presence at our
school, and that has its benefits, obviously (laughs). We don't have to deal with a lot
of the annoyances that come with this sort of very vocal PTAs, yeah, and I’m not
advocating for the resistance of a PTA at our school.”
Victor’s statement implies an expectation that if parents were more engaged at school,
they would resist student advocacy for change. In another FGD, Dandelion student Robin
echoed this concern in stating, “I try to make sure that my family members don’t figure out
what’s going on here because even though I’m out to them, they’re less than supportive…
the good thing about this school is that…you can sort of get them to not notice the
resources that are available to you.” In contrast, in yet another FGD at Dandelion, Leo
stated that “I don’t think PTA has ever really talked about [LGBTQA+ issues]. I think that’s
also an issue” and Rue followed up in sharing that “I feel like [the PTA] don’t really do much
for us.” Dandelion students shared a common perception of parent disengagement from
their school, but they differed in their expectations of whether greater parent engagement
would be to their benefit in accessing supports and advocating for change.
Hostility as a Barrier to Advocacy

91
When asked how staff, parents, and peers shape their advocacy experiences,
students at all three schools noted specific forms of hostility on their campuses. Students
in all schools discussed backlash to their advocacy, including actual hate incidents and
negative expectations of how people might respond. Participants in every FGD shared
examples of misgendering and bullying, and many FGDs – especially at Dandelion and
Agapanthus High Schools - discussed the risk of being visibly LGBTQA+ on campus and
how regularly they hear slurs on campus.
Backlash and Negative Expectancies. Students experienced and anticipated
hostility from peers, staff, and parents in response to their advocacy in school. Despite
many students attesting to the high level of support in their school, Thistle students shared
of an extreme hate incident in response to their advocacy. As part of their expanded Day of
Silence event, the advocates handed out rainbow flags such that, as Thistle student Alex
reported, “There were pride flags all over the school after that.” However, participants
shared how Thistle Middle School students, from the attached campus, took some of the
rainbow flags and intentionally damaged them by throwing the flags, stomping on them,
and lighting them on fire:
Cameron: Or the, the throwing the flags, the trampling the flags, the burning the
flags.
Pat: …Yeah, there were some burning them.
Sawyer: Someone burnt one? My god.
In reflecting on this incident, students noted the good that came from their advocacy,
desires to meaningfully engage with the middle schoolers involved in the incident, and how
the incident emphasized the need for their advocacy on campus. Cameron noted how “A
lot of the direct results…were not great, but I assume, obviously I’m not a telepath...that

92
other, that like, good things happened also. Someone who couldn’t afford a Pride flag, or
couldn’t ask their parents to get one, now has one, you know?” Martin then followed up,
asking “Should we be involving middle schoolers?” to which Kaden quickly replied “No,” to
student laughter.
Dandelion High School students also reported experiences of backlash and
negative expectancies. Robin shared that “Just in general, flyers that have to do with, like,
stuff related to the community seem to get torn down.… Like there were a bunch of
(Toomey et al.) flyers and I...I don't think they lasted very long.” Jacob added, “I had seen
them around and then like…the next day, they were ripped off from where they were, like,
where I had seen them.” Where peers appear to express anti-LGBTQA+ sentiment by
removing visible signs from campus, Dandelion participants reported a more apathetic
opposition to change among teachers. In a discussion about their desire to implement
teacher training on pronouns and name changes, Dandelion student Rue stated that “If
[school administrators] try to educate them, they’re like, ‘Oh well that’s just how it is,’ you
know.” While Matthew noted that “There’s a group of staff that are supportive and they are
definitely willing to help…they’ll advocate for us,” it appears there are specific staff who
may be vocal but that students general expect staff to be unsupportive of their advocacy.
Rue and Matthew’s comments imply that LGBTQA+-supportive staff would need to
advocate to surmount the apathy or opposition of their colleagues.
Agapanthus students expressed negative expectations for how people – especially
parents – will respond to their involvement in LGBTQA+ advocacy. Parent and community

93
reactions to advocacy appeared to be a primary concern for these young activists. In
discussing their priority to expand sexual health education at Agapanthus, Star noted,
“We were, um, concerned on how the parents might react to, like, the sexual
education curriculum? ‘Cause…they have to share it out with the parents…and so
we were a little nervous about the reaction…I think some parents are most, most
likely are gonna react negatively [and]…some might not care. I think it’ll be a mixed
response.”
Despite these concerns, the students shared an optimism about their work. Even after
noting the expectation of a mixed response to expansion of the sexual health curriculum,
Mars argued “I think they’ll get used to it. At the end of the day, there’s only so much they
can do.” While negative expectancies with parents caused concern among these student
advocates, they also attested that parents have limited power in the school context and
expressed an optimism that things continue to improve for LGBTQA+ students.
Bullying and Misgendering. When asked how staff and peers shape their advocacy,
students at all schools shared how they frequently experience or overhear bullying,
misgendering, and slurs. At Thistle High School, students disagreed when Martin said “It’s
great, I mean, do you… I don’t know about you guys, I don’t see people getting bullied,” to
which Cameron whispered, “I think they’re just sneaky” and another student whispered
and affirmed, “They’re just sneaky.” In the other FGD, Alex noted that being LGBTQA+ at
Thistle High is “Just a pretty accepted thing, and there are people who will, like, say slurs or
whatever, but they’re definitely in the minority.” Despite this assertion of an accepting
community where slurs and deadnaming are uncommon, other students shared how
deadnaming occurs frequently. Thistle student, Sam, shared about a trans boy in orchestra
and how, “His deadname’s still on the roster and it always gets called out…He doesn’t need

94
to speak up about it. Our entire orchestra will go, “Oh, he’s here. He’s here.” When the
teacher repeatedly makes the same mistake in deadnaming this student, students make a
practice of standing up for and protecting their transgender peer. This also shows what may
be a commonly shared value and willingness to speak up for transgender peers, at least
among orchestra students.
At Dandelion High School, students reported multiple examples of staff bullying and
misgendering of transgender students in class. In speaking on the benefit and need for
advocacy, Matthew shared how “We don’t get any type of anything about queer people at
all…Or if it is, it’s like, ‘Should trans people have rights? Debate.’” Matthew cited this
example of non-inclusion of LGBTQA+ people in curriculum and this teacher’s decision to
position trans rights as a matter of debate as evidence of the need for advocacy. Teacher
bullying and misgendering motivated student advocacy priorities. Rue shared that “There
are teachers who will call [students who have had name changes] by the name they
want…and there’s those who choose not to,” and Matthew added, “’Cause when you get
your name changed, it still shows your old one…it still shows your deadname. You cannot
get rid of that.” Policy scan results, including observation and email communications with
counselors and the registrar at Dandelion High School, revealed that the school’s alias
addition change procedure adds an alias, which appears alongside the students’
deadname in the records portal and does not appear at all on attendance sheets. As a
result, teachers may be able to see only the student’s deadname or both the deadname
and chosen name, depending on whether they look at the portal or attendance sheets, and
then teachers act with discretion to use that student’s deadname or chosen name.

95
Where Dandelion students reported that teachers would deadname or bully them in
classes, Agapanthus students simply reported that teachers were unsupportive through
their silence. In reference to hearing slurs, Lilith stated that “Teachers just ignore a lot, or
they look past it or they just prefer not discussing on it… They’d rather not just go further
into it and feed into that kind of conversation…But I feel like it would definitely help to push
forward…change within our school and hopefully change perspectives.” This silence can
result in students feeling unsupported in speaking up and advocating for LGBTQA+ rights
on campus. In speaking on the impact they hope to have through their advocacy, Lexi
shared how, “For me, personally, the past few years, um, no one, like really care about this
stuff, and they would always ignore us. And then, now that we’ve been speaking up, it’s like,
think hard.” Having been pushing for LGBTQA+ inclusion on campus for years and
experienced silence in reply, Lexi notes how their common efforts speaking up for change
puts it on the staff to “Think hard” and do something to improve campus climate.
Slurs. When asked how peers shape their advocacy on the Dandelion campus,
Matthew replied “Ehh..? I love hearing the F-slur,” to which Rue affirmed, “That’s true.”
When asked if they hear slurs often on campus, Dandelion student Kiwi then confirmed,
“All the time,” Matthew furthered, “A lot of people say the N-word who are not supposed to
be saying the N-word…And the R-slur, that one’s even more common, and…’That’s so gay,
don’t do that.’” At Agapanthus High, Star noted how slurs make it hard to engage in
advocacy in sharing how “There’s a lot of students on campus that are very openly
homophobic…You can often hear them saying slurs across the hallways, or just
classrooms.” Lexi then further described how “Most of the time, like, a lot of the students,

96
um, they either write [slurs] on the, in the bathrooms stalls or they, um, say it out loud in
front of other people.” Agapanthus student Julia then added, “She’s right because, like, it
was either two or three months ago…that some students wrote on the boys’ restroom
saying they hate certain peop- black people. Always, you know, the race.” In speaking on
slurs and graffiti, Tyler affirmed that “It’s common. It’s normalized.” Students clearly
identified their peers’ frequent use of heterosexist, racist, and ableist slurs to their ability to
advocate for change on campus, signaling a lack of peer support and common values that
are necessary to accomplishing policy and climate change. Where Thistle High School
students stated that little to no bullying happens on campus, students at Dandelion High
spoke of multiple incidents of bullying from both teachers and peers and Agapanthus
students emphasized the normalization of these microaggressions and high frequency of
slurs.
Use and Misuse of Power
Students at all three schools noted how school staff set norms, responded to their
advocacy efforts, backlash, and discrimination, and sought improvements to school
policies and campus climate. School administrators, including principals, assistant
principals, counselors, and registrars, hold great power in shaping the outcomes of student
advocacy and in implementing policies and managing the realization of LGBTQA+ rights on
campus.
Thistle High School students noted institutional power on multiple occasions, in
terms of a lack of transparency and bureaucratic mishaps. In discussing administrator
response to the flag burning incident, Thistle student Alex stated that “Administration came

97
down on them, but um, that was kind of the only negative thing…I’m not sure exactly what
happened to them, but I think whoever was involved got suspended or something.” As part
of the policy scan the following Fall, the Assistant Principal stated that she intervened by
holding a restorative circle with the aggressing middle schoolers and calling each of their
parents. The Assistant Principal replied no when asked if there were any communications
or services extended after the public incident to affirm support for LGBTQA+ students.
Despite this lack of public affirmation of support and their limited knowledge on how
administration responded to the flag burning, students conveyed a belief that Thistle staff
respond to harassment, as Sam affirmed, “[Teachers and administrators] normally just
shut any homophobia down as soon as it happens.”
However, bureaucratic mishaps and procedural concerns sometimes hampered
student efforts at receiving support and effecting change at Thistle High. Kaden noted that
“Our staff is very, very busy…My counselor deadnamed me after I came out to her” and
then reasoned that “It’s ok. But they’re very busy, they’re working with, like, 1000 kids, our
entire school. Yeah. Two people, they’re coordinating everything…so no- nobody has any
time.” Kaden showed a level of understanding of how broader institutional issues like
school staffing shaped a personal negative experience of being deadnamed by the
overworked school counselor and used this as an explanation to account for being
deadnamed. When Thistle students met with administrators to request changes to the
name change process, Alex reported that “Part of the issue they brought up was kids who,
like, change it to, like, gorilla, or whatever… you know, something crazy…So there’s been a
little bit of a discussion, but I don’t think there’s been any, like, movement.” Setting aside

98
that school staff screen and approve each name change request, administrators appear in
this instance to have argued against student requests by reasoning that the difficulty of
handling hypothetical student misbehavior supersedes the needs of transgender and
nonbinary students to have their names and pronouns affirmed in school records.
In speaking on institutional forces that shape their advocacy, Dandelion students
emphasized how a lack of transparency at their school prevents them from enacting
change. Cecelia sent teachers an email noting a name change and that their parents were
aware, and then added,
“One teacher did take it upon themselves to email my parents and say ‘Hey, did you
know that so-and-so wants to go by this name?’ Which, granted, I’d stated in my
email my parents know, but had I not stated that, and I think this teacher still would
have done that, that could have put me in a very seriously dangerous situation had I
just been trying to gently come out in school…and not with my family.”
In this circumstance, Cecelia expressed an expectation that this teacher would have
notified parents whether Cecelia was already out to them; additionally, the “so-and-so” in
the quote reveals that the teacher likely deadnamed Cecelia in the email to Cecelia’s
parents. On this incident, Dandelion student Victor added that “There is no clear recourse
in a situation like that, there isn’t a sort of process that is set up…that is readily available for
students to contact administration if something…like that were to occur. Um…(laughs) so
that’s one of the things that does make the sort of, um, work more difficult.” Per the policy
scans and in line with the other two schools in the sample, Dandelion High School’s nondiscrimination statement includes gender identity and expression and specifies a
complaint process, but student comments testify to uncertainty about how to submit
complaints and that, as Victor went on to state, “The inner workings of the administration…

99
(Russell et al.) a kind of black box to us and we have to ask a lot of questions.” The lack of
transparency in the school makes advocacy far more difficult, as students lack sufficient
access to information on how the school does or does not protect their rights.
This lack of transparency about trans student rights, in particular, diminished
student capacity to access name changes. Dandelion student Elliot described the name
change process, stating, “It’s like a speak-easy. You like, have to know the right codes and
how to, the right people to talk to and where, the right places to go. It’s, it’s a mess and you
can’t just [find] one place to go to and say, ‘Hey, can I do this?’ It’s just everywhere.” This
description matches policy scan findings: in separate discussions with the Dandelion
counselor and registrar, the counselor stated that she changes names in records upon
request and the registrar stated that name changes are not allowed under any
circumstances. Aster School District policies, which apply to Dandelion and Thistle High
Schools, affirm student rights to assert their gender, update their names in data systems,
and have their names and pronouns used by staff.
As with Thistle High, students at Agapanthus who advocated for a name change
process met with procedural barriers. As Hunter reported from their meeting with the
school principal, “I think [name changes] also was maybe, because it might, they said it
might get tricky once we have to apply to, like, colleges in senior year.” Students expressed
a lower level of confidence in their ability to advocate for a name change process given
these concerns cited by the principal. This is despite that, according to policy scan results,
the school district had an established name change processes that do not replace official
records and therefore should not interfere with college applications. On the other hand,

100
Agapanthus students emphasized that the principal was helpful, recognized challenges,
and acted to make their demands possible. As Julia noted, “We discussed the
obstacles…He talked to a bunch of principals about, like um, anything that is needed to get
to that goal,” indicating that the principal met with students, heard their requests, and
reached out to principals at other schools to learn how other schools were instituting these
changes.
However, students also expressed frustration with a lack of action and transparency
by school administrators. Regarding the frequent vandalism of school restrooms with
graffiti slurs, Agapanthus student Lexi stated that administrators “Said that they were
gonna further investigate it, but they, I don’t know, they never said anything” and Lilith
added, “I don’t really know what’s going on with that…they sent out, like, this email to
everyone like, ‘Oh, we’re investigating it,’…but I mean, we haven’t really seen, really,
progress. I think that’s mostly the biggest issue where…they say they’re gonna do
something and then nothing is done about it.” Students recognized that graffiti and slurs
were chronic issues on campus that the school had committed to addressing, but not
involved students in the resolution or communicated progress toward preventing and
responding to incidents.
Sociopolitical Awareness Development
Through their advocacy efforts, students developed a greater awareness of social
conditions, empathy, advocacy skills and confidence, and a sense of purpose.
At Thistle High School, students identified that they benefitted from a more broadly
supportive community where advocacy felt safer to engage in. In one exchange, Sawyer

101
shared how “I’m definitely more, like, excited about making the change here and actually
changing policies, changing rules, and making a better environment for queer people
here…I feel a lot more included. Like, it makes [Thistle High] feel more, like, I don’t know,
homey I guess?” When another student asked Sawyer, “Do you think you feel safer?,”
Sawyer replied, “Gayer?” and another student confirmed, “Gayer,” as students laughed.
Sawyer’s statement conveys that their participation in this advocacy helped shift their
perception of school climate as being “Gayer” so they could feel more included in the
school. That students felt the necessity to ask each other if they feel safer reveals that they
previously have felt unsafe at school, but that working in solidarity to raise consciousness
and promote policy change can facilitate a greater sense of belonging and safety.
Thistle students also spoke of the benefits of working together, solidarity, and a
growing sense of being part of a larger community. Sam shared how, “As an underclassman
you don’t really feel like you have a lot of power in this school…To be a part of, like, a whole
circle of people that are in different grade levels…working towards the same thing…makes
you feel a little bit more empowered to do something…like I'm a part of something, I'm
important.” Thistle student Kaden echoed this sentiment in the other FGD, stating, “I think
it helped, uh…facilitate a belief in community, working together with people, and that you
can achieve something.” Thistle students in both FGDs spoke of how being part of a larger
group helped them feel empowered to effect change and expressed an optimism about the
existing climate of their school and community and what they could accomplish through
their advocacy.

