University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Considering queerness: examining school policies and their influence on inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ secondary students

(USC Thesis Other)

Considering queerness: examining school policies and their influence on inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ secondary students

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Considering Queerness: Examining School Policies and Their Influence on Inclusivity and
Safety for LGBTQ+ Secondary Students
Daryl Manese
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Daryl Manese 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Daryl Manese certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Ekaterina Moore
Cathy Krop, Committee Co-chair
Marsha Riggio, Committee Co-chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
The following study utilized queer theory as the foundation of a conceptual framework which
analyzes school-wide and individual classroom policies with the central focus on inclusive and
safe school environments for LGBTQ+ students. The purpose of this study was to critically
examine the perspectives of LGBTQ+ students on how anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral
policies influence their sense of inclusivity and safety in a secondary school setting. Qualitative
data was gathered from interviews of 10 LGBTQ+ students, as well as document analysis of
student handbooks and classroom syllabi. Analysis of the data utilized a-priori coding via a
template coding system and emergent coding via open and axial coding systems in order to
identify common themes, keywords, or phrases. Findings from this study indicated that while
LGBTQ+ students felt valued, seen, and heard by their teachers and peers, there was still limited
allyship from teachers, a lack of enumerated policies for LGBTQ+ students, and noticeable
absences of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and resources. With that, this study provided a list of
recommendations in order to make the school and classroom environments more inclusive and
safe for LGBTQ+ students while also establishing a foundation for future research on inclusivity
for teachers and parents, alignment of policies at all levels, and the influence of mental health on
academic success of LGBTQ+ students.

v
Acknowledgements
While this doctoral program spanned a course of 3 years, the work that has gone into
researching, writing, and living the contents of this dissertation stems from my first year as an
openly gay teacher in 2015. Throughout my years of teaching, I have encountered many
challenges attempting to provide equitable representation and a more meaningful space for
LGBTQ+ students. With that being said, I am grateful for this opportunity provided by the
University of Southern California that has enabled me to dive deeper into my work as an
LGBTQ+ educator. Specifically, I would like to the following:
To my professors: I would like to extend my sincere thanks for your dedication to
creating a future built on equity and social justice. With each semester, I had the privilege of
learning from each of you as you shared your expertise and wisdom. Your hard work does not go
unnoticed and I am thankful for the opportunity to work with you.
To my cohort: In full transparency, I would not have completed this journey without the
undying support of my fellow Trojans who I am honored to also call my friends. Thank you
specifically to Katie, Joanne, Alia, Maurissa, and Shannon for all the encouraging messages,
times of laughter, moments of commiseration, and the chance to be one of the cool kids.
To my students: You are the true heart of this study and I am thankful for this opportunity
to learn from you. All of you continue to amaze me each and every day with your perseverance,
ambition, and resilience. I promise I will keep working to make this world a better place for you.
To my friends and family: I am extremely grateful for this network of amazing people
who have encouraged me to pursue my doctorate. Words cannot express my gratitude as you
patiently and understandingly allowed me to miss birthdays, anniversaries, and every Wednesday
night get together for the past 3 years–we have a lot of catching up to do. More importantly, I

vi
would like to thank my partner, Anthony, for standing by my side through the thickest and
thinnest of times. Your patience and love are never ending, even when I drive you insane. You
make my world so much better.
To my LGBTQ+ community: Lastly, I would like to express my absolute deepest
gratitude to the greater LGBTQ+ community—past, present, and future. Thank you for
embracing who I am and allowing me to tell this small portion of your history. Thank you for
your sacrifices, your pride, and your solidarity as you paved the way for someone like me. Rest
assured that my work is not over.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem.................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 4
Context of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................. 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 9
A Historical Perspective of LGBTQ+ Inclusive Classroom Policies................................. 9
Queer Theory .................................................................................................................... 12
The Influence of Schoolwide Policies on Establishing Inclusive and Safe
Environments.................................................................................................................... 16
Schools as an Inclusive Environment ............................................................................... 20
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 24
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 27
Positionality of the Researcher ......................................................................................... 27
Research Setting................................................................................................................ 28
Student Participants and Documents ................................................................................ 29
Methodology for Data Collection ..................................................................................... 29
Methodology for Data Analysis........................................................................................ 30

viii
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 33
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 34
Limitations and Delimitations........................................................................................... 35
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 37
Theme 1: Creating Opportunities for LGBTQ+ Students to Share Their Valued
Perspectives....................................................................................................................... 38
Theme 2: The Growing Need for Adult Allyship on School Campus.............................. 41
Theme 3: Understanding and Protecting LGBTQ+ Student Identity ............................... 43
Theme 4: General Protections for LGBTQ+ Students...................................................... 48
Theme 5: Concern for the Future Well-Being of LGBTQ+ Students .............................. 51
Theme 6: Lack of Representation of LGBTQ+ Students in Classroom Curriculum
and Campus Resources..................................................................................................... 54
Summary........................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion......................................................................... 59
Discussion of Findings...................................................................................................... 59
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 63
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 67
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 69
References..................................................................................................................................... 72
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................... 78
Student Friendly Introduction........................................................................................... 78
Participant Consent Form ................................................................................................. 85

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Coding Protocol for Student Interviews 32
Table 2: Coding Protocol for Document Analysis 33
Table 3: Interview Participant Profiles 37
Table 4: Theme 1: List of Relevant Participant Quote 40
Table 5: Theme 2: List of Relevant Participant Quotes 43
Table 6: Theme 3: List of Relevant Participant Quotes 46
Table 7: Theme 4: List of Relevant Participant Quotes 50
Table 8: Theme 5: List of Relevant Participant Quotes 53
Table 9: Theme 6: List of Relevant Participant Quotes 56
Table A1: Alignment of Interview Questions With Research Questions (RQs)
and Conceptual Framework (CF) 79