102
Dandelion students noted that they developed greater understanding and empathy
for the experiences of LGBTQA+ students and that they also benefitted from a sense of
solidarity and community through their work. When asked what they gained through the
experience, Deez immediately offered, “Friendship,” to which Victor added, “There is a
group of students that aren't as necessarily apathetic that, that would be willing to put in
some, like, work…[to] organize a group that could potentially implement some projects.”
The students identified that this experience taught them that they are not alone in desiring
and being willing to work toward change in school. Dandelion student Jacob spoke on how,
“I also didn’t know, like, about all the issues that other types of kids struggle with at school,
like especially the name changing thing. I had no idea how hard it was, and it shouldn’t be
hard. It should be something that can be easily accessible.” From Jacob’s experience, it
appears that students effected change within their own group by educating each other on
the needs and priorities of their communities at Dandelion High.
Dandelion students also spoke on their developing skills in how to identify and
pursue achievable advocacy goals. Students had disagreed on what priority to focus on,
and ultimately a majority voted to prioritize changes to and advertising of the wellness
center, with a specific drive to create non-mandated reporter support options. Dandelion
student Kiwi noted a preference to focus instead on name changes, stating, “I felt like it
was something that we could’ve done and it was achievable, become one of our friends did
change their name…It would’ve been easier and um…it would’ve been faster to decide
what we were gonna do for it.” Kyle then added to Kiwi’s comment, stating “I also think it
would’ve been a better idea if we just carried out, like, smaller projects then moved on to

103
larger ones…the one we were working on, it’s like the largest project that we agreed on I
guess, so it doesn’t seem reasonable to do that as a first one.” In other FGDs, students
referred to the Wellbeing Center project as “Hefty” and of particular challenge because it is
a county-run program. Through their work on this issue, Dandelion students gained a
detailed understanding of the Wellbeing Center, the issue of mandated reporting, and the
challenges in advocating for change in a layered bureaucracy with both school and county
decision-makers.
Like Jacob at Dandelion High, Agapanthus students also gained an increased
understanding of and empathy for their LGBTQA+ peers. Agapanthus student Dash shared
that “I learned… definitely learned more about how people are going through, like, with
identity,” and Julia shared how “It brought to my attention that, like, there is so much more
that is going on in, like, everyone’s lives than is being discussed about, you know? …And it,
like brought, how do you tell it? Expanded, expanded our knowledge.” This increased
consciousness of social issues helped to facilitate these students’ understanding of what
they can do to effect change. Agapanthus student Lexi noted that “I just think it helped us,
like, realize that there’s more, much more that we can do.” With knowledge also came
confidence, as Agapanthus student Star stated, “I feel like I have a little more confidence
now to speak up about issues, because, um, well, I’m surrounded by people that all are
wanting change so that makes me feel like I can do it, too (laughs).” Compared certainly to
Thistle High students, Dandelion and Agapanthus students were far more explicit in linking
how increased knowledge facilitated solidarity and confidence to effect change in their
schools.

104
Discussion
When asked about the facilitators and barriers to their civic engagement for
LGBTQA+ rights at their schools, students responded across five primary themes: 1) their
own group process and interpersonal dynamics, 2) relationships with adults, 3) hostility
and backlash 4) institutional power and control over change, and 5) their development of
critical consciousness. These themes were commonly discussed as shaping the advocacy
experience, even if their qualities – like positive or negative appraisals of their group
dynamics - differed widely between schools. Youth across the three schools had shared,
but sometimes divergent experiences. On the whole, Thistle High students shared a more
positive appraisal of peer, staff, and parent attitudes toward LGBTQA+ people and rights
(despite numerous policy barriers and a hate incident occurring earlier that month),
whereas Dandelion students perceived mixed support and Agapanthus students identified
a lack of support, especially from parents.
Students shared how group processes and growing critical consciousness shape
their experiences of advocacy. At all three schools, students identified some level of
discomfort from a lack of familiarity and trust, or actual dispute, with their peer advocates.
While some Thistle students expressed lack of familiarity and Agapanthus students noted
feeling awkward, Dandelion students spoke of contention due to two strong personalities
and simmering disagreement over advocacy priorities. While their disagreements caused
some Dandelion students to express frustration, these experiences also appear to have
contributed to critical consciousness development as they investigated the need and
possibilities for social services without mandated reporters, the processes by which they

105
set and pursue priorities, and how to navigate conflict in the pursuit of consensus and
shared purpose.
Positive relationships with adults help youth to feel safe and supported as they
pursue social change on campus. Unfortunately, youth in all three schools stated that they
feel they can look to a small number of staff for support, and this reliance upon individual
staff led to ruptures in support when these staff members were invariably on sick leave or
left the school. At both Thistle and Dandelion, the GSA advisor was reportedly out sick
regularly, and the GSA advisor at Agapanthus left and was replaced by two counselors
earlier that semester. Reliance upon individual staff can increase risk of ruptured
relationships and place undue strain upon those specific staff. In the case of Dandelion,
students spoke of a trans teacher who served as a role model who could empathize and
understand their struggles, but who himself faced bullying from students and staff. Some
staff facilitated advocacy by clearly displaying their support for LGBTQA+ rights, yet
teachers at all three schools were reported to deadname students regularly in classes and
Dandelion and Agapanthus students noted staff silence or a perceived reticence among
staff to speak up for LGBTQA+ rights. Prior research indicates that supportive adults on
campus can be central supports to GSMY wellbeing but that students often expect
administrator silence on LGBTQA+ issues (Leung et al., 2022). Youth in this study echoed
those findings and further spoke to how over-reliance on individual supportive staff and
insufficient levels of support among staff generally produce risks for these youth.
Additionally, educator attitudinal support for LGBTQA+ youth does not mean educators will
act to support LGBTQA+ youth (Meyer et al., 2015), unless they receive training and

106
institutional support to do so. Sensitivity training with all staff, dual advising of GSAs, and
creation of sustainably staffed safe spaces for GSMY on campus may help address
inconsistencies and ruptures in supportive relationships and silence from staff more
generally.
Students also spoke of parents’ roles in supporting LGBTQA+ advocacy. At Thistle,
where students generally spoke of having supportive parents, they nonetheless argued that
parents have to be “soccer or PTA moms” to accomplish a name change for their children.
Not only does this imply that the parents have to be highly engaged and have connections
at the school, but this statement indicates that the inaccessibility of this process creates a
situation where name changes will be more accessible to children with parents who have
more resources – namely, white, wealthy, educated, and partnered parents. While Nico did
not speak specifically about efforts to access name changes, Nico’s explicitly linking of
lacking parent support to immigrant status emphasizes differences in parent support at the
school by demographics. This division in accessibility of name changes at Thistle High is
even more apparent when considering differences in parent support between the three
schools. Where most Thistle participants (6 of 9 students) identified as White, most of
Dandelion and all of Agapanthus students identified as youth of color, and youth in those
FGDs spoke of having more negative expectancies with and lack of support from their
parents. For many participants, especially GSMY of color, negative expectations of parental
response to their LGBTQA+-related civic engagement were a key concern. The increased
visibility that comes with advocacy may feel particularly risky for GSMY of color who
conceal as a means of maintaining safety at school and home.

107
The qualitative design of this study and small sample size inhibits any claims that
race and ethnicity, as opposed to immigration, socioeconomic status, or other variables,
may explain differences in outness and parent support across these schools. However,
literature on parent support reflects the differences found in this study, with Latinx GSMY
reporting low levels of parental support and high exposure to bullying (Abreu et al., 2023).
Youth civic engagement initiatives with GSMY should consider student safety, inquire into
how cultures at school and home shape their concerns about visibly advocating for sexual
and gender justice, and support youth to participate without incurring risks to their
wellbeing.
Student responses revealed how existing social conditions – the quality and
continuity of their relationships with staff and parents, experiences of hostility and negative
school climate, and use and misuse of institutional power – shape their critical
consciousness and political self-efficacy. Even as youth gained greater critical
consciousness, the very same social conditions they sought to change inhibited their
efforts by signaling lack of peer, staff, and parent support of LGBTQA+ rights and
bureaucratic opacity and intransigence. Students experienced day-to-day forms of
hostility, such as peer use of anti-LGBTQA+, racist, and ableist slurs, hate-related graffiti,
and staff and peer deadnaming of trans and nonbinary students, and staff not intervening
when they witness bullying. Through their advocacy and increased visibility, youth
advocates experienced additional stress as they anticipated negative responses and
experienced backlash. Students reported outright hostile responses to their advocacy, with

108
the flag burning at Thistle High occurring in direct response to their primary advocacy
efforts of expanding the Day of Silence event.
While the SJYD framework includes healing from trauma as an outcome of collective
action (Ginwright & James, 2002), the SJYD framework does not specifically address how
civic engagement can out GSMY and increase risk of violent reprisal in these youths’ lives.
Future studies on GSMY advocacy and SJYD framework-informed efforts should consider
how histories and ongoing exposure to microaggressions, discrimination, and erasure
attenuate or inhibit youth capacity to pursue social change. Youth advocacy communities
and civic engagement interventions are increasingly adopting healing practices to cope
with ongoing and new stressors based in oppressive social conditions (Serrano et al.,
2021); such healing practices should be integrated into future youth civic engagement
interventions and research.
Study results should be considered in light of research limitations. These FGDs were
cross-sectional; specifically, findings related to group process and dynamics would likely
differ had the FGDs been conducted in preceding or following weeks. Nonetheless, this
snapshot and reflection on group dynamics may demonstrate the various successes and
challenges in the process of group formation in youth-led initiatives. This qualitative inquiry
is not generalizable to other SJYD or youth advocacy interventions; results are historically
and temporally specific to these three schools and the Make Space intervention. Rather,
results may echo youth advocacy experiences and illustrate opportunities for youth
advocates and school administrators to anticipate and circumvent barriers to youth civic
engagement. FGDs may behave differently in response to different formats; for example,

109
the lack of senior participants at Thistle High and the facilitator being white in a group of
entirely youth of color at Agapanthus High may each have shifted the focus, willingness to
share, or comfort of participants to speak on various topics.
Conclusion
This study examined facilitators and barriers to LGBTQA+ student advocacy at three
schools in the Los Angeles region that participated in a SJYD intervention. Students stated
that social conditions, like lack of support from parents, peers, and staff on campus,
shaped their capacity to engage in social change efforts. Students identified that they rely
on specific adults and experience discontinuities and ruptures in their relationships as
these supportive adults take sick leave or other positions. Finally, students feared negative
responses at the prospect of visibly advocating for sexual and gender justice and, in some
cases, experienced outright hostility to their advocacy efforts. SJYD interventions with
GSMY must consider how heterosexism and cissexism intersect with racism and classism
to produce specific risks to civic engagement for GSMY of color. Planning for hostility and
incorporating healing practices, rather than simply expecting that collective action results
in healing, may be a necessary addition to the SJYD framework. School administrators
need to include youth advocates in policy planning and decision-making, implement staff
LGBTQA+ sensitivity trainings, clearly publish LGBTQA+ procedures and policies, and
explicitly identify multiple key staff members to serve as key supports to GSMY.

110
Chapter 4:
Change in school adoption and implementation of LGBTQA+ protective education
policies and procedures over time
Abstract
Introduction. Violence and discrimination in high school place gender and sexual
minority youth (GSMY) at increased risk of academic challenges and health burden
compared to their cisgender and heterosexual peers. While some states like California
have increasingly adopted GSMY-protective policies over the past decade, national and
state investigations of district and school adoption of GSMY supports indicates a gradual
and inconsistent process. With a sample of six schools enrolled in a larger intervention
research study, this paper investigates change in school LGBTQA+-protective policies,
facilities, and procedures between the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 academic year to assess
the factors that precipitate school improvements.
Methods. Six schools participating in a larger randomized controlled trial of the
Proud & Empowered (P&E) and Make Space interventions were eligible to participate in this
two-year multiple comparison case study. Researchers collected school and district policy
documents (Fall 2022 and Fall 2023), conducted campus observations with notes and
photography (Fall 2022 and Fall 2023), clarified and explored findings via member checks
(Spring 2023 and Spring 2024), and facilitated focus groups with youth advocates who had
participated in Make Space (Spring 2023). Policy analysis of documents, observation notes
and photographs, and member checks involved co-coding each year of data and extracting
data into a structured data matrix in Excel for line-by-line comparison of 2022-2023 school

111
policies, facilities, and procedures to the same policies, facilities, and procedures in the
2023-2024 academic year.
Findings. All six schools in the sample evidenced some improvements over the time
of the study. However, the most substantial and numerous school improvements to protect
GSMY occurred in Agapanthus High School, where student advocacy as part of the Make
Space intervention coincided with supportive staff efforts and districtwide policy and
financial commitments to GSMY inclusion. Changes at Agapanthus High School from
2022-2023 to 2023-2024 included, among other changes, provision of a new genderneutral restroom centrally located alongside sex-segregated restrooms; addition of
rainbows, safe space, staff badges, and inclusion posters and flags in administrative
spaces and classrooms; and efforts to facilitate student name change requests and
protect privacy. These changes were accompanied by District efforts, including
establishment of an Amaryllis District Pride Advisory Committee and release of funding to
support GSMY inclusion in Amaryllis District. Despite being in the same district, other
Amaryllis District Schools (Daffodil and Chive High Schools, both control schools in the
RCT study) did not evidence the same degree of change. Aster District Schools, regardless
of intervention (Dandelion and Thistle Highs) or control (Dahlia High) condition, likewise
evidenced less substantial change than Agapanthus High School.
Discussion and Implications. Study findings indicate that multilevel school
approaches to school improvement that incorporate student voice hold greater promise to
result in substantial protections for GSMY. These results reflect a recently proposed stream
model of policy process, which contends that the alignment of efforts by multiple actors

112
(advocates, administrators, researchers/interventionists) exerting pressure can open
“windows of opportunity” that facilitate effective policy adoption and implementation.
Researchers and future interventionists should prioritize multilevel approaches that
engage students, schools, districts, and community members in efforts to make schools
safer and more protective spaces for GSMY.

113
Introduction
Bullying, harassment, and discrimination in schools place gender and sexual
minority youth (GSMY) at increased risk of academic and physical and psychological health
challenges compared to their cisgender and heterosexual peers (Day et al., 2020; Day et
al., 2019; Johns, Lowry, et al., 2019; Perez-Brumer et al., 2017). Policymakers, educators,
interventionists, parents, and students have pursued many strategies to address these
disparities. LGBTQ protective state and district policies (Hatzenbuehler & Keyes, 2013;
Liang et al., 2023; O'Brien et al., 2024; Rabasco & Andover, 2020), social supports (Day et
al., 2020; Greytak et al., 2013; Johns, Poteat, et al., 2019; Kosciw et al., 2020; Snapp et al.,
2015), interventions (Craig et al., 2019; Goldbach et al., 2021), and youth advocacy (Laub &
Burdge, 2016; Russell et al., 2009) to improve school climate have each been linked to
increased safety and reduced psychological distress for GSMY. While research points to
the general benefits of these efforts, results of a recent scoping review on the LGBTQ social
support literature identified that insufficient staff training, sociopolitical contexts that
impede advocacy, and LGBTQ youth subgroup differences attenuate these effects (Leung
et al., 2022). The review called for centering youth as active proponents of school change
and to further investigation of the conditions within schools that inhibit the success of
these supports in improving school climate and GSMY outcomes (Leung et al., 2022).
More research has begun to examine school adoption of LGBTQ supports over time.
At a national level, two studies have examined trends in implementation of these key
supports using data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s School
Health Profiles (Demissie et al., 2018; Shattuck et al., 2022). Between 2008 to 2014,

114
schools in a majority of states only successfully increased implementation of safe spaces
(Demissie et al., 2018), whereas schools in a majority of states increased implementation
of safe spaces, staff training, and inclusive curriculum between 2010 to 2018 (Shattuck et
al., 2022). Both studies proposed that creation of safe spaces - defined as classroom or
counseling spaces with supportive staff that have been designated with safe space
stickers, rainbow flags, or other signage – may be a more achievable change than other
strategies, as the addition of safe space stickers, staff badges, and posters may be more
relatively affordable interventions that can be feasibly implemented by individual staff.
Notably, Shattuck et al (2022) provided state-by-state findings indicating that a significant
percentage of schools in California increased all six supportive practices: staff training,
social and psychological services, health services, safe spaces, LGBTQ-inclusive
harassment prohibition, and LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum. One study that investigated
adoption by San Francisco Bay Area school districts of California antibullying policy, Seth’s
Law, found that districts varied in whether they had adopted any, some, or all provisions of
that law (Meyer & Keenan, 2020). Further research on local policy adoption and
implementation in schools describes it as a process wherein educators make meaning of
and refine state policies to their local context (Leonardi & Staley, 2020), which can take
time and substantial commitment from school personnel
The enrollment of schools in this study in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the
efficacy of the Proud & Empowered (P&E) and Make Space interventions provides this
study with an opportunity to compare the effects of receipt of psychosocial and advocacy
interventions on broader school climate. In the Make Space intervention, adult researchers

115
introduce and train students in advocacy skills, and over the five sessions, the youth take
on greater leadership roles to use session time in setting and pursuing LGBTQA+ advocacy
opportunities within their schools. Briefly, Thistle High students sought to extend their Day
of Silence consciousness-raising event, Dandelion High students focused on changes to
their on-campus wellness center, and Agapanthus students advocated for the addition of
more gender-neutral restrooms and establishment of a name change procedure.
This paper explores change in six schools enrolled in a RCT of the P&E and Make
Space interventions. The study seeks to understand the conditions that facilitate change in
the schools over the course of two academic years, 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. We explore
whether schools that receive the interventions exhibit more documented and observable
improvements than control schools to their LGBTQA+-related policies and facilities, such
as in adoption and/or implementation of name change procedures, gender-neutral
restrooms and private accommodations, and provision of safe spaces.
Methods
A subset of schools participating in a RCT of the P&E and Make Space interventions
were invited to participate in this study of change in school policies and facilities over time.
RCT staff randomized schools within each district to intervention or control, resulting in
two intervention schools and one control school in the Aster District and one intervention
school and two control schools in the Amaryllis District. Schools were eligible to
participate in this study if they were currently enrolled in the larger RCT, were located in Los
Angeles County, and agreed to the IRB-approved waiver of parental consent for research
with minors. P&E is a 10-week school-based psychosocial support intervention for 10-12

116
gender and sexual minority youth (GSMY) delivered in Fall 2022. P&E is followed in the early
Spring semester by Make Space, a 5-week social justice youth development intervention
wherein P&E and cisgender/heterosexual ally peers (between 10-20 youth total) participate
in an advocacy training and then plan and pursue LGBTQA+-related change priorities within
their schools.
One to three staff members per school, hereafter “liaisons,” provided access to
school data, served as guides for campus observations, replied to member checks to
facilitate further exploration and verify accuracy of study findings for their schools, and
helped plan and refer students for focus group discussions (FGDs). Participating schools
are listed by district and treatment condition below; schools and districts have been
renamed to protect confidentiality. Four of the recruited schools (Dandelion, Dahlia,
Daffodil, and Agapanthus High Schools) were traditional 4-year public high schools. The
two other schools were unique in the sample. Thistle High School was a magnet school
that delivered specialized college preparation and language immersion programs. Chive
High was a continuation school, which is an alternative education school where out-ofschool youth can reenroll in their education to complete course requirements for
graduation (Perez & Johnson, 2008).
Early in the Fall semester, the study PI contacted school liaisons at each school via
email to introduce them to the project and schedule an introductory web conferencing
meeting. Liaisons per school are described in Table 4.1. Changes in liaison over time reflect
staff retirements, reassignments, sick leave, and, in the case of Daffodil High School,
recruitment of additional staff support for the project.

117
Table 4.1. School types, Student Body Size, and Liaison Roles
District & School Condition Student
Body
Academic Year Liaison(s) Positions
Aster District
Dandelion Intervention 1700+ 2022-23 1 Counselor
2023-24 1 Different Counselor
Thistle Intervention 500+ 2022-23 1 Counselor
2023-24 1 Different Counselor
Dahlia Control 1900+ 2022-24 1 Librarian
Amaryllis District
Daffodil Control 2100+ 2022-23 1 Activities Director
2023-24 Same Activities
Director, 2 Teachers/
GSA co-advisors
Agapanthus Intervention 1600+ Fall 2022 only 1 interventionist
Jan 2023-24 2 counselors
Chive Control 100+ 2022-24 1 Teacher, 1 Assistant
Principal
Data Collection
Data collection included the collection of documents, observation of each campus,
and member checks in all six schools. Additionally, researchers conducted FGDs in the
three intervention schools, Dandelion, Thistle, and Agapanthus High Schools. Case studies
seek to produce rich and thick descriptions of cases by collecting many forms of data and
exploring cases in an explorative manner with an open mind to complexity and potential for
multiple realities and perspectives within a case (Yin, 2017). Data collection was therefore
explorative and focused on policies and facilities that were considered “relevant” a priori by
researchers and a posteriori based on information accessed from documents,
observations, member checks, and FGDs.

118
A priori determinations of which documents, observations, and member check
questions were relevant to this study were based upon requirements of California
education policy and extant literature on GSMY school experiences. California law requires
that schools publish nondiscrimination policies in handbooks and in public spaces on
campus, so it was necessary to analyze the handbooks and observe administrative offices
(front desk, attendance, counseling, etc.), where policies were likely to be posted. Extant
literature on GSMY school experiences have likewise established the necessity of genderneutral restrooms to reducing stress and risk of violence (Eckes, 2017; Porta et al., 2017;
Wernick et al., 2017), thus indicating the need to note the status and location of genderneutral restrooms at each campus.
Additional documents were collected and sites observed a posteriori to answer
arising questions, often specific to a school. For example, the Dahlia High School liaison
shared in Fall 2022 that she planned to write a library book procurement and complaint
procedure, so researchers followed up and requested that document in Fall 2023 and
added libraries to the campus observation protocol for all other schools. FGD participants
also provided information, from their own perspectives, that inspired further document
collection and observations in Fall 2023; for example, Dandelion students prioritized
advocacy to improve their wellness center, so wellness centers were also added to the
campus observation protocol in Fall 2023.
Documents. Documents were collected in Fall 2022 and again in Fall 2023. To
facilitate year-to-year comparison, the same documents were collected in Fall 2023 as in
Fall 2022, though additional documents were also collected in Fall 2023 in the explorative

119
fashion described above. Researchers requested policy documents from liaisons and
downloaded documents from school and district websites, as available. Documents
included school and/or district handbooks, staff training documents, course listings and
syllabi, campus maps, transgender-specific policies like Gender Transition Plans, School
Plans for Student Achievement (SPSA), School Accountability Report Cards (SARCs), email
communications describing policies and routine procedures, and any other document that
was relevant to LGBTQA+ youth.
Campus Observations. Researchers planned with school liaisons to conduct
campus observations in October 2022 and again in October 2023. School liaisons met with
researchers – the study PI and, if available, a colleague – at the main campus office and
guided the researchers to designated spaces on campus. Co-observing colleagues met
with the study PI in advance of observations to discuss the observation method, the
purpose and approach to notetaking and photographs, privacy protections for the schools
(i.e., not photographing people), and logistical concerns (school guest protocols, location,
and time). Key locations visited during campus observations included administrative
offices, gender-neutral restrooms, locker rooms, the classroom where the GSA meets, and
other spaces as relevant to LGBTQ students (see Appendix B for the campus observation
note-taking sheet). Arising questions in the intervening year resulted in adding libraries and
wellness centers to the standard list of visited sites per campus in October 2023.
Researchers took handwritten notes during observations and photographs of campus
facilities and environments. Handwritten notes were typed and uploaded into Atlas.ti for
analysis.

120
Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). FGDs were held in the three intervention
schools (Dandelion, Thistle, and Agapanthus High Schools). Students were eligible to
participate if they had attended the Make Space intervention. The University of Southern
California Internal Review Board approved the FGD study and provided a waiver of parental
consent, on condition that demographics were not linked to individual FGD participants.
Seven FGDs (3 at Dandelion, 2 at Thistle, and 2 at Agapanthus High) were held during the
school day; students were cleared for attendance by liaisons and/or school administrators.
FGD participants selected celebrity pseudonyms (e.g., “Rue McClanahan”), or were
assigned gender-neutral pseudonyms during transcription. FGD participants completed
demographic questions and then discussed their advocacy priorities and facilitators and
barriers to engaging in advocacy for LGBTQA+ rights at their schools. The FGD guide is
available in Appendix C. FGDs were audio-recorded, recordings were transcribed by a
third-party service, and the study PI cleaned and scrubbed the transcripts of identifiers
(names and places) prior to analysis.
Member Checks. The study PI followed up with school liaisons for further
information and clarification as needed via email. During Spring 2023 and Spring 2024,
school liaisons received case characterizations of their respective schools that detailed
preliminary findings based on documents, observations, and FGDs, if applicable. Liaisons
were invited to edit the documents and provide feedback on accuracy of findings according
to their own perspectives. Liaisons also shared information, recorded in writing as meeting
minutes, during virtual meetings (via Zoom) while planning campus observations and

121
FGDs. Liaison responses to member checks were included in the larger dataset for
analysis.
Analytical Approach
Documents, observation notes and photographs, FGD transcripts, and member
checks were uploaded into Atlas.ti and labeled by school and year of data collection. Given
the size of the dataset, three co-coders joined the first author. The research team
represented multiple sexualities (queer, gay), genders (ciswoman, cisman, nonbinary),
racial identities (white, biracial Black/White, Asian), and professional backgrounds
(program coordinator with an MSW, MSW student, PhD student). The first author coded all
data; the dataset was split between the three coders into smaller pieces: 2022-2023
documents, observations, and member checks; FGD transcripts; and 2023-2024
documents, observations, and member checks.
Documents, observations, and member checks were analyzed deductively. Codes
were developed based upon key protections in California State education laws, such as the
School Success and Opportunity Act (2013) and California Healthy Youth Act (2016).
Additional codes were developed to capture aspects of school climate, for example,
“LGBTQ visibility” helped identify the visibility of rainbow flags or other markers on campus.
Researchers used codes to note school policies and facility conditions relevant to
assessing LGBTQ inclusion and supports on campus. Policy data were then extracted into a
structural matrix in Excel for multiple data comparisons: within-school policy and facility
change from Fall 2022 to Fall 2023 and between-school, intervention vs control, school vs
district, and school vs state law comparisons. Differences identified in the structural

122
matrix were investigated and validated by returning to the original data and qualitatively
investigating, by triangulating with other materials or member checking with liaisons,
whether changes occurred in the school over the intervening year. FGD transcripts were
coded according to the process for inductive thematic analysis outlined by Braun and
Clarke (Braun & Clarke, 2012), with sensitizing themes from the Social Justice Youth
Development framework (Ginwright & James, 2002) and a model of school climate (Thapa
et al., 2013).
Researchers approached each source of data as reflecting multiple and potentially
conflicting realities about the schools and districts in the sample, such that collection and
triangulation of multiple types of data increased the trustworthiness of findings and depth
of understanding of each case (Yin, 2017). Just as documents, observations, member
checks, and youth voice in FGDs could be triangulated to add greater credence to a finding,
sources could also complicate or disconfirm information from other sources. For example,
researchers observed gender-neutral restrooms on the Thistle and Agapanthus campuses,
but some FGD students in Thistle and Agapanthus High Schools stated that they did not
know of any available gender-neutral restrooms on campus. These multiple realities were
identified by collecting multiple types of data and triangulating these sources to paint a
more complex picture: that schools can make resources available, but availability does not
equate to knowledge and use of those resources by students. Youth voice in FGDs similarly
supplements the analysis in this paper by allowing for the recognition of multiple realities
of school supports and change in school over time.