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 26

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Despite civic progress, critical information and voices of the LGBTQ+ community are
still limited through conservative legislation intended to reinforce a heteronormative and
culturally superior narrative of Anglo-Americans, particularly in educational framework,
curriculum, and textbooks (Spring, 2016). Due to this, current high school students are only
provided with limited perspectives on historical and present social issues, especially LGBTQ+
students who continue to go underrepresented and unheard. Unfortunately, the lack of
inclusion in education is not new as its origin lies within the concept of settler colonialism
which has erased the voices of women, people of color, indigenous communities, and those
whose values and backgrounds do not align with White, patriarchal history (Tuck &
Gaztambide-Fernández, 2013). The road to equality has always been one of hardship and
while social norms have shifted in recent years, there is still a struggle for equitable academic
representation which in turn has led to a decline in LGBTQ+ student engagement, selfefficacy, and academic progress. Moreover, many LGBTQ+ students have suffered years of
internalized heterosexism in which they hold on to negative attitudes and assumptions about
homosexuality that are prevalent in society thus resulting in poorer mental health, including
psychological distress, depression, and anxiety (Bissonette & Szymanski, 2019). Lastly, many
teachers lack adequate training to address diverse student populations, curriculum remains
historically colonized and one-sided, and parents and community members continue to refuse
to accept ideas that do not reinforce the status quo (Matias, 2013).
The historical overrepresentation of the cis-gender, White males has deeply impacted the
educational debt that is owed to students and is marked by a severe disconnect between
educators and the underrepresented student community that they serve as seen in both prescribed

2
curriculum and education policies (Spring, 2016). Many credential programs often cater to wellintentioned White educators and lack the appropriate curriculum to address issues in diversity
and equity; thus, radical reformation is required in order to redistribute and re-appropriate
resources while increasing representation of marginalized voices (de Oliveira Andreotti et al.,
2015; Love, 2019).
In a modernist world system that is rooted in settler colonialism, the central narrative is
predominantly dictated by White supremacist characteristics and heteronormative patriarchal
standards, which results in systemic violence and the suppression of those that do not fit within
the prescribed narrative (de Oliveira Andreotti et al., 2015; Jones & Okun, 2001). However, it is
this limited epistemology that provides room for a greater pedagogy of trauma that
acknowledges race, class, gender, ableness, and orientation (Matias, 2013). With that, there is a
deeper understanding of whiteness and its ability to suppress the knowledge produced by
oppressed groups and exclude them from both the dominant discourse and White ideologies,
feminist or otherwise (Collins, 2002).
In addressing the current inequities, it is crucial to understand the various points of
connections within educational policies and practices that directly affect the daily lived
experience of marginalized students. Whether it is seen through lack of representation in
curriculum and classes offered on campus or through the interactions of students with each other
or staff, there must be a shift towards equitable social justice for oppressed groups that are
typically removed from the mainstream narrative and are often ascribed negative stereotypes
leading to discriminatory practices which are still evident in present academic settings.

3
Statement of the Problem
One of the major responsibilities for educators is creating a positive and productive
learning environment for all, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. Thus, there is
a high need for LGBTQ-affirmative education policies that allow for LGBTQ+ inclusive
curriculum and promote positive, healthy relationships with the LGBTQ+ community
(McKibben, 2016). For LGBTQ+ students, high school years can often be a difficult time
filled with uncertainty, bullying, and other inequities. Due to these factors, it is encouraged
that teachers take the opportunity to reflect on both the curriculum and their practices to
determine if they are truly doing their due diligence in serving this community. By developing
LGBTQ+ inclusive policies, schools can readily show their support for LGBTQ+ students
while cultivating an overall more welcoming culture school-wide for all (McGary, 2013).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to critically examine the perspectives of LGBTQ+ students
on how anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral policies influence their sense of inclusivity and
safety in a secondary school setting. In doing so, this study provided insight into a unique
subsection of diversity that is often overlooked during the development of academic standards.
Research centered around the following research questions:
1. How do school-wide and classroom policies influence how LGBTQ+ students
understand their socioemotional well-being?
2. In what way do LGBTQ+ secondary students consider their schools to be inclusive
and safe?
3. What is the students’ perception of anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral classroom
policies and practices?

4
Significance of the Study
The significance of the study begins with the ability to further create an environment
of collaboration, productivity, and inclusivity through LGBTQ-affirmative school-wide and
in-classroom policies as the success of any given student relies on a whole-school approach
advocating for safety and inclusion because it is only when a student feels welcome and
acknowledged that they can truly succeed and feel validated in their efforts (Kahn, 2016).
In doing so, this study will contribute to current research by providing a personal
student perspective on LGBTQ+ policies and inclusive school environments in order to cause
a shift in school culture at all levels. In consideration of the foregoing statements, the results
of this case study will greatly benefit administrators and educators whose goal it is to
implement inclusive methods of teaching, establish a more student-centered learning
environment, and address socioemotional concerns that have prevented LGBTQ+ students
from succeeding. However, more importantly, this study will truly provide LGBTQ+ youths
with the voice they deserve as well as support and representation that they need.
Context of the Study
The study took place in a Southern Californian charter high school which is part of a
larger network of schools distributed nationwide. Here, the charter high school serves students
between the ages of 14–24 by providing alternative education through independent study and
small group instruction. The school site itself serves 600 students from varying ethnic
backgrounds, socioeconomic statuses, and learning needs. Additionally, the school also has a
large population of adult students between the ages of 18 and 24, many of whom are young
parents. The student population itself is diverse and varied in learning ability, socioeconomic
status, cultural and ethnic background, and immigration status. However, the school does not

5
have official data regarding the number of LGBTQ+ students or student gender expression or
orientation.
Regarding policies and procedures, each individual school site has a unique set of
protocols and goals that align with the greater mission and vision of the founding educational
company. As such, school sites are able to mold their day-to-day operations to fit the needs of
their students. However, despite the degree of flexibility when it comes to daily practices,
other aspects such as curriculum, student resources, and community services are heavily
standardized.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Limited Generalizability Due to Subjective Responses and Small Sample Size
In using a population, the sample size consists of a limited number of participants.
However, the smaller number of participants may have prevented the findings from being
extrapolated to the larger population of LGBTQ+ students. Additionally, since the qualitative
study was heavily focused on student interviews and personal lived experiences, the collected
responses varied greatly amongst the participants and may have posed a challenge in identifying
commonalities with which to form definitive conclusions (Johnson & Christensen, 2017).
Truthfulness of Participants
Historically, the voices LGBTQ+ community have been grounded in an oppressive
narrative, focusing solely on the negative aspects of their lived experience. Additionally, the fear
of being outed to friends and family through simple association with a study focused on
LGBTQ+ students may have certainly posed a real threat to the extent to which participants were
truthful with their responses (Goldstein & Davis, 2010).