123
Given the explorative nature of the case study approach, some types of data were
collected for the first time in the 2023-2024 academic year and therefore lacked
comparator in the 2022-2023 data. In such cases, change could not be assessed or
verified. Data gathered in 2023-2024 that lacked comparator from the prior year were
excluded from this analysis of change in schools over time. Also due to the explorative
study design, some data accessed in the 2023-2024 academic year was reassigned to the
2022-2023 when it reflected standard and unchanged practice. For example, the liaison at
Thistle High School showed the study PI during the Fall 2023 campus observation how
student name changes work in their computer system and stated that the process has not
changed in the intervening year. That information was therefore reassigned to both years.
Results
Changes were observed at all six schools in the sample between Fall 2022 to Fall
2023. Some changes can be substantiated with multiple sources, including observation
notes, documents, and FGDs; perceived change supported with less evidence is noted
when applicable. Changes in each case are described below. Photographs are provided
when available and if they do not include staff-, school- and district-identifying information
(e.g., a teacher’s name on a whiteboard, depictions of school mascots, staff contact
information).
Aster District
Posters defining sexual harassment and providing Title IX complaint procedure
information were photographed in locker rooms in October 2023 at all three Aster District
schools. No photographs or notes had been taken of such posters in October 2022,

124
indicating that they were either not observed or not present at that time. Photographs of
posters from the 2023 observation are not depicted here, as they repeatedly note district
name and staff contact information, but they included definitions of sexual harassment
inclusive of harassment by people of the “same or opposite sex,” a description of Title IX,
and contact information for the District Title IX Coordinator. Given that the same exact
posters were newly observed in all three schools in the sample from that district, it appears
likely – though not entirely substantiated - that the Aster District may have implemented a
district-wide initiative to increase accessibility of Title IX information for students using the
locker rooms.
Dandelion High School (Intervention Condition). GSA meetings were held in the
choir classroom at Dandelion High School. In the Fall 2022 observation, notes and
photographs from the GSA classroom identified one rainbow sign that had a non-LGBTQspecific inspirational statement written on it (“You can learn something new every day if
you listen”). On returning in Fall 2023, the GSA classroom had more posters, including a
Figure 4.1, Dandelion High GSA Fall 2023
Figure 4.2, Dandelion High
GSA Fall 2023

125
pro-Palestinian poster, an activist poster that stated “Our actions build our world,” and an
approximately 10-foot-wide rainbow set of boomwhackers, a percussion instrument
mounted on the classroom (See Figs. 4.1 and 4.2).
The Wellness Center was not observed during the Fall 2022 visit, for lack of
knowledge of its presence or its importance to LGBTQA+ students on campus at that time.
During FGDs at Dandelion High School, students shared that making changes to and
raising awareness of resources at the wellness center on campus was a key priority in their
advocacy. However, students also disconfirmed each other in their assessment of the
wellness center during FGDs. One student stated, “It’s very, like, drab. Um, it’s
not…decorated very well. The walls are kind of gray. It’s just kind of sad, like there wasn’t a
lot of effort put into like, making it, um, a welcoming space, you know?” (Deez, Dandelion
High). While Cecelia agreed that the space is unwelcoming, a third student, Bob, who
volunteers as a peer advocate with the wellness center replied, “Um, may I ask, when was
this? Because this is not what it looks like…The walls are covered in decorations.” During
the Fall 2023 observation, researchers specifically asked to visit the wellness center and
found it to have posters referencing
major LGBTQ-supportive national
organizations, rainbow signage, and a
large display with sexual health
information (See Fig. 4.3). Whether or
not the space changed in the
intervening year – and attribution of any
Figure 4.3, Dandelion High Wellness Center
Fall 2023

126
change to student advocacy in Spring 2023 – unfortunately cannot be determined from the
available data.
Thistle High School (Intervention Condition). Besides the addition of Title IX
posters in locker rooms, no changes were evidenced at Thistle High School from Fall 2022
to Fall 2023. Students participating in the Make Space intervention pursued multiple
advocacy priorities: to extend their annual Day of Silence event (a nationally recognized
student-led day of raising awareness of the effects of homophobia and transphobia) into a
week of consciousness raising activities, to increase access to name change procedures
and gender-neutral restrooms on campus, and to revitalize their GSA. Students reported
during FGDs that they successfully extended the Day of Silence event to occur on Thursday
and Friday of that week. Upon return in Fall 2023, researchers observed that name change
procedures and gender-neutral restrooms had not changed. In the Fall 2022 observation,
the GSA advisor was not present, and the classroom was closed, so it could not be
observed. In the Fall 2023 observation, the GSA advisor was again not present, but a
substitute teacher was present and provided access to the classroom. Researchers
observed a small rainbow and the GSA advisor’s name and pronouns on the whiteboard.
While non-observation of the GSA classroom in 2022 precludes comparison, the GSA
advisor’s absence during both observations corroborates student testimony in FGDs that
the advisor is regularly out sick and unavailable.
Dahlia High School (Control Condition). During the Fall 2022 observation, the
Dahlia High School librarian/study liaison stated intention to write a library book
procurement and complaint adjudication procedure and propose the policy for district

127
consideration. She specifically cited the growing movement to ban books in other areas of
the country and, when asked, clarified that no such efforts had yet reached their school. In
Fall 2023, the liaison provided a copy of the draft policy, which she planned to propose for
district consideration. The document is not depicted here given regular reference to the
District name in the document, but included sections on:
1. Policy Mission, Vision, Objectives, and a statement in support of intellectual
freedom;
2. Responsibility designations for policy procedures;
3. Library Selection Criteria, Review Sources, Acquisition Procedures, and Selection of
Materials on Controversial Topics in accordance with principles stated in the Library
Bill of Rights (American Library Association, 2016);
4. Collection Maintenance and Weeding, Reconsideration Policy, and Procedures for
Handling Informal and Formal Complaints; and
5. Forms for Reconsideration Requests and Reconsideration Request Response
Letters
Each of these sections reflected ethical commitments in the library profession to
encourage intellectual freedom, student’s right to read, and access to critical and
contrasting viewpoints (American Library Association, 2016).
Posting of nondiscrimination, anti-bullying, and Title IX procedures in public spaces
on campus is required by California state law. Fall 2022 observation notes indicated that no
nondiscrimination, antibullying, or Title IX policies were posted in administrative offices at
Dahlia High School. On return in Fall 2023, though, researchers observed a Spanishlanguage Aster District flyer entitled “Acciones ante la discriminación, el acoso, la
intimidación o el hostigamiento escolar” (English translation by study PI, “Actions against
discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or school bullying”) in a flyer holder in the
administrative office. That cell of the flyer holder, which also included other flyers, such as
“Lunch Applications,” was labeled “[Aster District] Policy on Bullying.” No English-language

128
nondiscrimination or anti-bullying policy was observed, though empty flyer holders
indicate that they may been available and been previously taken by students and other
school visitors.
Amaryllis District
In February 2023, the Amaryllis District established an Amaryllis District Pride
Advisory Committee and invited staff, parents, students, and community members to
participate (including personnel with the RCT and this study’s PI, who all declined given
their researcher status; see Fig 4.4). In March 2023, the Agapanthus High School liaisons
forwarded to the research team
a screenshot of a new Amaryllis
District resolution that required
all Amaryllis District schools to
honor student-asserted gender
identities, allow students to
update names in school data
systems, protect student privacy, and not “out” students to parents if they request name
change in data systems. The resolution additionally mandated implementation of the
policy regardless of personally held beliefs.
The liaisons at Agapanthus High School stated, as well, that the Amaryllis District
had made funds available specifically to promote LGBTQA+ inclusion efforts district-wide.
Likely due to access to these funds, liaisons at all three Amaryllis District schools stated
that, in the following week after the observations, the three schools and Amaryllis District
Figure 4.4, Portion of Amaryllis District Pride Advisory
Committee Invitation Flyer

129
had coordinated a field trip with shared district buses to bring students to Models of Pride,
which is a large and historic LGBTQA+ youth conference hosted by the Los Angeles LGBT
Center.
Daffodil High School (Control Condition). No notable changes were observed at
Daffodil High School. One change may have occurred, yet conflicting testimony casts
uncertainty. During the Fall 2022 campus observation, the liaison stated that Daffodil High
School has a name change policy, that student-asserted names appear on attendance
rosters, and that parents do not need to provide consent to make name changes. During
the same visit, a school counselor disconfirmed these claims, instead stating that there is
no name change policy and that students ask the counselor on a semesterly basis to notify
teachers of their name and gender. Upon return for the Fall 2023 observation, the assistant
principal showed the study PI examples in the school’s electronic student records system
of students who had requested name changes via an alias addition process. The assistant
principal confirmed that they do not require parent consent to make name changes, but
that parents can nonetheless view the changes on the parent portal. Based on this
evidence, it may be that the liaison was correct and that Daffodil High School consistently
allowed name changes in both Fall 2022 and 2023, but that the counselor did not know of
the procedure (such that students who sought support from that counselor did not benefit
from the policy). Alternatively, it may be that Daffodil High School previously followed the
procedure described by the counselor in Fall 2022 and the school then updated its policy
over the course of the year, possibly in response to the new Amaryllis District policy on
gender affirmation with transgender students.

130
Agapanthus High School (Intervention Condition). Substantial and multiple types
of changes occurred over the course of the year at Agapanthus High School. During the Fall
2023 campus observation, the Agapanthus High
School liaisons stated that they used newly
provided district funds designated for LGBTQ
inclusion to add gender-neutral bathroom signs on
campus, hand out safe space stickers, flags, and
posters, and create and distribute new staff badges
that had the phrase “Out for Safe Schools” above a
progress flag (a rainbow flag with additional stripes
and symbols to emphasize solidarity with LGBTQ
people of color, trans and nonbinary people, and intersex people, See Fig. 4.5). LGBTQrelated signage was only observed in the Fall 2022 visit in specific locations, namely, in and
around the counselor’s offices, in the GSA
classroom, and in an afterschool program
classroom. Upon return in Fall 2023, half or
more of classrooms in the main area of
campus had safe space stickers, rainbow
flags, and other inclusive signage visible on
their classroom windows or inside of the
classrooms. LGBTQ inclusive signage was
often alongside similar signs in support of
Figure 4.5 Agapanthus High Staff
Badge (bottom half to protect
school identity)
Figure 4.6 Agapanthus High Classroom
Window Fall 2023

131
racial and environmental justice or reflected aspects of intersectionality (e.g., “Dreamers
Welcome” poster and another with brown hands raised below the phrase “All are welcome
here"; See Fig. 4.6). There was substantially more LGBTQ-signage and rainbows in the front
administrative office than the prior year, as well, especially above a desk for the newly hired
parent engagement liaison in the main front office. The parent engagement liaison was a
new position at the school and their desk was covered in LGBTQ-affirming and
informational posters (See Fig. 4.7): 4 safe space signs, 4 mental health posters, a Pride
poster, a large 3x4 rainbow poster that
stated “We see you, we hear you, we
support you, we stand with you,” and a
flyer that encouraged students and
advisors to get involved with the Los
Angeles LGBT Center’s Community Action
Network. In addition to current increased LGBTQ visibility on campus, the Agapanthus
liaisons stated that they were waiting on funding approvals for newly designed school
stickers that incorporated rainbows with their school mascot for teachers to put in their
classroom windows.
In a member check meeting/study introduction meeting with new liaisons in
February 2023, the liaisons confirmed that Agapanthus High School had no formal name
change procedure. Rather, students could request on a semesterly basis that
administrators notify teachers of their name and gender. In April 2023, Agapanthus
students stated in FGDs that getting a name change process was a priority of their
Figure 4.7 Agapanthus High Parent Liaison
Desk Fall 2023

132
advocacy, that they had met with the principal to discuss it, and that the principal
responded that “It might get tricky once we have to apply to, like, colleges in senior year”
(Hunter, Agapanthus High). On return for the campus observation of Agapanthus High
School in Fall 2023, liaisons reported that the school had adopted an alias addition
procedure over the summer. However, liaisons stated that they had brought concerns to
administration that, by placing the alias between student’s legal first and last names, the
alias addition process effectively outed students as transgender to all staff and peers who
interact with those students’ profiles. The liaisons conveyed their belief that administration
had responded to their concerns by ending the practice and removing all aliases, such that
the school again had no name change process until they could determine a better option.
However, on arriving at the registrar with the liaisons a few minutes later, the registrar
showed examples of students with aliases added, contradicting the liaisons’ belief that
aliases had been removed and the procedure had been paused. In sum, Agapanthus High
School adopted a new name change procedure between the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024
academic years, but staff held conflicting understandings of the status of the procedure
and concerns for the procedure’s effectiveness in protecting transgender student privacy.
Adoption of this new procedure was preceded by student advocacy calling for a name
change process, counselor support for student advocacy initiatives, principal receipt of
student advocates’ concerns, and a new district policy on student gender identity
affirmation and privacy.
One gender-neutral restroom, located within the nurse’s office, was observed in Fall
2022 at Agapanthus High School. Students reported in Agapanthus FGDs that they were

133
advocating for more gender-neutral
restrooms to be added on campus.
Upon return for the Fall 2023
observation, there was a new
gender-neutral restroom located by
the outdoor lunch seating area and a
short walk around the corner from
the locker rooms (See Fig. 4.8). The centrally located restroom was locked, but in a public
and accessible space alongside other gendered restrooms and with placards clearly
labeling the facility for gender-neutral use.
Chive High School (Control Condition). Some changes were observed at Chive
High School from 2022-2023 to 2023-
2024, including in the number of
gender-neutral restrooms, the name
change procedure, and LGBTQ signage
on campus. Notably, on arrival for the
Fall 2022 observation, the school
principal joined the campus tour and
spoke of a school training on
transgender and nonbinary inclusion
delivered by a San Francisco area
nonprofit the summer before this study
Figure 4.9
Chive High
Restroom
Sign in Main
Office,
Present Fall
2022 & 2023
Figure 4.8 Agapanthus High New Gender-Neutral
Restroom Fall 2023
Figure 4.10
Chive High
Restroom
Sign in
Counseling,
Fall 2023

134
started; the school credited this training with their provision of a gender-neutral restroom
and efforts to establish a GSA. During the Fall 2022 observation, one gender-neutral
restroom was observed in the administrative office (See Fig. 4.9). On return to campus in
Fall 2023, liaisons brought the study PI to the counseling office for the first time, where
there was yet another gender-neutral restroom (See Fig. 4.10). Having not observed the
restroom in the first-year observation, change could not be assessed. Both of these
restrooms were marked by the same laminated gender-neutral restroom sign that was
clipped onto the door and partially covered the original gendered bathroom signs.
During the Fall 2023 observation, the registrar stated that they had received their
first ever name change request from a student, and that they had previously not had a
procedure for responding to those requests. With the principal’s support and in
accordance with new Amaryllis district guidance, the registrar added the student’s
asserted name as an alias. The registrar also notified all staff on campus of the change in
the student’s records; it is unknown whether the student
consented to this campuswide notification.
In both the Fall 2022 and Fall 2023 observations, almost
no LGBTQ signage was evident in the general campus. During
the Fall 2023 observation, an LA vs Hate poster had been
added to the main office affirming that “Los Angeles County
Stands United Against Hate.” Additionally, in Fall 2023, a
newly hired instructional lead’s classroom was full of
Figure 4.10 Chive High
Instructional Lead
Classroom Fall 2023

135
rainbows and safe space stickers (See Fig. 4.10), thus offering an evidently new safe space
on campus for LGBTQ students.
Discussion
Most schools exhibited minor changes between Fall 2022 and Fall 2023. Among
schools in the sample, Agapanthus High School stood out as the school implemented
multiple substantial changes to improve climate for LGBTQA+ students. In sum,
Agapanthus High School added a more accessible gender-neutral restroom, established a
(yet-imperfect) name change policy, hired a visibly LGBTQA+-supportive parent
engagement liaison, distributed rainbow staff badges, and increased visibility of LGBTQA+
safe classrooms on campus. These changes were preceded by student advocacy for
gender-neutral restrooms and name change policy adoption and a set of Amaryllis districtwide initiatives. Those district initiatives included commencement of the Amaryllis District
Pride Advisory Committee, development of a district gender affirmation and privacy
protection policy for transgender students, plans to send students on a field trip to Models
of Pride, and release of funding specifically to promote LGBTQA+ inclusion at Amaryllis
District schools.
This study explored whether intervention schools would change more than control
schools was only partially supported. Study findings indicate that the confluence of
multiple factors, including intervention-related student advocacy, independent staff
efforts, and concerted districtwide initiatives and supports, contributed to Agapanthus
High School (intervention) implementing substantial changes. Dandelion High School’s
(intervention) GSA had increased LGBTQA+ visibility, but no demonstrable change occurred

136
at Thistle High School (intervention), besides an apparent district-wide effort to add Title IX
posters to locker rooms. Changes were also evidenced at control schools. Within the Aster
District, Dahlia High School (control) also had new locker room Title IX posters and the
librarian independently produced and proposed a district-wide library book procurement
and complaint procedure. In the Amaryllis District, no demonstrable change occurred at
Daffodil High School (control) except for sending students to Models of Pride along with
Agapanthus High (intervention) and Chive High (control) Schools. Despite also being a
control school, Chive High School accomplished numerous changes, including
establishment of a GSA, implementation of their first ever name change, and hire of a new
instructional lead who made her classroom a visibly safe space for LGBTQA+ students.
Study results, and specifically the case of Agapanthus High School – the only
intervention school in the Amaryllis District – clearly shows that the alignment of the
intervention with district support facilitated substantial change in school climate. This
finding, aligns with the integrated multiple stream model of policy process (Howlett, 2019)
and with recent calls for Whole School approaches to school climate change (Leung et al.,
2022; Shattuck et al., 2022). The multiple stream model of policy process argues that the
alignment of multiple factors – such as political will, funding, and advocacy - create
windows of opportunity for administrators and engaged constituents to advocate for and
enact policy change at each stage of the policy process (e.g., implementation). The Whole
School approach, on the other hand, contends that meaningful and sustained change in
school climate for LGBTQA+ youth is best achieved by multilevel (student, staff, district)
and multisystemic (peer groups, families, classrooms, teachers, administrators)

137
interventions. Meaningful and widespread change to improve LGBTQA+ school climate at
Agapanthus High School appears to have been the product of aligned pressures from
student advocacy, staff initiative, and district guidance and funding.
District and school improvement efforts contributed to more incremental changes
at the other five schools in the sample. The Amaryllis District adoption of a gender
affirmation policy may have helped inform Chive High School’s (control) first-ever name
change. Chive and Daffodil High Schools also benefitted from the district’s support in
planning and funding the Models of Pride field trip. The Aster District did not appear to
make any specific district-wide commitments to LGBTQA+ inclusion in the intervening year
but did appear to implement a new district-wide addition of Title IX posters in locker rooms.
Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence that student advocacy at the Aster District
intervention schools, Thistle and Dandelion High Schools, resulted in specific observable
changes in school climate or policy.
Other school factors may have shaped capacity for change over the year. Though
Chive High School was assigned to the control condition, observers learned on arrival for
the Fall 2022 observation that they had received a schoolwide training in LGBTQA+
inclusion from another agency over the Summer 2022 break. The school principal cited this
training as the precedent for the school’s provision of gender-neutral restroom(s) and
establishment of a GSA. Chive High School’s flexibility in implementing such changes may
also be related to the school’s status as the only continuation school in the sample.
Independent staff efforts may contribute to improvements in campus climate. For
example, Chive High School’s (control) new instructional lead’s rainbow decorations and

138
the Dahlia High School’s (control) librarian’s decision to write and propose an intellectual
freedom policy to the Aster District were both the result of individual staff efforts to effect
school change.
Several limitations should be considered with these study findings. While campus
observations in both Fall 2022 and Fall 2023 followed the same general procedure, each
observation was different and these differences sometimes shaped analysis. Multiple
factors explain this difference, including researcher experience and increased liaison
understanding of the project over time, availability of various campus environments at the
time of visit, and the iterative method leading the researcher to request to visit additional
locations in 2023, like libraries and wellness centers. For example, the GSA classrooms
were locked at both Thistle (intervention) and Daffodil (control) High Schools at the time of
the 2022 visit but were open and observable for the 2023 visit, preventing analysis of GSA
change at those two schools. While the use of multiple methods supported triangulation of
findings, some changes, like increases in GSA membership or ad hoc increased LGBTQA+
inclusion in curriculum by teachers, may have occurred outside of the observation
windows.
This study examined change over one year in policies and procedures relevant to
LGBTQA+ youth among schools enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of the P&E and
Make Space interventions. Effects of the P&E and Make Space interventions on changes in
school policies and facilities, including LGBTQA+ visibility on campus, appear to be
contingent on co-occurrence with district guidance and funding. Findings lend support to
the multiple streams framework and whole school approach to school climate change, as

139
the intervention only appears to have supported meaningful change in school policies,
procedures, and climate when accompanied by independent staff initiative and districtlevel coordinated supports and funding.
Conclusion
Study findings may inform practice, research, and policy efforts. Multilevel school
interventions that engage with districts, school administrators and staff, and students alike
may be needed to contribute to sustainable improvements in student wellbeing and school
climate. Educators seeking to effect meaningful and sustainable change to school policies
and facilities should build coalitions of allies and advocates including district and school
staff, parents, and students. Future research may examine change in school policies and
facilities over more than two years, in other contexts with different or fewer state
protections, or to test the effects of multilevel school interventions that facilitate
coalitional efforts inclusive of district and school staff, parents, and students to improve
LGBTQA+-inclusive policies and procedures. California policymakers may build upon
evidence in this study to pursue statewide audits of adoption and implementation of these
LGBTQA+-focused education policies, such as the School Success and Opportunity Act, as
incomplete implementation of these policies across multiple school districts in Los
Angeles County may point to similar issues statewide. This study found that district funding
and supports were an important factor in school climate change, along with student civic
engagement and independent staff efforts. Policymakers should therefore designate
funding to ensure policy success. Funds may be used to provide state-level training and
technical assistance statewide and, at the district and school level, to designate gender-

140
neutral restroom with appropriate signage, organize LGBTQA+-specific events, train staff,
modernize curriculum, and update data systems to permit name changes and protect
student privacy. Policymakers outside of California may look to study findings to inform
their adoption of similar policies, including the need to appropriate funds to support policy
implementation and track policy implementation and outcomes.

141
Chapter 5: Discussion & Implications
Dissertation goals
This dissertation produced case studies of ten high schools in Los Angeles County
to assess local adoption and implementation of California LGBTQA+-protective education
policies, student experiences advocating for LGBTQA+ rights in school, and change in
policy adoption and implementation over time. This effort sought to inform policymakers in
future efforts to strengthen existing policy and disseminate well-structured policies to
other states and jurisdictions and support educator practices to protect LGBTQA+ youth
rights.
The first paper sought to explore whether the ten schools in the sample had adopted
LGBTQA+-protective policies and how these policies and procedures were being
implemented. The goal of that inquiry was to learn from what schools are currently doing to
inform future educator practice, inspire amendments, audits, or further legislation by
California policymakers, and provide information on policy feasibility for use by
policymakers in other states and jurisdictions. Study findings identified that while schools
generally have LGBTQA+ inclusive nondiscrimination, anti-bullying, and Title IX policies,
they differ substantially in their adoption and implementation of name changes and privacy
procedures, gender-neutral restrooms, private accommodations, and sexual health
education delivery.
The second paper investigated the experiences of youth advocates via focus group
discussions in three of the sampled schools to improve understanding of the factors that
shape LGBTQA+ school-based advocacy. This study sought to produce evidence on

142
LGBTQTA+ youth advocacy programs to inform future school-based social justice youth
development interventions, such as Make Space. A variety of factors shaped LGBTQA+
youth advocacy in these schools, including group dynamics, supportive adult
relationships, hostile reactions to youth advocacy, administrator and teacher use and
misuse of power, and their own growing sociopolitical awareness.
The final paper assessed for changes from the 2022-2023 to 2023-2024 academic
year in LGBTQA+ policy and climate in six of the sampled schools. The study goal was to
understand the factors that may precipitate, support, or hinder change in a school. While
some schools evidenced modest changes that were often attributable to the actions of
individual staff, one school exhibited substantial changes accompanied by combined
student advocacy, staff engagement, and district initiative and funding. This study therefore
supported recent calls for multilevel interventions to promote substantial and sustained to
support LGBQTQA+ youth rights in schools.
Major Findings and Implications for Policy and Practice
This multiple case study of public high schools in Los Angeles County – a region with
one of the largest LGBTQA+ communities worldwide and in a state with robust LGBTQA+
legal protections – revealed the need for promotion of standard procedures and adaptable
strategies to implement these laws at the local level and the multitude of factors, including
student advocacy, that promote coordinated action to protect LGBTQA+ youth rights. The
district, schools, and educators featured in this study have all clearly exerted efforts to
protect LGBTQA+ youth: all of the schools have nondiscrimination, anti-bullying, and Title
IX policies that protect sexual orientation and gender identity, every school had at least one

143
gender-neutral restroom (momentarily setting aside issues of accessibility and
acceptability), and every school had or were establishing a GSA.
Despite this, study findings reveal the challenges faced by schools in adopting and
implementing LGBTQA+-protective policies and by students advocating for greater
supports in their schools. California’s decentralization of educational decision-making to
districts and local school boards promotes local control, such that observed differences in
this dissertation often fell along district lines. This decentralization may benefit or harm
LGBTQA+ youth, as with the Buttercup districtwide dissemination of Transgender Student
Guide posters, the Dahlia librarian’s efforts to protect intellectual freedom, and, outside of
the study sample, well-publicized contemporaneous district attempts to restrict GSMY
rights in the Los Angeles region and California more broadly (Blume, 2024). Dissertation
findings indicate that efforts to implement California legal protections and protect
LGBTQA+ students in California schools can best be accomplished when student
advocacy, school efforts, and district initiatives align.
Policy Implications
Study findings indicate that schools are not successfully implementing some
California state laws to protect LGBTQA+ students and that schools may need further
financial and technical supports or further legislation and amendments to support districts
and schools to meet legal requirements to update data systems and allow name changes,
provide unobstructed and accessible gender-neutral facilities, designate private
accommodations, and deliver comprehensive sexual health education.

144
Name Changes and Privacy Protections. Name changes and requirements to
update data systems presented challenges for some schools and districts in this sample.
All schools in this study relied on multiple third-party technology companies to furnish
records and classroom management software. Schools in two districts add “aliases,” such
that student chosen names were visibly listed alongside legal names on the web portal and
student chosen names did not transfer to attendance sheets. This procedure insufficiently
protects transgender student rights to privacy. Resolution of this issue may require using
different methods within existing district data infrastructure (as detailed in the Aster
District’s non-legal name change guidance) or, if current data infrastructure does not
permit name changes, negotiations between districts and software providers. This issue
echoes a recent audit of California Senate Bill 932, which required sexual orientation and
gender identity (SOGI) data collection and reporting with COVID-19 testing. The state audit
revealed that even when SOGI data was collected, third-party data software and testing
laboratories lacked the data infrastructure to enter and report SOGI data (Parks, 2023). The
State Auditor recommended improvements or replacements of these public health
surveillance systems to facilitate SOGI data collection and reporting. In this sample, Tiger
High School staff successfully negotiated with the Lily District data systems office to allow
name changes, email address changes, and web-conferencing names. However, districts
may face substantial barriers to negotiating with software companies to help them meet
legal requirements to respond to name change requests and protect student privacy. As
such, district-level policymakers should audit their data management protocols and
successful school adoption and implementation of these protocols. If necessary, districts

145
may need to negotiate with third-party software providers. When negotiation with thirdparty industries constitute serious challenges beyond district capacity, state legislators
and the California Department of Education may be needed to facilitate arbitration,
guidance, and support.
Gender-Neutral Restrooms. This dissertation study found that while all schools
provided at least one gender-neutral restroom, most of these restrooms are inaccessible or
obstructed by requiring staff permission, keys, or both. Only Delphinium High School
provided a clearly marked and unlocked gender-neutral restroom that did not require staff
permission for use. As such, Delphinium High most closely, but does not completely,
meets requirements of the new law on gender-neutral facilities (School Facilities: All
Gender Restrooms Act, 2023). Even so, Delphinium High School’s gender-neutral restroom
is the only gender-neutral restroom on a large campus and is therefore less accessible, in
terms of distance and number of stalls, than sex-segregated restrooms. The new state law
requires that gender-neutral restrooms be “unlocked, unobstructed, easily accessible by
any pupil, and consistent with existing pupil access to sex-segregated restrooms” (School
Facilities: All Gender Restrooms Act, 2023). This will likely require that schools modernize
their facilities by retrofitting and adding new restrooms, ordering and installing genderneutral signage and signage stating legal requirements (see Appendix A), and implementing
new protocols to designate staff and ensure safety in these facilities. Fortunately, the new
law specifies that the California Constitution “requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.” Schools and