6
Delimitations
Purposive Sampling
As the case study primarily centered around the impact of anti-LGBTQ+ policies on
LGBTQ+ students and those directly associated with said students, nonrandom, purposive
sampling provided the most accurate data the problem of practice and research questions specify
the characteristics of the population of interest (Johnson & Christensen, 2017).
Methodological Approach and Theoretical Frameworks
For the purposes of this study, queer theory served as the theoretical framework through
which the study was constructed and the findings were presented. As such, the implementation of
Queer Theory indicated the need for student voices to truly understand the social and political
implications that influence the creation of school policy and how said policies shape the
educational experience for LGBTQ+ youth. Moreover, the theory stresses the importance of
intersectional identities in order to call to attention that blanketed anti-bullying and antiharassment policies serve as surface level solutions without truly examining the structural
inequities of the educational system. From here, a conceptual framework was established in
order to address the inclusion and safety of LGBTQ+ students by taking into consideration such
items as lived experience, student voice, intersectionality, guiding protocols, curriculum,
pedagogy, and school environment. Lastly, the study employed qualitative research in which the
data was collected through student interviews and a detailed document analysis of school-wide
and in-classroom policies.
Ethical Approach and Confidentiality
Since LGBTQ+ issues are still considered controversial and highly debated for some, it is
crucial that participants are provided a safe environment in which they feel protected enough to

7
be vulnerable and honest with the interviewer. With that, the participants were assigned a
pseudonym to maintain privacy, were required to be of legal age (18 years or older), had the
option to opt out at any time during the study, and were provided with a transcript of the of their
interview(s) to ensure trustworthiness, credibility, validity, and reliability to ensure that they
were being represented in an accurate light.
Definition of Terms
● Equity: Providing appropriate resources based on specific, individual needs
(American Psychological Association, 2021).
● Gender identity: A component of gender that describes a person’s psychological
sense of their gender (American Psychological Association, 2021).
● Gender-inclusive language: Terminology that represents all genders equitably
(American Psychological Association, 2021).
● Inclusion: An environment that invites and validates all individuals to utilize and
embrace their unique strengths, perspectives, and identities (American
Psychological Association, 2021).
● LGBTQ+: An acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer. The plus
sign symbolizes the other innumerable identities included under the LGBTQ+
umbrella, such as asexual and intersex. (Human Rights Campaign, 2018).
● Marginalization: Relegation to or placement in an unimportant or a depowered
position in society (American Psychological Association, 2021).
● Queer: Term used to express a spectrum of identities and orientations that are
counter to the mainstream (Human Rights Campaign, 2018).

8
● Sexual orientation and identity: Refer to an enduring disposition to experience
sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions to men, women, nonbinary people, and
so forth. It also encompasses an individual’s sense of personal and social identity
based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a
community of others who share them (American Psychological Association,
2021).
● Sexual and gender minorities (SGM): Multiple sexual and/or gender minority
groups. Similar abbreviations include LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and queer), LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other
identities), LGBTQIA (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and
asexual) and LGBTQIA+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex,
asexual, and other identities) (American Psychological Association, 2021).
Organization of the Study
The study will be organized as follows: Chapter 1 will provide an introduction to the
statement of the problem, describe the purpose and significance of the study, and enumerate any
potential limitations and delimitations. From here, Chapter 2 will provide an in-depth look at the
problem of practice via a literature review of previous research through the lens of a theoretical
framework rooted in queer theory. In Chapter 3, the research methodology will explain in detail
the research design including the study’s setting, participants and instruments, as well as data
collection and analysis methods. Next, Chapter 4 will deliver the findings organized by the
guiding research questions. Lastly, Chapter 5 will summarize the conclusions and provide
recommendations for future research.

9
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter 2 will provide an extensive literature review on how policies directly influence
the extent to which LGBTQ+ students consider their schools to be both inclusive and safe
spaces. To begin, this chapter will present a brief timeline of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies to
showcase the progress that has been made and the work that still needs to be done. The chapter
will then delve into the various aspects of queer theory and elaborate on both the needs and
challenges of LGBTQ+ students to gain a better understanding of the student population and the
current social and political climate that impacts their daily lives.
After addressing the historical perspective, grounding theoretical framework, and target
population, Chapter 2 will then offer a number of case studies that expand upon the influence of
both schoolwide and classroom LGBTQ+ policies on school culture to serve as examples of best
practices that can readily be implemented. Lastly, a conceptual framework will be provided to
illustrate the relationship between the aforementioned concepts of inclusive and safe spaces,
policies, and queer theory.
A Historical Perspective of LGBTQ+ Inclusive Classroom Policies
In addressing inequities in education, district officials and school site administrators
hope that more inclusive policies may increase the level of school-wide tolerance and
understanding while providing more than a safe space for LGBTQ+ students. As such, the
initial movement towards educational inclusion began in 2006 with Carol Laub, executive
director of the Gender and Sexualities Alliance Network and her initial proposal for inclusive
curriculum which gained traction after California Senator Sheila Kuehl introduced The Bias
Free Curriculum Act. Eventually, the dialogue prompted the passing of the Nondiscrimination
in State Programs and Activities Act, which noted that schools may no longer discriminate

10
against LGBTQ+ students. However, while the law protected these students, it still left out a
vital element to academic success: inclusion. With that, California Senator Mark Leno
introduced The FAIR Education Act in 2010 which advocated for a more LGBTQ+ inclusive
curriculum to be integrated into the California school system. After much push back and
debate, the FAIR Education Act was signed into law in July 2011 and enacted into the
California Education Code in January 2012. In the years to follow, an inclusive educational
framework was developed and eventually was approved along with recommended LGBTQ+
inclusive textbooks in the fall of 2017. Finally, after a 12-year battle, the 2018–2019 school
year was the first year that the curriculum was implemented and adopted in California,
making it the first state to ever officially introduce LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum in the
history of the nation (LGBTQ History, 2018).
Regarding the newly amended framework, a local school district board president put
forth a call to action for schools and parents alike to create more supportive schools and
address not only academic concerns but socioemotional issues as well. With that, the passing
of the FAIR Education Act prompted further curriculum development in local school districts
as updates were implemented into the Sexual Health Education Program (Warth, 2018). The
program itself was in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
Division of Adolescent and School Health that provides comprehensive sexual health
education for Grades 6–12, while aligning its standards with that of the CA Education Code,
the CA Healthy Youth Act, and the FAIR Education Act. Under the title “Rights, Respect,
Responsibility,” the inclusive curriculum not only provided comprehensive instruction on
traditional health standards such as pregnancy, body image, and defining healthy