146
districts may benefit from California Department of Education guidance and support as
they apply for these funds and plan schematics to meet new requirements.
Comprehensive Sexual Health Education. Schools varied substantially in their
implementation of the California Healthy Youth Act. Some schools appear to not be
providing sexual health education at all. The schools that do deliver sexual health
education include schools that provide “booster” events on HIV and healthy relationships,
schools that incorporate a set number of weeks of curriculum into other History or Science
courses, and schools that provide entire semester-long courses that are required for
graduation. In addition to serving as an opportunity to educate on sexual and gender
development, inclusion, and diversity, comprehensive sexual health education is an
important tool for sexual and reproductive health prevention with teens, including
prevention of teen pregnancy, intimate partner violence, sexual assault, HIV, and sexually
transmitted infections. While further research is needed to understand whether uneven
implementation of the California Healthy Youth Act produces or deepens health
disparities, legislators and the California State Auditor should consider investigating nonimplementation or partial implementation of this Act. Such an audit or investigation should
consider the need for policy amendment or new legislation to set minimum curricular or
graduation requirements that include comprehensive sexual health education.
Practice Implications
Dissertation study findings point to a wide number of opportunities for educators to
facilitate change in their schools to protect LGBTQA+ youth and, for California schools, to
implement established legal protections. First and foremost, educators should promote

147
youth inclusion in decision-making and scaffold supports so that LGBTQA+ youth can
engage civically in educational spaces in ways that feel safe and where their privacy is
protected. Recommendations on what educators can do to support improvements in
school climate and more specifically, student access to name changes, gender-neutral
restrooms, and private accommodations, are described below. The schools described in
this dissertation are socioeconomically and racially diverse and all are located in Los
Angeles; findings may resonate with the experiences of educators in many areas of
California and the United States. Some schools and districts, however, may face distinctly
different challenges than those featured in this dissertation. Recommendations therefore
include key aspects of each policy that require standardized approaches and opportunities
for local adaptation, considering regional heterogeneity in state and local protections,
funding, and culture.
Name Changes and Privacy Protections. The California Department of Education
advises that schools retain official records, such as student birth certificates, in a locked
filing cabinet at the district and that all locally held and daily use unofficial records,
including name changes, be kept at the school (California Department of Education,
2024b). While the schools in this sample all had electronic data management systems,
which introduced challenges with ensuring systematic changes across multiple data
systems, these policies can be implemented at low cost in districts lacking substantial
data infrastructure and technology. Educators should investigate whether their schools
currently accept genuinely asserted student gender identities, names, and pronouns, how
those names and pronouns are recorded, and how this recorded information is used in

148
classrooms and other school settings to affirm student identity and protect student
privacy. This investigation should include student perspectives to understand what barriers
they have faced when requesting name changes and what name change method best meet
their needs for gender recognition in school. Educators should also note whether name
changes transfer between data systems on campus (such as classroom management
software) and updates to email address and communication systems. Ideally, students
should be able to elect where and how their chosen name appears and who has access to
those records. While parent involvement should always be encouraged, students may not
feel safe or ready to involve parents in these decisions, and schools must respect these
concerns in the interest of student safety and avoid violating student privacy. School
adoption of Gender Transition Plans and designation of staff to support each student with a
name change in their social transition at school are highly recommended. Gender
Transition Plans, importantly, help facilitate school protections of student rights to privacy.
Youth of all ages in California have the right to privacy, so clear and written records are
helpful tools to help educators fulfill those privacy rights, including by not disclosing
student sexual orientation and gender identity to parents.
Gender-Neutral Restrooms and Private Accommodations. Educators should
assess whether their schools currently provide gender-neutral restrooms and private
accommodations and the barriers that may exist in accessing these spaces. Educators
should ensure that students are permitted to use, and do not experience barriers to
accessing, sex-segregated and gender-neutral restrooms and private accommodations in
accordance with their gender identity. While gender-neutral restrooms located in

149
supervised spaces such as nurse’s offices may provide some students with a sense of
safety, all high schools should provide gender-neutral restrooms options that are centrally
located, unlocked when students are present, do not require staff permission for use, have
clear gender-neutral signage, and are consistent with student access to sex-segregated
facilities. Educators concerned for drug use and sexual activity in single-stall genderneutral restrooms may consider providing multi-stall gender-neutral restrooms, as
provided at Delphinium High School. The location and information on access to genderneutral restrooms and student rights to use facilities and participate in activities in
accordance with their gender identities should be published in the school handbook, as
accomplished at Tiger High School.
According to new California law and principles of nondiscrimination, gender-neutral
restrooms should be as accessible as gendered restrooms; the facilities should be
unlocked and should not require staff permission to access. Gender-neutral facilities
should be accessible from all reaches of campus, so that students using them do not risk
being late for class, and this may involve providing multiple gender-neutral facilities on
larger campuses. Only one school in this sample provided gender-neutral multi-stall
facilities; the other nine schools only provided single-stall facilities. Schools looking to add
new gender-neutral facilities should consider both single-stall and multi-stall options for
their gender-neutral facilities, considering each school’s existing infrastructure, availability
of modernization funding, local cultural norms (e.g., will the local area accept multi-stall
gender neutral restrooms?), and safety concerns (e.g., will students misuse single-stall
restrooms for prohibited activities?). Within California and according to the recently

150
passed Senate Bill 760 (Newman), all future modernization projects must include genderneutral restrooms. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 similarly required
that new construction in schools be accessible as a means of addressing discrimination
and promoting equitable access to education (Aldousari et al., 2021), but funding can pose
a substantial barrier to capital improvements. Future monitoring of successful
implementation of SB 760 should investigate funding availability and the relative financial
capacity of schools to meet policy requirements.
Private accommodations to change for gym should be provided to students upon
request, regardless of reason. Physical education teachers, coaches, and other personnel
should be trained in the location of private accommodations and student rights to request
access to private accommodations. Private accommodations should be located outside of
gendered locker environments to ensure that LGBTQA+ youth can access accommodations
without first having to pass through gendered spaces where they may not feel welcome.
Private accommodations should also be located near the gym so that students who use
private accommodations do not risk being late for class. In schools that provided private
accommodations, the space was typically a privacy stall within gendered locker rooms or a
small room or office near the gym. As an alternative to this practice, Delphinium High
School staff shared that construction plans for their new gym included entirely degendered locker rooms wherein every student would have privacy stalls in which to change.
As educators assess and plan private accommodations protocols and train staff to ensure
access to private accommodations, they should involve students to better understand
their student body’s privacy needs and what arrangements would best protect their

151
wellbeing. Working with youth in need of privacy will help schools to adapt their particular
infrastructure (nearby staff offices, classrooms, etc.) to student needs. Ideally, though not
specified in California law, private accommodations should be located outside of gendered
locker facilities so that students can change without first having to enter gendered spaces
that do not match their gender identity or presentation. Finally, availability and information
on how to access private accommodations should be published in student handbooks.
Future Directions
Dissertation findings indicate the need for further research in policy implementation
in schools, the function and design of specific school supports, and multilevel school
climate interventions. Foremost, throughout the process of collecting and analyzing data
and reporting findings, this dissertation makes clear the need to include students in the
decision-making processes that concern their rights and wellbeing. Future research on
school policy and school-based interventions with LGBTQA+ youth should strive to be as
participatory as possible.
Existing research on policy generally focuses on the policy adoption process and
effects of policy adoption on health disparities. Findings from this dissertation reveal that
schools and districts contend with technical, political, and financial issues that shape
local contextualization and implementation of state policies. Future policy research should
account for local variation in implementation and the factors that shape implementation,
including technical and training issues, bureaucratic and street-level decision-making, and
barriers to inclusion of student voice. Future research may also investigate local practices,
such as school-specific name change procedures and their relative effectiveness at

152
affirming student identity and protecting student privacy, in an effort to establish best
practices for protecting LGBTQA+ rights in school. Research examining associations
between school policies, facilities, and procedures and academic and health outcomes
should not assume that adoption of a policy implies successful local implementation. This
distinction can be of great importance to quantitative policy research: assuming that
adopted policies are being successfully implemented at local levels increases the risk of
falsely categorizing schools as providing supports that may actually be unavailable,
inaccessible, unacceptable, or of low quality. Such false positives may lead to diluted
findings on the effect of policies, facilities, and procedures in addressing disparities in
academics and health by sexual orientation and gender identity.
Dissertation findings can also inform future intervention research with schools.
Efforts to promote LGBTQA+ inclusion, civic engagement, and safety in schools should take
a multilevel approach that engages district staff, school administrators and teachers,
students, and parents. While some students in this dissertation spoke of benefiting from
parent support, many youth identified that they lack parent support and that this lack of
support shapes their ability to be civically engaged at school. While Thistle High School
students spoke of how parents advocated for them and that their engagement helped
improve school climate, such engagement may present risks to student privacy and safety
for LGBTQA+ youth who are not out to their parents or otherwise lack parental support. This
dissertation highlighted promising innovations that may help to address such concerns,
such as invitations for parents to participate in the Amaryllis District Pride Advisory

153
Committee and the newly hired Agapanthus High School parent liaison, whose desk in the
front office clearly emphasized school commitments to LGBTQA+ inclusion.
Concluding Thoughts
At this politically volatile moment in United States history, states and local
governments diverge from each other in their support and opposition to the education and
privacy rights of LGBTQA+ youth. Substantial research attests to the negative health and
academic outcomes of youth living in hostile political environments and the protective
effects of LGBTQA+ supportive school policies and practices (Day et al., 2019;
Hatzenbuehler & Keyes, 2013; Johns, Poteat, et al., 2019; O'Brien et al., 2024; PerezBrumer et al., 2017). In the midst of this national and global debate, this dissertation offers
pragmatic evidence on local adoption and implementation of protective policies and
practices to inform future policy and practice improvements in California and the adoption
and implementation of feasible and well-structured policies in other states and
jurisdictions.
All of the schools in this dissertation study had policies, facilities, and procedures
specifically to protect LGBTQA+ rights and promote inclusion. However, the schools also
varied in their progressive realization of LGBTQA+ youth protections, including name
change and privacy policies, gender-neutral restrooms and private accommodations, and
sexual health education, established in California state law. Speaking with young LGBTQA+
student advocates revealed not only the factors that shape their advocacy but also their
appraisals of the availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality of school efforts to
protect LGBTQA+ youth rights. Dissertation findings highlight the value of student voice and

154
perspective in assessing the utility and best practices to protect their own rights, thus
underlining the importance of incorporating students in decision-making. Efforts to
incorporate youth in decision-making must be accompanied by school and district effects
to prevent and respond to anti-LGBTQA+ hostility and backlash to civic expression. As
LGBTQA+ youth rights and rights to civic expression in the United States are contested,
schools and districts hold key roles in promoting youth civic development and coordinating
multilevel efforts to implementing LGBTQA+ protections in school.

155
Bibliography
Abreu, R. L., & Kenny, M. C. (2018). Cyberbullying and LGBTQ youth: A systematic literature
review and recommendations for prevention and intervention. Journal of Child &
Adolescent Trauma, 11(1), 81-97.
Abreu, R. L., Lefevor, G. T., Gonzalez, K. A., Barrita, A. M., & Watson, R. J. (2023). Bullying,
depression, and parental acceptance in a sample of Latinx sexual and gender
minority youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 20(3), 585-602.
Aldousari, A., Alghamdi, A., & Alwadei, H. (2021). The 1991 Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) standards for accessible design. American Research Journal of Humanities
Social Science, 4(1), 59-62.
American Library Association. (2016). Library Bill of Rights.
Barbeauld, P. H. (2014). Don't Say Gay Bills and the Movement to Keep Discussion of LGBT
Issues out of Schools. JL & Educ., 43, 137.
Blume, H. (2024, April 15, 2024). Transgender rights vs. parent rights. California goes to
court to settle school divide. Los Angeles Times.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-15/california-goes-to-courtover-transgender-student-rights-vs-parent-rights
Bouris, A., Guilamo-Ramos, V., Pickard, A., Shiu, C., Loosier, P. S., Dittus, P.,…Waldmiller, J.
M. (2010). A systematic review of parental influences on the health and well-being of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: Time for a new public health research and practice
agenda. The journal of primary prevention, 31(5-6), 273-309.
Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. J. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school:
Examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of education policy,
25(4), 547-560.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T.
Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA Handbook of research methods in
psychology, Vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological,
and biological (pp. 550712). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
California Department of Education. (2024a). California School Directory.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/schooldirectory/
California Department of Education. (2024b). Frequently Asked Questions: School Success
and Opportunity Act (Assembly Bill 1266). https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/di/eo/faqs.asp
California Healthy Youth Act, Cal. Education Code § 51930 et seq. (2016).

156
Carey, R. L., Akiva, T., Abdellatif, H., & Daughtry, K. A. (2021). ‘And school won’t teach me
that!’Urban youth activism programs as transformative sites for critical adolescent
learning. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(7), 941-960.
Castillo, D. M., Barbero, J. A. J., Bravo, M. d. M. P., Muñoz, M. S., Espín, M. E. F., & Arenas, J.
J. G. (2020). School Victimization in Transgender People: A Systematic Review.
Children and Youth Services Review, 105480.
Chen, D. W. (2021). Transgender Athletes Face Bans From Girls' Sports in 10 US States. The
New York Times. https://www. nytimes. com/article/transgender-athlete-ban. html.
Published October, 28.
Craig, S. L., McInroy, L. B., Eaton, A. D., Iacono, G., Leung, V. W., Austin, A., & Dobinson, C.
(2019). An affirmative coping skills intervention to improve the mental and sexual
health of sexual and gender minority youth (Project Youth AFFIRM): protocol for an
implementation study. JMIR research protocols, 8(6), e13462.
CSBA. (2014). Final Guidance: AB 1266, Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students,
Privacy, Programs, Activities & Facilities. In: California School Boards Association.
Cyrus, K. (2017). Multiple minorities as multiply marginalized: Applying the minority stress
theory to LGBTQ people of color. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 21(3), 194-
202.
Day, J. K., Fish, J. N., Grossman, A. H., & Russell, S. T. (2020). Gay‐straight alliances,
inclusive policy, and school climate: LGBTQ youths’ experiences of social support
and bullying. Journal of research on adolescence, 30, 418-430.
Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth:
Addressing educational inequities through inclusive policies and practices. Journal
of school psychology, 74, 29-43.
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(8), 1731-1742.
DeBlaere, C., Brewster, M. E., Bertsch, K. N., DeCarlo, A. L., Kegel, K. A., & Presseau, C. D.
(2014). The protective power of collective action for sexual minority women of color:
An investigation of multiple discrimination experiences and psychological distress.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 20-32.
Demissie, Z., Rasberry, C. N., Steiner, R. J., Brener, N., & McManus, T. (2018). Trends in
secondary schools’ practices to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
questioning students, 2008–2014. American Journal of Public Health, 108(4), 557-
564.