11
relationships, but also included discussions regarding gender identity, consent, and
reproductive rights.
However, while many schools advocate for their LGBTQ+ students through on-campus
clubs and gender-neutral facilities, resources are minimal at best (Kahn, 2016). To address this
inequity, organizations such as the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), the
originators of the Safe Space Movement, have committed themselves to providing professional
developments that are more than an arbitrary list of definitions but rather meaningful dialogue
regarding the historical and present issues facing the LGBTQ+ students both within the
classroom and out in the community (Kosciw et al., 2012). In response, the county office of
education in coalition with local school districts established the Youth Advocacy Department
that specializes in LGBTQ+ education, anti-bias and antiracist teaching, bullying prevention, and
human trafficking awareness. Through this organization, many schools within the district have
been able to connect with bullying prevention and intervention specialists and project resource
teachers to analyze current school practices and policies that continue to marginalize LGTBQ+
youth. According to the Youth Advocacy Department, visibility for LGBTQ+ students should
encompass more than minimal integration into textbooks but rather must address the social
emotional concerns facing students today in order to have more holistic and intersectional
dialogue that will hopefully lead to an increase in school-wide empathy for all marginalized
communities.
Though the aforementioned policies and amendments have contributed greatly in
creating a more inclusive curriculum, the associated frameworks and guidelines lack the
structure to deliver enough valuable information and the depth to provide quality academic
and meaningful dialogue for students (LGTBQ History, 2018). As such, the exclusion of the

12
LGBTQ+ community in curriculum, practices, and policies has adversely affected both
academic progress and engagement for LGBTQ+ students as they do not see themselves in the
learning process (Kosciw et al., 2012).
Queer Theory
Queer theory goes beyond exploring superficial aspects of the LGBTQ+ experience and
questions assumptions about relationships, identity, gender, and sexual orientation as it seeks to
remove labels and rigid binary categories. The theory itself emerged in the late 1980s to early
1990s as a subsection of academic courses in LGBTQ+ and women’s studies. Queer theorist
Halperin (2003) provides credit to early adopters of queer theory such as author Gloria
Evangelina Anzaldúa (1987) who documented her journey as a queer Chicana woman navigating
social and cultural marginalization. Furthermore, Collins (2022) comments on other early
adopters of queer theory that emphasized the lives of queer Black women in the United States.
Such notable black feminists include Gloria Hull (1985) whose work illustrates the difficulty of
contributing to socio political dialogue as a closeted Black woman and Audre Lorde (1982) and
her autobiographical novel, Zami, that highlights the Black lesbian communities of New York.
Yep et al. (2014) notes that while there is a wide range of contributing factors to queer
Theory, at its core, the theory relates to lived experiences of queer people and how their
experiences are culturally or politically recognized. Here, voices of the LGBTQ+ community are
integral to furthering queer theory and propelling the LGBTQ+ movement towards social justice
and inclusion for all marginalized communities. To provide a more inclusive perspective on lived
experiences, Crenshaw (1991) acknowledges the value of intersectionality amongst LGBTQ+
narratives as it extends the dialogue to include such aspects as race, gender, socioeconomic
status, political affiliations, and culture. In doing so, the current structural frameworks that are in

13
place to provide guiding policies and protocols are challenged to account for the unique
intersectional background of each queer individual rather than issuing blanketed mandates that
only apply to a select demographic.
From an educational lens, the theory prompts educators to transform their methods to
enable students to explore and celebrate new ways of seeing the world as they highlight the
narratives of women, people of color, and members of the LGBTQ+ community (Meyer, 2007).
With that, inclusive pedagogy and practices can be used to examine how both heterosexual and
LGBTQ+ students of color create for themselves a unique community to survive homophobia,
racism, and classism while moving toward intersectional social justice. In doing so, pedagogy
influenced by queer theory promotes a broader perspective for all students while allowing
previously marginalized individuals an opportunity to connect in a more meaningful way (Love,
2019).
Modern LGBTQ+ Student Population
As educational programs continue to grow, legislators are making an effort to
revolutionize curriculum and practices through education policies in order to shift school culture
for LGBTQ+ students, as over 56% of young adults between the ages of 13 and 20 identify as
part of the LGBTQ+ community (Sadowski, 2016). However, recent anti-LGBTQ+ and
LGBTQ+ neutral policies have led to marginalization of LGBTQ+ students both in academic and
public settings as continual discrimination is reinforced by misinformation, homophobic
assumptions, fixed mindsets, and exclusionary practices. With the removal of dialogue around
gender identity in the classroom as outlined by such policies as Florida’s House Bill 1577—
informally known as the “Don’t Say Gay Bill”—LGBTQ+ students now have even less access to
resources that tend to both their socioemotional needs (H.B. 1557, 2022; Hernandez, 2022).

14
Without policies taking into consideration LGBTQ+ narratives and theory, all students will lack
the essential tools to navigate issues of homophobia, socioeconomic disparity, racism, and
gender bias that prevents them from moving towards a braver space of intersectional social
justice where they can have more impactful dialogue in order to promote change (Love, 2019).
Needs
According to Kahn (2016), director of HRC Foundation's Children, Youth, and Families
Program, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Education enforced a
directive that ensured that transgender students be provided a safe space and be treated with the
same dignity and respect as their cisgender colleagues in every public and federally funded
school. However, this directive was met with push back from many schools, especially those
located in more conservative areas whose policies had openly discriminated against LGBTQ+
students through such practices as requiring students to use a bathroom or locker room that did
not correspond with their gender identity, not allowing students to use their preferred name or
pronouns, and even barring students externally expressing themselves in a way that they were
comfortable and confident in. As such, it can be said that the needs of LGBTQ+ students begin
with visibility and respect for gender identity. By understanding the fine differences in identity
and vocabulary within the LGBTQ+ community, educators and administrators can acquire the
tools to converse and interact with LGBTQ+ students in a more respectful, accurate, and
inclusive manner which includes the utilization of preferred pronouns chosen by the student in
order to further validate and support their chosen identity.
Kahn (2016) continues to note that the journey of gender identity is constantly changing
for these students and providing opportunities for students to communicate and show educators
who they are is key for student success. With regards to teaching practices and classroom

15
management, educators must reflect upon their own beliefs and consider how their classroom
and lesson plans reinforce gender expectations and stereotypes such as using gender-specific
colors or symbols to indicate gender identity. Thus, educators are urged to break the habit of
making assumptions while taking a proactive role in teaching gender inclusivity when confronted
with stereotypes which reinforce the gender binary and may contribute to gender dysphoria
during a student’s developmental years and have such consequences as suicidal ideation later on.
In a separate study, Meyer (2007) interviewed six families with LGBTQ+ students to
argue that the practice of inclusivity should not stop at the classroom. Respectful language and
behavior should be reinforced school-wide as educators, administrators, and counselors alike
work together in providing necessary services and resources specific to trans students and their
families. With that, professional developments should be directed towards LGBTQ+ inclusion of
the needs LGBTQ+ students in curriculum, lesson planning, and classroom structure while
emphasizing the importance of empathy amongst educators when working with this demographic
of students. Doing so will encourage teachers to put aside their assumptions about gender and
step outside their comfort zone to see the world through a different lens. By gaining knowledge
of who these students are and understanding their unique set of needs, school culture will
hopefully shift to a state that is not only safe and supportive of LGBTQ+ students but also
include them in the narrative. Lastly, through guided research and an in-depth reflection of
school policies and curriculum, educators and administrators have the opportunity to make an
impact on school mindset as they develop more ways to become inclusive.
Challenges
While many schools have integrated inclusive policies, there is still a large population of
LGBTQ+ students who do not feel safe at school due to harassment, bullying, and daily

16
microaggressions from both their peers and teachers (McGary, 2013). These interactions have
negatively affected both students’ academic success and self-efficacy which in turn has led to
chronic absenteeism, a diminishing sense of connectedness to both the school and curriculum,
and a significant rise in drop-out rates (Sadowski, 2016). Moreover, policies and practices that
solely protect cis-gender, heterosexual students have targeted those who openly identify as
LGBTQ+, non-binary, or gender non-conforming, thus supporting heterosexual male hegemony
as a dominant ideology while excluding those that do not perform to their assigned gender roles
(Meyer, 2007).
In addition, previous beliefs and negative stigma concerning the LGBTQ+ community
still prevail to this day which has been further exacerbated by protests from conservative
community members, parents, staff, and even students to remove the discussion of gender
identity and other LGBTQ+ related topics from the classroom. Due to this, many students and
staff members are hesitant to openly show their allyship due to unwarranted stigmatization
through association with and support for LGBTQ+ students (Goldstein & Davis, 2010). These
harmful effects of homophobia and heterosexism have become closely linked to on-campus
violence, bullying, and limiting of opportunities and access to resources for LGBTQ+ students
(Meyer, 2007).
The Influence of Schoolwide Policies on Establishing Inclusive and Safe Environments
Bathroom Bills and Gender Identity
Recent anti-trans legislation has denied transgender students the right to gender-affirming
care while heavily scrutinizing and accusing their parents of abuse. However, the discussion
around daily challenges facing transgender students is not new. In 2015, the debate over
“appropriate” bathroom usage sparked controversy as the trans community was met with openly

17
defiant institutions who denied them access to gender-specific facilities that aligned with their
self-assigned gender identity. For many the topic was one of civil rights and accommodations,
however the true nature of the problem centered on the perpetuation of gender constructs
imposed on transgender community through a cisgender lens. During a 2-year study by Farley
and Leonardi (2021), survey data was collected from families of transgender and gender
expansive youth and found that while many schools were generally supportive of trans students,
the protections that were granted to these students were broad with no specific mention of the
term “transgender” or even “LGBTQ+.” Furthermore, it was reported that many of the policies
were never communicated or explained to the parents and staff and what was provided was
insufficient in terms of creating a shift in school culture to ensure the safety, support, and
inclusion of transgender students.
Historically, education policy that once denounced the mere existence of the LGBTQ+
community has shifted towards overly generalized blanketed statements that have left LGBTQ+
students and their families feeling overlooked as they cling to minimal, generic protections. For
transgender and non-binary students in particular, current policy has proven to have little positive
impact on lived experiences, provided no solutions to systemic oppression and bullying, and has
essentialized and limited the extent to which their intersectional identities can be expressed
(Farley & Leonardi, 2021).
Gender-Expansive Education
The concept of intersectionality is a driving force behind gender-expansive education
which is committed to enacting anti-oppressive education that is grounded in an intersectional
understanding of how gender identity intersects with other social categories such as race,
ethnicity, social class, sexuality, and ability. According to study by Martino (2022), the purpose

18
of gender-expansive education is to holistically address the needs of LGBTQ+ students through
appropriate policy, pedagogy, and curriculum. In reference to statistical data from Taylor and
Peter’s (2011) national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian
schools, while over 74% of transgender students experienced varying levels of transphobia
through verbal harassment and physical assault, only 6.7% of students reported having inclusive
LGBTQ+ curriculum and support systems despite their school’s efforts to promote a safe
environment through anti-bullying policies and clubs such as Genders and Sexualities Alliance.
As such, there is an incredible need for schools to go beyond clubs and generalized policies and
truly commit to anti-racist and LGBTQ+ affirmative political frameworks at all stages of policy
making and curriculum development. Through enacting a queer and trans ethic of care, schools
have the opportunity to remove anti-LGBTQ+ policy and replace them with policies that
establish stronger relationships between LGBTQ+ students and their school while establishing
anticolonial and inclusive pedagogy to affirm and recognize the LGBTQ+ community (Martino,
2022).
Unfortunately, many LGBTQ+ policies have historically provided little to no follow
through to ensure that the LGBTQ+ students are receiving equitable resources, quality education,
and a safe learning environment in which they can thrive. Additionally, these policies have been
infamously overturned and given way to the anti-LGBTQ+ legislation present today that restrict
teachers from addressing LGBTQ+ topics in their classroom, thus further marginalizing the
LGBTQ+ students. As such, educational researchers and LGBTQ+ advocates urge
administrators and educators to take an active part in diversifying a profession that has helped
engrain binary thinking and heteronormative gatekeeping through creating inclusive resources
while monitoring the development and implementation of certain policies (Martino, 2022). In

19
creating more gender-expansive policies regarding pedagogy and curriculum, Martino (2022)
notes that schools are able to create the following.
● authentic, fluid, mutually vulnerable relationships with students
● explicitly anti-colonial, antiracist moments in their teaching and interactions with
students
● affirmation and recognition as moments of healing
Promoting School Safety for LGBTQ+ and All Students
Within negative school environments, LGBTQ+ students are often subject to
victimization based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Due to this,
LGBTQ+ students in unsafe school settings are more likely to report negative physical and
mental health outcomes than their peers. In response, some school districts have established
policies that specifically identify protected groups like LGBTQ+ students in order to create
learning environments that are more supportive for all students, not just the LGBTQ+
population, and are positively associated with student adjustment and achievement. With that,
White et al. (2021) along with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
(2019) surveyed schools regarding their various inclusive protocols and policies to provide a list
of proven strategies and resources to ensure the safety and well-being of LGBTQ+ students. The
identified strategies were as follows:
● inclusive, enumerated policies
● school personnel support and training
● student-led clubs
● access to LGBTQ+ related resources and curricula

20
White et al. (2021) expanded upon their strategies for creating inclusive school settings
by stating that policy makers must take into consideration the historical injustices that the
LGBTQ+ community has endured in order to develop and implement legislation that is specific
to LGBTQ+ students. Once these have been established, it is up to school districts to publicize
and enforce these policies while providing the necessary resources to keep teachers, students,
and parents updated on federal and state changes. At the site level, policies can readily determine
the amount of time dedicated to supporting school staff through professional developments in
order to address discriminatory bullying and implement strategies to move beyond superficial
anti-bullying guidelines. One such strategy includes school leaders identifying and eliminating
barriers to the formation and operation of student-led clubs such as GSAs and seeking training
on how to best support and promote them. However, student-led clubs are simply the start to
creating LGBTQ+ safe environments. Rather, much of the LGBTQ+ affirmative work relies on
integrating LGBTQ+ voices in curricula through state laws, educational guidelines, and school
district policies. Moreover, school districts must ensure that their libraries have LGBTQ+
friendly resources, mandatory safe zone training, promote visibility and inclusion of LGBTQ+
students through school signs, posters, and assemblies.
Schools as an Inclusive Environment
Educational institutions are a space where students have the opportunity to not only
acquire fundamental knowledge but discover who they are in a structured, social environment.
With that, educators play a pivotal role in creating a safe learning environment as they are able to
implement changes to their daily teaching practices to ensure that all students—especially those
who have been historically marginalized such as the LGBTQ+ community—feel safe, respected,
and affirmed (McGary, 2013). As such, many school districts have taken preliminary steps

21
toward equity by implementing safe space initiatives which provide educators and educational
leaders professional developments regarding how to best support the socioemotional needs of
LGBTQ+ students as well as protocols for anonymous reporting of LGBTQ+ bullying or
discrimination (Boyland et al, 2018). Unfortunately, these policies and practices often utilize
vague terminology and are only partially implemented as they continue to be challenged by the
local community (McGary, 2013).
In a 3-year qualitative study, Sadowski (2016) interviewed students, teachers,
administrators, counselors, and other school staff from various East Coast middle, junior, and
high schools about how they supported LGBTQ+ students. Here, Sadowski argued that the
purpose of LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum and practices was to establish more than a safe space
and offer all educators and students, LGBTQ+ or otherwise, a greater sense of understanding of
the community’s socioemotional needs, history, and challenges. From an academic standpoint,
the implementation of an inclusive curriculum provides LGBTQ+ students with equal and
equitable representation in the classroom and encourages teachers to reflect upon their teaching
policies, strategies, and interventions. Doing so can promote a better sense of self through
increasing self-efficacy while providing these marginalized students with more opportunities to
succeed academically.
Roles of Educators and Students As Allies and Co-conspirators
By taking a proactive role in promoting gender inclusivity, educators must reflect upon
their own biases and beliefs to consider how their classroom and lesson plans might reinforce
gender expectations and stereotypes. In doing so, teachers and school leaders become more
attuned to serving as allies to LGBTQ+ students while actively participating in the process of
dismantling the heteronormative narrative embedded in the education system. According to 126

22
interviews of student members of a collegiate Genders and Sexualities Alliance conducted by
Goldstein and Davis (2010), LGBTQ+ allies attributed their social justice attitudes and actions to
“childhood experiences in which LGBT-affirmative attitudes and behaviors were normalized,
parents who modeled open-mindedness or conveyed egalitarian values, personal experiences
with oppression, and/or direct or indirect exposure to the oppression of others, including LGBT
peers and adults” (p. 479). The study went further in surveying the sample population on the
following items: exposure to LGBTQ+ related discrimination; stigma by association,
immutability beliefs, value of LGBTQ+ progress, and positive stereotypes, and their extent of
participation in social activism.
Findings showed that those educators and students who participated in groups such as
Genders and Sexualities Alliance and LGBTQ+ activist events also tended to be involved in
activism against racism and sexism, felt comfortable interacting with LGBTQ+ individuals, and
held supportive views. For LGBTQ+ students, having the support of these allies on-campus has
positively contributed to the extent to which they view their schools as inclusive and safe
environments. Thus, it is crucial for school site leaders to create opportunities for on-campus
groups in which LGBTQ+ students and their allies are provided a safe space to gather and
discuss LGBTQ+ issues while finding their unique voices to bring awareness to the larger
LGBTQ+ community (Goldstein & Davis, 2010).
Exemplary Practices
The creation of extensive resources for LGBTQ+ students require a whole school
approach that involves teachers, support staff, and administrators. Sadowski (2016) highlighted
the following case studies from his interviews with educators and educational partners to provide

23
practical applications to establishing a LGBTQ+ inclusive educational space that supports both
academic and social emotional well-being:
Case Study: Sara Barber-Just and LGBTQ+ Literature Course
At Amherst Regional High School in Massachusetts, Sara Barber-Just designed an
English course in which students discussed strictly gay and lesbian literature while implementing
the same standards and learning objectives as a traditional English course. Eventually after much
positive feedback, Baber-Just’s class became an official elective at her high school with over 150
enrolled students. Here, the mission was clear: integrating LGBTQ+ issues into traditional
curriculum in order to give voice to an otherwise marginalized demographic of students who
seldom see themselves represented in school culture and learning (Sadowski, 2016). As seen in
this case study, educators have the opportunity to begin the conversation of LGBTQ+ issues and
create a safe, inclusive space for students through curriculum and instruction.
Case Study: Ken Jackson and Social Emotional Counseling and Support
School counselor and openly gay man, Ken Jackson, began a weekly counseling group
session for LGBTQ+ students in which they discussed challenges and benefits specific to being
LGBTQ+ at Decatur High School in Atlanta, Georgia. Here, Jackson also guided and prepared
these students for their post-secondary journey, providing them numerous resources on how to
locate an LGBTQ+ friendly college or university. Overall, Jackson’s work with the students
focused primarily on the social and emotional well-being of the student while evaluating its
direct impact on academic performance noting that when students feel emotionally supported,
they are better equipped to deal with academic tasks (Sadowski, 2016). High school is a time of
self-discovery for many LGBTQ+ students and oftentimes the pressure of coming out, seeking
out an inclusive community, or finding LGBTQ+ resources can limit the success of these

24
students. Thus, it is vital for schools that strive to be a safe and inclusive environment for
LGBTQ+ students to provide wrap-around services that include social emotional counseling.
Case Study: Elisa Waters and LGBTQ+ 101 In-Service Course for Teachers
Despite their pride in being a progressive school, teachers and students at Jericho Middle
School in New York reported that the subpar and generally unclear anti-LGBTQ+ harassment
contributed to a significant portion of the bullying. With that, teacher Elisa Waters developed
LGBTQ+ 101, an extensive 15-hour in-service course for educators covering such topics as
identity, risk factors for LGBTQ+ students, and inclusivity. Here, Waters provided her fellow
educators with resources regarding how to talk to parents and other community members about
the positive impact of creating a thoroughly inclusive school environment for LGBTQ+ youth
(Sadowski, 2016). By having an extensive knowledge of current LGBTQ+ issues, administrators
and teachers are better equipped to analyze current school-wide and classroom policies and
create the change that is necessary to ensure the inclusion and safety of their LGBTQ+ youth.
Conceptual Framework
The foundation of this study and conceptual framework is grounded in queer theory
which is indicated by the outermost circle in Figure 1. As previously discussed, queer theory
involves the concepts of lived experiences, intersectionality, and personal voice and the extent to
which policy makers take these into consideration in order to combat or reinforce
heteronormative culture through legislation and mandates. Love (2019) expands upon this theory
noting that many of the LGBTQ+ inclusive policies are simply intended for a select few that
heteronormative society has deemed as “normal”—namely upper-middle class White gay men.
Love stresses that in order for true inclusion to take root, the intersectional identities of LGBTQ+
youth must be addressed. With that, schools must create opportunities for the voices of queer

25
youth to be heard as policies are created and enacted. In referencing political scientist and Black
feminist Cathy Cohen, Love suggests that the value of queer theory lies in its objective to
eliminate fixed categories of sexual identities and acknowledging traditional social identities and
communal ties (e.g. gender, socioeconomic status, religion, ethnic background, and etc.) that are
crucial to one's survival. As such, queer theory confronts the broader macro-sociopolitical
context that is so deeply embedded into the education system and expands upon it through the
study’s use of student interviews which will provide a unique and personal perspective (Ravitch
& Carl, 2016).
In considering the conceptual framework visual as a whole, the organization of the
framework is hierarchical in structure with the central focus and tier being inclusive and safe
school environments for LGBTQ+ students which is represented by the innermost circle. The
next tier involves the policies that contribute to the degree to which a secondary school setting is
believed to be inclusive and safe. Here, the policy tier is divided into two subgroups that have a
symbiotic relationship: school-wide policies and individual classroom policies. School-wide
policies include any rules and regulations established by the administrative team, districtmandated curriculum, and additional practices that may affect school climate as a whole outside
of the classroom such as restroom and locker room availability and organization, dress code,
extracurricular activities, and on-campus clubs. Meanwhile, the individual classroom policies
encompass how teachers interpret and enforce school-wide rules while establishing their own
classroom management systems, their personal daily teaching practices and delivery of
curriculum, and the overall classroom environment (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). Lastly, the outermost
tier takes into account the voices of LGBTQ+ students and their unique intersectional identities

26
that reach beyond sexual orientation and incorporates such variables as race, culture, religion,
and socioeconomic status through the lens of queer theory.
In review, the purpose of this study was to obtain a personal perspective on how antiLGBTQ+ and LGBTQ+ neutral school-wide and individual classroom policies influence both
the well-being of queer students and the extent to which they consider their schools to be an
inclusive and safe environment. In doing so, this study provided insight into a subsection of
student diversity that is often overlooked during the development of academic standards. Data
was reliant on student interviews as well as an analysis of school documents (Lochmiller &
Lester, 2017).
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

27
Chapter Three: Methodology
Whether characterized by vague anti-bullying policies or curriculum mandates that
restrict academic discussions centering around gender identity, many schools overlook the
needs of LGBTQ+ students. Historically, both schoolwide and individual classroom policies
lack equitable representation and protection for this demographic of students which in turn
has reinforced stigma and continuing homophobia. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative study
was to critically examine the perspectives of LGBTQ+ students and their sense of inclusivity
and safety in a secondary school setting. Here, the conceptual framework established in
Chapter 2 served as a foundation for the development of data collection and analysis
instruments, selection of participants, and overall research design. The methodology was
guided by the following research questions:
1. How do school-wide and classroom policies influence how LGBTQ+ students
understand their socioemotional well-being?
2. In what way do LGBTQ+ secondary students consider their schools to be inclusive
and safe?
3. What is the students’ perception of anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral classroom
policies and practices?
Positionality of the Researcher
As with any study, it is important to note the positionality of the researcher in order to
gain a deeper understanding of the purpose of their study and the way in which the findings were
analyzed. With that, if the research questions, selection of settings and participants, data
collection, and analysis were driven by personal desires, study as a whole may be subject to
various biases. Thus, to begin this reflection I must address my own positionality as teacher and

28
Genders and Sexualities Alliance adviser who identifies within the LGBTQ+ community. Due to
this, the study itself was very personal and may reflect specific biases pertaining to how
LGBTQ+ people interpret school systems. As a researcher, it was necessary to not only be aware
of my personal goals and how they may shape my research but to also consider how best to meet
the objectives of my study while dealing with possible negative consequences of their various
influences. Accordingly, in order to address these issues of power and positionality, it was
necessary to take time to consider the intent of the researcher and how it was embedded
throughout the study through personal reflection and peer review (Maxwell, 2013).
Reflection and review were a collaborative effort between myself as the researcher,
student participants, and faculty members. As such, the qualitative study focused on two sources
of data: student interviews and guiding school documents (e.g. student handbook and classroom
syllabi). Here, it was vital that data was collected and analyzed without personal bias so as not to
skew the findings. For accountability, interview transcripts were reviewed by the participants to
ensure accuracy while documents were reviewed by high school faculty to guarantee that they
were currently being implemented and up to date.
Research Setting
As previously mentioned, the study took place at a charter high school in Southern
California that focused on alternative education in the form of independent study. While the
student population was diverse, there was no data regarding the LGBTQ+ student population.
The charter network of which the school site belongs to did not have official resources built into
its structure but did allow individual school sites to support their LGBTQ+ students as they saw
fit. Per site and teacher discretion, some LGBTQ+ students had access to an optional sexual
health elective course, Genders and Sexualities Alliance (GSA), and school appropriate Pride

29
Month activities. Furthermore, LGBTQ+ students had the option to use a preferred name and
gender identity in day-to-day interactions though without any legal changes, all official school
documents and student emails would retain their original first name and assigned gender.
Student Participants and Documents
The primary source of data was from a sample of 10 LGBTQ+ high school students
chosen through a purposive sampling technique. Selected students were of legal age (18+ years),
either currently enrolled or students graduated within the past year and identified as part of the
LGBTQ+ community. While conducting interviews, participants were provided with a safe,
judgment-free setting of their choosing which hopefully made them more comfortable to share
their personal stories. Regarding guiding documents, qualitative data was collected through
document analysis of the school’s current student handbook and classroom syllabi.
Methodology for Data Collection
For this study, structured interviews were conducted with 10 individual participants
utilizing a specified set of 10 open-ended questions (see Appendix A) in order to allow for
detailed responses that reflect individual voice and lived experiences of the participants. These
questions were meant to examine the extent to which the participants viewed their school’s
policies and practices as safe and inclusive for LGBTQ+ students and included such prompts as
“To what extent do you and your classmates feel comfortable discussing LGBTQ+ topics in
class?” and “Describe to me how your school views the LGBTQ+ community.” The use of such
inquiries required participants to reflect not only upon current in-classroom policies but also
policies that shaped the social structure of the school as a whole.
Regarding document analysis, copies of student handbooks within the previous 3 years
were obtained, reviewed, and analyzed in order to provide a clear picture of what school-wide

30
policies were in place in order to create an inclusive and safe environment for LGBTQ+ students.
Additionally, classroom syllabi were collected to determine how school-wide policies were
interpreted by individual teachers through daily protocols, procedures, unit plans, and available
classroom resources. Specifically, documents were evaluated for the extent to which policies
provide for a safe and inclusive environment through such items as anti-harassment and bullying
policies, wrap-around services, curriculum, and disciplinary procedures (see Table 1). Doing so
triangulated the data collected from the interviews in order to provide a richer description of
what resources were available to LGBTQ+ students and what policies and practices were put in
place to support them.
Methodology for Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis took into consideration both the domain and content of the
obtained results. In general, the process entailed reading through interview transcripts and
documents more thoroughly using a-priori coding via a template coding system and emergent
coding via open and axial coding systems in order to identify any common themes, keywords, or
phrases while ensuring objectivity and streamlining evaluation procedures seen in Table 2 (Blair,
2015). The developing narrative provided a detailed description of the content, participants,
learning environment, and student interactions which could be categorized further to identify
commonalities.
A-priori coding was employed to ensure that each interview question aligned with the
research questions and purpose of the study. Here, the initial coding system for interview
questions identified the following: policy, student lived experience, student voice,
intersectionality, student inclusion, student safety, bullying and harassment. After interview

31
transcripts were obtained, open coding was utilized to identify conceptually similar events,
actions, and interactions between participant responses through emergent coding (see Table 1).
Similar to participant interviews, document analysis also utilized a template coding
system in order to streamline the analysis process and ensure that each document was being
examined using the same standards. Here, the initial coding system for document analysis
identified the following items: student inclusion, student safety, bullying, harassment,
curriculum, student resources, and other various school-wide and classroom policies. Once these
items were established, emergent coding was employed to create subcategories relating to
inclusion and safety including but not limited to behavioral policies, discipline, facility use,
curriculum, and student resources (see Table 2).
Once a priori and emergent coding was completed for interview transcripts and school
documents, common themes were identified, reviewed, and defined. Regarding interviews,
themes pertained to the perceptions, experiences, feelings, values, and emotions of participants.
Meanwhile, themes concerning documents will center around structure, protocols, and policies.

32
Table 1
Coding Protocol for Student Interviews
Conceptual framework Key words and phrases Student and minute mark
Queer theory: Lived
experience
Personal, my family, my choice,
coming out, LGBTQ+, friends,
community, chosen family
Queer theory:
Intersectionality
Orientation, identity, gender
identity, race, ethnicity, religion,
background, poor, rich
Queer theory: Student voice I think/feel/believe, opinion,
advocate for myself
School-wide policies: Rules
and regulations
Dress code, chosen name,
pronouns, locker rooms,
restrooms, privacy, sports, fair,
unfair
School-wide policies:
Mandated curriculum
What we must do/learn,
mandatory, testing
School-wide policies: School
climate
Tolerance, bullying, harassment,
discrimination, clubs, lunch,
break, gossip, groups, other
students, other teachers, security,
safe
Individual classroom policies:
Interpretation of rules
Class rules, allowed/not allowed to
do/talk about in class
Individual classroom Policies:
pedagogy
Learning, homework, projects,
teacher, discussions
Individual classroom policies:
Classroom environment
Inclusive, safe space, classmates

33
Table 2
Coding Protocol for Document Analysis
Conceptual framework Key words and phrases Document type and
page number
School-wide policies: Rules
and regulations
Dress code, chosen name,
pronouns, locker rooms, restrooms,
privacy, statewide/district policies,
code of conduct, legal, sports,
extra-curricular
School-wide policies:
Mandated curriculum
Statewide/district assessment,
statewide/district standards,
mandatory participation, opt out
School-wide policies: School
climate
Tolerance, bullying, harassment,
discrimination, community,
LGBTQ+ clubs, counseling,
LGBTQ+ student resources
Individual classroom policies:
Interpretation of rules
Classroom protocols/procedures,
behavior, expectations, norms
Individual classroom policies:
Pedagogy
Syllabi, units/lessons, assignments,
projects, classroom resources,
teaching practices
Individual classroom policies:
Classroom environment
Inclusive, safe space, seating,
discipline, student interactions
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Culturally sensitive research involves integrating beliefs, characteristics, attitudes, values,
and experiences of a specific population into research design, methodology, and evaluation. In
doing so, researchers