157
Diemer, M. A., & Li, C. H. (2011). Critical consciousness development and political
participation among marginalized youth. Child development, 82(6), 1815-1833.
Doyle, D. M. (2022). Transgender identity: Development, management and affirmation.
Current opinion in Psychology, 48, 101467.
Duncan, D. T., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Johnson, R. M. (2014). Neighborhood-level LGBT
hate crimes and current illicit drug use among sexual minority youth. Drug and
alcohol dependence, 135, 65-70.
Ebneyamini, S., & Sadeghi Moghadam, M. R. (2018). Toward developing a framework for
conducting case study research. International journal of qualitative methods, 17(1),
1609406918817954.
Eckes, S. E. (2017). The restroom and locker room wars: Where to pee or not to pee. Journal
of LGBT youth, 14(3), 247-265.
Ehrensaft, D. (2013). Look, mom, I’ma boy—Don't tell anyone I was a girl. Journal of LGBT
Youth, 10(1-2), 9-28.
Equal Restroom Access Act, Cal. Health and Safety Code § 118600 (2016).
Evans, I., & Rawlings, V. (2021). “It was Just One Less Thing that I Had to Worry about”:
Positive Experiences of Schooling for Gender Diverse and Transgender Students.
Journal of Homosexuality, 68(9), 1489-1508.
Friedman, J., & Johnson, N. (2022). Banned in the USA: Rising school book bans threaten
free expression and students’ first amendment rights. PEN America, 8.
Frost, D. M., Fine, M., Torre, M. E., & Cabana, A. (2019). Minority stress, activism, and health
in the context of economic precarity: Results from a national participatory action
survey of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and gender non‐conforming
youth. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3-4), 511-526.
Fulginiti, A., Goldbach, J. T., Mamey, M. R., Rusow, J., Srivastava, A., Rhoades,
H.,…Marshal, M. P. (2020). Integrating minority stress theory and the interpersonal
theory of suicide among sexual minority youth who engage crisis services. Suicide
and Life‐Threatening Behavior, 50(3), 601-616.
Gilreath, T. D., Astor, R. A., Estrada, J. N., Benbenishty, R., & Unger, J. B. (2014). School
victimization and substance use among adolescents in California. Prevention
Science, 15(6), 897-906.
Ginwright, S., & Cammarota, J. (2002). New terrain in youth development: The promise of a
social justice approach. Social justice, 29(4 (90), 82-95.

158
Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice,
organizing, and youth development. New directions for youth development,
2002(96), 27-46.
Ginwright, S. A. (2010). Peace out to revolution! Activism among African American youth:
An argument for radical healing. Young, 18(1), 77-96.
Goldbach, J. T., & Gibbs, J. J. (2017). A developmentally informed adaptation of minority
stress for sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 55, 36-50.
Goldbach, J. T., Rhoades, H., Rusow, J., & Karys, P. (2021). The development of Proud &
Empowered: An intervention for promoting LGBTQ adolescent mental health. Child
Psychiatry & Human Development, 1-12.
Goldbach, J. T., Tanner-Smith, E. E., Bagwell, M., & Dunlap, S. (2014). Minority stress and
substance use in sexual minority adolescents: A meta-analysis. Prevention Science,
15(3), 350-363.
Greey, A. D. (2023). ‘It’s just safer when I don’t go there’: Trans people’s locker room
membership and participation in physical activity. Journal of homosexuality, 70(8),
1609-1631.
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(1-2), 45-63.
Grossman, A. H., Haney, A. P., Edwards, P., Alessi, E. J., Ardon, M., & Howell, T. J. (2009).
Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth talk about experiencing and coping
with school violence: A qualitative study. Journal of LGBT Youth, 6(1), 24-46.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & Keyes, K. M. (2013). Inclusive anti-bullying policies and reduced
risk of suicide attempts in lesbian and gay youth. Journal of Adolescent Health,
53(1), S21-S26.
Hatzenbuehler, M. L., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2014). Structural stigma and hypothalamic–
pituitary–adrenocortical axis reactivity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 47(1), 39-47.
Hershberg, R. M., Johnson, S. K., DeSouza, L. M., Hunter, C. J., & Zaff, J. (2015). Promoting
contribution among youth: Implications from positive youth development research
for youth development programs. In Promoting positive youth development (pp. 211-
228). Springer.
Howlett, M. (2019). Moving policy implementation theory forward: A multiple
streams/critical juncture approach. Public policy and administration, 34(4), 405-
430.

159
ICJ. (2007). Yogyakarta Principles - Principles on the application of international human
rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. In: International
Commission of Jurists.
Jarpe-Ratner, E., Marshall, B., Choudry, M., Wishart, M., Reid, B., Perez, E., & Fagen, M.
(2022). Strategies to support LGBTQ+ students in high schools: What did we learn in
Chicago Public Schools? Health Promotion Practice, 23(4), 686-698.
Johns, M. M., Lowry, R., Andrzejewski, J., Barrios, L. C., Demissie, Z., McManus,
T.,…Underwood, J. M. (2019). Transgender identity and experiences of violence
victimization, substance use, suicide risk, and sexual risk behaviors among high
school students—19 states and large urban school districts, 2017. Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, 68(3), 67.
Johns, M. M., Poteat, V. P., Horn, S. S., & Kosciw, J. (2019). Strengthening our schools to
promote resilience and health among LGBTQ youth: Emerging evidence and
research priorities from the state of LGBTQ youth health and wellbeing symposium.
LGBT health, 6(4), 146-155.
Jones, J. M. (2022). LGBT identification in US ticks up to 7.1%. Gallup News, 17.
Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., & Menard, L. (2022). The 2021 National School Climate Survey:
The Experiences of LGBTQ+ Youth in Our Nation's Schools. A Report from GLSEN.
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).
Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Zongrone, A. D. (2020). The 2019 National School
Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer
Youth in Our Nation's Schools. A Report from GLSEN. ERIC.
Kralik, J. (2016). School bathroom access for transgender students. NCSL legisbrief, 24(26),
1-2.
Kuklin, S. (2014). Beyond Magenta: Transgender and Nonbinary Teens Speak Out.
Candlewick Press.
Laub, C., & Burdge, H. (2016). The use of research in policy and advocacy for creating safe
schools for LGBT students. Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Schooling: The
Nexus of Research, Practice, and Policy, 310-329.
Leonardi, B., & Staley, S. (2020). What’s involved in ‘the work’?: Understanding
administrators’ roles in bringing trans-affirming policies into practice. In
Investigating Transgender and Gender Expansive Education Research, Policy and
Practice (pp. 68-87). Routledge.
Lerner, R. M. (2004). Liberty: Thriving and civic engagement among America's youth. Sage.

160
Leung, E., Kassel-Gomez, G., Sullivan, S., Murahara, F., & Flanagan, T. (2022). Social
support in schools and related outcomes for LGBTQ youth: A scoping review.
Discover education, 1(1), 18.
Liang, Y., Rees, D. I., Sabia, J. J., & Smiley, C. (2023). Association between state antibullying
policies and suicidal behaviors among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning
youth. JAMA pediatrics, 177(5), 534-536.
Link, B., & Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2016). Stigma as an unrecognized determinant of
population health: Research and policy implications. Journal of health politics,
policy and law, 41(4), 653-673.
Lugg, C., & Murphy, J. (2016). The shifting political winds: LGBTQ students, educational
policy and politics, and the dilemmas confronting street level bureaucrats. Sexual
orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The nexus of research, practice, and
policy, 238-254.
Marx, R. A., & Kettrey, H. H. (2016). Gay-straight alliances are associated with lower levels
of school-based victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(7), 1269-1282.
Mayberry, M. (2013). Gay-straight alliances: Youth empowerment and working toward
reducing stigma of LGBT youth. Humanity & Society, 37(1), 35-54.
Maynard-Moody, S. W., & Musheno, M. C. (2022). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from
the front lines of public service. University of Michigan Press.
Mayo, C. (2022). LGBTQ youth and education: Policies and practices. Teachers College
Press.
McBride, R.-S. (2021). A literature review of the secondary school experiences of trans
youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 18(2), 103-134.
McConnell, E. A., Birkett, M., & Mustanski, B. (2016). Families matter: Social support and
mental health trajectories among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 59(6), 674-680.
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(10), 1175-1188.
Meyer, E. J., & Keenan, H. (2020). Can policies help schools affirm gender diversity?: A
policy archaeology of transgender-inclusive policies in California schools. In
Investigating Transgender and Gender Expansive Education Research, Policy and
Practice (pp. 50-67). Routledge.

161
Meyer, E. J., Leonardi, B., & Keenan, H. B. (2022). Transgender Students and Policy in K-12
Public Schools: Acknowledging Historical Harms and Taking Steps toward a
Promising Future. National Education Policy Center.
Meyer, E. J., Taylor, C., & Peter, T. (2015). Perspectives on gender and sexual diversity (GSD)-
inclusive education: Comparisons between gay/lesbian/bisexual and straight
educators. Sex Education, 15(3), 221-234.
Moradi, B., DeBlaere, C., & Huang, Y.-P. (2010). Centralizing the experiences of LGB people
of color in counseling psychology 1Ψ7. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(3), 322-
330.
Morgan, E. M. (2013). Contemporary issues in sexual orientation and identity development
in emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 52-66.
Movement Advancement Project. (2023). Forced outing of transgender youth in schools. In:
Movement Advancement Project.
Norris, A. L., & Orchowski, L. M. (2020). Peer victimization of sexual minority and
transgender youth: A cross-sectional study of high school students. Psychology of
violence, 10(2), 201.
O'Brien, R. P., Rhoades, H., Cabrera, J. R., Parra, L. A., Rusow, J. A., Schrager, S. M., &
Goldbach, J. T. (2024). Associations between state legislative activity, minority
stress, and suicide attempt among sexual minority adolescents. In: Annals of
LGBTQ Public and Population Health.
Olson, K. R., & Gülgöz, S. (2018). Early findings from the transyouth project: Gender
development in transgender children. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 93-
97.
Our Family Coalition. (2024). The History of the FAIR Education Act.
https://lgbtqhistory.org/fair-ed-history/
O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and
practical guidelines. International journal of qualitative methods, 19,
1609406919899220.
Palmer, N. A., & Greytak, E. A. (2017). LGBTQ student victimization and its relationship to
school discipline and justice system involvement. Criminal justice review, 42(2),
163-187.
Pampati, S., Andrzejewski, J., Sheremenko, G., Johns, M., Lesesne, C. A., & Rasberry, C. N.
(2020). School climate among transgender high school students: An exploration of
school connectedness, perceived safety, bullying, and absenteeism. The Journal of
School Nursing, 36(4), 293-303.

162
Parks, G. (2023). California Department of Public Health: It has missed opportunities to
collect and report sexual orientation and gender identity data. In: California State
Auditor.
Perez, L. G., & Johnson, J. F. (2008). California continuation high schools: A descriptive
study. Retrieved July, 12, 2009.
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. Journal of the
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(9), 739-746.
Porta, C. M., Gower, A. L., Mehus, C. J., Yu, X., Saewyc, E. M., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2017).
“Kicked out”: LGBTQ youths' bathroom experiences and preferences. Journal of
Adolescence, 56, 107-112.
Poteat, V. P., Calzo, J. P., & Yoshikawa, H. (2018). Gay-Straight Alliance involvement and
youths' participation in civic engagement, advocacy, and awareness-raising. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 13-20.
Poteat, V. P., O’Brien, M. D., Yang, M. K., Rosenbach, S. B., & Lipkin, A. (2022). Youth
advocacy varies in relation to adult advisor characteristics and practices in gendersexuality alliances. Applied developmental science, 26(3), 460-470.
Poteat, V. P., Yoshikawa, H., Calzo, J. P., Gray, M. L., DiGiovanni, C. D., Lipkin, A.,…Shaw, M.
P. (2015). Contextualizing Gay‐Straight Alliances: Student, advisor, and structural
factors related to positive youth development among members. Child development,
86(1), 176-193.
Rabasco, A., & Andover, M. (2020). The Influence of State Policies on the Relationship
Between Minority Stressors and Suicide Attempts Among Transgender and GenderDiverse Adults. LGBT health, 7(8), 457-460.
Reisner, S. L., Greytak, E. A., Parsons, J. T., & Ybarra, M. L. (2015). Gender minority social
stress in adolescence: disparities in adolescent bullying and substance use by
gender identity. The Journal of Sex Research, 52(3), 243-256.
Russell, S. T., & Horn, S. S. (2016). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The
nexus of research, practice, and policy. 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(7), 891-
903.

163
Russell, S. T., Pollitt, A. M., Li, G., & Grossman, A. H. (2018). Chosen name use is linked to
reduced depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, and suicidal behavior among
transgender youth. Journal of adolescent Health, 63(4), 503-505.
Saewyc, E. M., Li, G., Gower, A. L., Watson, R. J., Erickson, D., Corliss, H. L., & Eisenberg, M.
E. (2020). The link between LGBTQ-supportive communities, progressive political
climate, and suicidality among sexual minority adolescents in Canada. Preventive
medicine, 139, 106191.
Safe Place to Learn Act, Cal. Education Code § 234 (2016).
Santos, C. E., & VanDaalen, R. A. (2018). Associations among psychological distress, highrisk activism, and conflict between ethnic-racial and sexual minority identities in
lesbian, gay, bisexual racial/ethnic minority adults. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 65(2), 194.
School Facilities: All Gender Restrooms Act, Cal. Education Code § 35292.5 (2023).
School Success and Opportunity Act, Cal. Education Code § 221.5 (2013).
Serrano, U., Lin, M., Ebrahimi, J., Orellana, J., Paniagua, R., & Terriquez, V. (2021). In
millennial footsteps: California social movement organizations for generation Z.
Sociological Perspectives, 07311214211010565.
Seth's Law, Cal. Education Code § 234 et seq. (2010).
Shattuck, D. G., Rasberry, C. N., Willging, C. E., & Ramos, M. M. (2022). Positive Trends in
School-Based Practices to Support LGBTQ Youth in the United States Between 2010
and 2018. Journal of Adolescent Health, 70(5), 810-816.
Shaw, A., Brady, B., McGrath, B., Brennan, M. A., & Dolan, P. (2014). Understanding youth
civic engagement: debates, discourses, and lessons from practice. Community
Development, 45(4), 300-316.
Snapp, S. D., Day, J. K., & Russell, S. T. (2022). School Pushout: The Role of Supportive
Strategies Versus Punitive Practices for LGBT Youth of Color. Journal of Research on
Adolescence.
Snapp, S. D., McGuire, J. K., Sinclair, K. O., Gabrion, K., & Russell, S. T. (2015). LGBTQinclusive curricula: Why supportive curricula matter. Sex Education, 15(6), 580-596.
Steck, A. K., & Perry, D. (2018). Challenging heteronormativity: Creating a safe and inclusive
environment for LGBTQ students. Journal of school violence, 17(2), 227-243.
Terriquez, V. (2015). Training young activists: Grassroots organizing and youths’ civic and
political trajectories. Sociological perspectives, 58(2), 223-242.

164
Testa, R. J., Habarth, J., Peta, J., Balsam, K., & Bockting, W. (2015). Development of the
gender minority stress and resilience measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation
and Gender Diversity, 2(1), 65.
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of educational research, 83(3), 357-385.
The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act, Cal. Education Code § 51500
(2011).
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.
Vance, S. R. (2018). The importance of getting the name right for transgender and other
gender expansive youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 63(4), 379-380.
Viennet, R., & Pont, B. (2017). Education policy implementation: A literature review and
proposed framework.
Wagaman, A. M. (2016). Promoting empowerment among LGBTQ youth: A social justice
youth development approach. Child and adolescent social work journal, 33(5), 395-
405.
Wagaman, M. A., Watts, K. J., Lamneck, V., D'Souza, S. A., McInroy, L. B., Eaton, A. D., &
Craig, S. (2020). Managing stressors online and offline: LGBTQ+ Youth in the
Southern United States. Children and Youth Services Review, 110, 104799.
Wamsley, L. (2022, October 21, 2022). What's in the so-called Don't Say Gay bill that could
impact the whole country. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/21/1130297123/national-dont-say-gay-stop-childrensexualization-bill
Warbelow, S., Oakley, C., Avant, C., & Pham, B. (2023). 2023 State Equality Index. In:
Human Rights Campaign.
Watson, L. B., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Graybill, E. C. (2010). Gay–straight alliance advisors:
Negotiating multiple ecological systems when advocating for LGBTQ youth. Journal
of LGBT Youth, 7(2), 100-128.
Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., & Chin, M. (2017). Gender identity disparities in bathroom safety
and wellbeing among high school students. Journal of youth and adolescence,
46(5), 917-930.

165
Wilson, B. D., Gomez, A.-G., Sadat, M., Choi, S. K., & Badgett, M. (2020). Pathways into
poverty: Lived experiences among LGBTQ people.
Yarbrough, B. (2023). LGBTQ students on new school rules: 'It's clear our lives aren't
important'. San Bernardino Sun. https://www.sbsun.com/2023/08/28/southerncalifornia-lgbtq-students-say-new-rules-endanger-their-safety/
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods (Sixth ed.).
SAGE Publications, Inc.

166
Appendices
Appendix A: California LGBTQA+ Education Policies
Seth’s Law, Adopted 2010
Seth’s law requires that schools adopt robust anti-bullying policies, those antibullying policies include protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression, the policies specify complaint procedures, and the policies are
published in all schools and offices (Seth’s Law, 2010).
Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education (FAIR) Act, Adopted 2011
The FAIR Act requires that public education in California history and social studies
curriculum be inclusive of the histories and contributions of people who are LGBTQA+,
people of color, women, and other groups (The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful
Education Act, 2011). New curricular frameworks were developed in the following years
and the State Board of Education approved these LGBTQA+-inclusive history and social
studies frameworks in 2017 (Our Family Coalition, 2024)
California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA), Adopted 2016
CHYA requires that California public high schools provide comprehensive sexual
health education, that the curriculum be “appropriate for use with pupils of all races,
genders, sexual orientations, and ethnic and cultural backgrounds, pupils with disabilities,
and English learners,” and that the curriculum affirmatively teach about sexual
orientations, and gender identity/expression and gender stereotypes (California Healthy
Youth Act, 2016). CHYA requires that comprehensive sexual health education include
information on:

167
a) HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STI) information, including prevention,
treatment, social stigma, and stereotypes;
b) benefits of abstinence and delaying sexual activity for STI and pregnancy prevention;
c) local resources, including medical and legal supports for assistance with sexual and
reproductive health care and sexual and intimate partner violence response;
d) pregnancy prevention and contraceptives, parenting, adoption, abortion, and
surrender laws, and prenatal care;
e) violence prevention and information, including on sexual harassment, sexual
assault, sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, and human trafficking.
The CHYA requires that this curriculum be delivered at least once in middle school and at
least once in high school and the text of the law broadly refers to curriculum and events,
but does not set requirements for minimum duration (e.g. number of hours of instruction)
of the curriculum ("California Healthy Youth Act, California Education Code § 51930-
51939,").
School Success and Opportunity Act (SSOA), Adopted 2013:
The SSOA establishes California student’s rights to participate in sex-segregated
school activities (e.g., sports) and use facilities (e.g. restrooms and locker rooms)
consistent with their gender identity and regardless of the gender listed on official records
(School Success and Opportunity Act, 2013). The SSOA also requires that schools publish
this policy on an annual basis for parent and student access. The California School Board
Association published guidelines for implementation of the SSOA, further specifying that
under this law, school districts should respond to student requests by providing private

168
restroom and locker room options, ensuring that staff use transgender and nonbinary
student’s names and pronouns, and preparing data systems to list student’s names and
pronouns (CSBA, 2014).
Equal Restroom Access Act (ERAA), Adopted 2016:
The ERAA requires that all single-user toilet facilities in California businesses, public
accommodations, or state or local agencies be designated as “all-gender” facilities (Equal
Restroom Access Act, 2016).
Senate Bill 760 (Newman), School facilities: all gender restrooms, adopted 2023
New legislation adopted between the first and second year of this study sets
requirements that, by July 1, 2026, California public and private schools must provide
students with access to at least one all-gender restroom that:
a) has appropriate all-gender signage;
b) is “unlocked, unobstructed, easily accessible by any pupil, and consistent with
existing pupil access to sex-segregated restrooms” (School Facilities: All Gender
Restrooms Act, 2023);
c) is open during school hours and functions; and
d) has a designated staff member responsible for implementing this restroom policy.
The new law also requires that schools post information about the requirements of this law
“in a prominent and conspicuous location outside at least one all-gender restroom”
(School Facilities: All Gender Restrooms Act, 2023).
Finally, and substantially, the policy requires that all future modernization project
proposals by school districts, county boards of education, and charter schools must

169
include all-gender restrooms and that the California Constitution “requires the state to
reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state”
(School Facilities: All Gender Restrooms Act, 2023).

170
Appendix B: Campus Observation Note-Taking Sheet
Campus Observation
High School:
Date and Time:
Observers:
Guides:
Instructions:
For each item, mark Yes, No, or CD (“Could not determine”). After marking Y/N/CD, add
written details to contextualize the data in place and from the student’s perspective (or as
close as we can attempt to approximate it, e.g., “policy posted in front admin office, clearly
visible.”
For each item, write a number and then take a picture of what you have observed. Photos
will be used to verify observations and conduct follow up observations on campuses in
Year 2.
Gender Neutral Restrooms and/or Private Restroom Accommodations
Y/N/CD Notes
Single stalls all gender neutral
Available on campus (#)
Centrally located
How far is gender neutral
restroom from furthest away
classroom? (Record Walk
Time)
How far is gender neutral
restroom from gendered
restrooms? (Record Walk
Time)
Is a key needed to access?
No special staff permission
needed (e.g. not in nurse’s
office)
Location doesn’t draw
attention to users (e.g.
inconspicuous)
Accessibility (ADA)
- Size door (~42inch)
- Size around toilet (~60 inch)
- Grab bars
- Size under sink (~32 inch)

171
- Clearance space (~60 inch)
General notes on restrooms:
Gender Neutral and/or Private Locker Accommodations
General description: is it a
separate locker, a room with
divider, teacher’s office, etc?
Distance from gendered
lockers (walk time)
Distance from gym/rec
facilities (walk time)
Unlocked
No staff permission needed
Location doesn’t draw
attention to users (e.g.
inconspicuous)
Accessibility (ADA)
- Size door (42inch)
- Grab bars
- Clearance space (60 inch)
Lockers notes:
Gender & Sexuality Alliance
Has a regular meeting space
Space is a regular classroom
LGBTQ signage visible
Privacy possible (e.g. window
blinds, recessed classroom)
GSA notes:
Campus Offices
LGBTQ signage visible
Anti-bullying policy visibly
posted
Anti-bullying complaint
procedure visibly posted
Title IX policy visibly posted

172
Title IX complaint procedure
visibly posted
Campus Office/Policy Signage notes:
General Campus/Hallways/Common Areas
LGBTQ flags visible
LGBTQ events/groups
advertised
Safe Space Zone stickers
visible
Antibullying policy & complaint
procedure posted
Title IX policy & complaint
procedure posted
General campus notes:
Additions to Fall 2023 Observations:
Wellness Center
School has wellness center
LGBTQ signage visible
General wellness center notes:
Library
LGBTQ signage visible
General library notes:

173
Appendix C: Focus Group Discussion Guide
What projects did you choose to pursue as part of the Make Space program?
What strategies did you use to pursue those priorities?
What things are in place at your school that helps you to engage in advocacy?
Have there been things that make it easier to engage in advocacy at your school?
Have there been things that make it harder to engage in advocacy at your school?
Have other students outside of the Make Space group made it easier or harder for you to
engage in advocacy?
Have other teachers made it easier or harder for you to engage in advocacy?
Have administrators made it easier or harder for you to engage in advocacy?
Have parents and other community members made it easier or harder for you to engage in
advocacy?
What are some issues that have come up that you have had to work through as a group?
What did you do to overcome these issues?
Have any cultural issues, such as cultural differences in your group or between your group
and the rest of school, shaped your experience of engaging in advocacy?
How do you think the goals you chose to pursue in Make Space shaped your experience of
advocacy?
How would you describe the impact that you’ve had on your school through your
advocacy?
What do you hope are the long-term effects of your efforts on your school?
How do you think you’ve changed through participating in this program?

174
What ideas, values, or feelings do you believe you will carry away from this
experience into the future?
If you were to do this again, what would you do differently?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Introduction. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and asexual (LGBTQA+) youth experience unique stressors that help explain for health disparities burdening this population, and schools are key sites for prevention. California law protects LGBTQA+ students from violence and discrimination and establishes their rights to privacy, to use facilities and participate in activities according to their gender identities, and have their communities represented in curriculum. However, the extent of, facilitators, and barriers to local adoption and implementation of these legal protections remain largely unknown.

Methods. Case studies of 10 public high schools in Los Angeles County focused on school adoption and implementation of LGBTQA+-protective policies, student activist efforts to improve school climate, and school policy change over time. Schools participating in a larger randomized controlled trial of the efficacy of the Proud & Empowered and Make Space interventions were invited to participate in policy scans and student focus groups. Policy scans included document collection, campus observations, and member checks used to characterize school policies, facilities, and procedures. These policy scans were repeated a year later in six schools to track change in school policies, facilities, and procedures over time. Policies of interest in this study included non-discrimination, anti-bullying, and violence prevention; name change and privacy procedures; comprehensive sexual health education; and facility access and private accommodations. Focus group discussions (FGDs) with student activists in intervention schools (n=3) highlighted school- and student-level barriers to student civic engagement, and student efforts to change school climate. Policy scans were co-coded and extracted into a structured data matrix to allow for comparison across years, schools, districts, and treatment conditions to learn how school LGBTQA+-protective policies, facilities, and procedures differ between schools and change over time. FGD transcripts were thematically analyzed to explore factors that shape student advocacy.

Findings. Study findings indicate variability in school policies on name changes, accessibility of gender-neutral restrooms and private accommodations, and sexual health education. While some schools had established policies and student-led procedures to accept student asserted names and pronouns and protect student privacy, other schools lacked formal policies, exhibited inconsistencies and contradictions in staff procedures, and faced notable data systems barriers to enacting name changes. All schools had at least one gender-neutral restroom on campus, but only some schools provided more than one gender-neutral restroom and in most schools, these restrooms were locked and/or required staff permission for use. Schools also varied in their adoption and implementation of comprehensive sexual health education and LGBTQA+ visibility on campus. Focus group participants identified notable barriers to their advocacy, including logistical issues like time and scheduling, the demands of schoolwork, and anti-LGBTQA+ climate (slurs, misgendering, and backlash to advocacy). Students also noted that supportive staff facilitate student activism, but that staffing issues like turnover, retirement, illness, and teacher discrimination hamper staff capacity to provide support. Finally, assessments of school policy and facility change over time indicate that substantial and rapid school policy and facility change can occur when multiple actors, including students, school staff, and district personnel, work toward common goals.

Discussion and Implications. California schools are required to accept student asserted gender identities and protect student privacy, provide accessible gender-neutral facilities and private accommodations, and deliver comprehensive sexual health education. However, local implementation of these state laws in this sample of 10 public high schools in Los Angeles County remains highly variable. Schools may accomplish notable and rapid change to improve implementation of these protections when they encourage student, staff, and district engagement and coordination. Study results lend support to multilevel interventions that facilitate common pursuit by multiple student, school, and district actors and, especially, that encourage student civic development and address barriers to student advocacy, such as fears of hostile response to civic action by peers, teachers, and family members. Study findings have been returned to respective school liaisons to inform local improvements. Policymakers should audit statewide implementation of these laws and provide training and technical assistance to school districts, especially on name changes, restrooms, and private accommodations. Educators should look to practical examples in this dissertation to guide their efforts to protect student privacy and access to education, such as in publication of student rights and facilities in handbooks and encouragement of student engagement in social change.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A mixed-methods examination of transgender and gender nonbinary students’schooling experiences: implications for developing affirmative schools

PDF

Impact of positive student–staff relationships and the social–emotional outcomes of Black high school students classified with an emotional disability

PDF

Social Determinants of Health: working with social workers and social work managers to build capacity to screen and refer in the medical setting

PDF

Integrative care strategies for older adults experiencing co-occurring substance use and mental health disorders (I-CARE)…

PDF

Inclusive gender practices in high schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

Commercial sexual exploitation of children: the impact of awareness education in the Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias research communication practices with minoritized racial and ethnic groups: a multiple case study

PDF

Acculturation team-based clinical program: pilot program to address acculturative stress and mental health in the Latino community

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K–12 school district

PDF

Navigating political polarization: a group case study of community engagement in the adoption of intersectional ethnic studies in a Southern California K-12 school district

PDF

Adoption of virtual healthcare, self-sufficient wages and paid neighbors concept will ensure optimal living for vulnerable people and their paid caregivers

PDF

Healing parent application for parents who have experienced trauma

PDF

A case study of technology-embedded instruction: a student-centered approach to enhance teaching and learning in a K-12 school

Asset Metadata

Creator O'Brien, Rory Patrick (author)

Core Title A multiple comparison case study of Los Angeles Public High Schools: LGBTQA+ policies and facilities, student advocacy, and change in policies and facilities over time

School Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Social Work

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 06/25/2024

Defense Date 06/11/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag civic engagement,implementation,LGBTQ,OAI-PMH Harvest,policy

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Blosnich, John R. (committee chair), Cederbaum, Julie A. (committee member), Ferguson, Laura (committee member)

Creator Email obrien.rory.p@gmail.com,rpobrien@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139970GI

Unique identifier UC1139970GI

Identifier etd-OBrienRory-13141.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-OBrienRory-13141

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights O'Brien, Rory Patrick

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240625-usctheses-batch-1173 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu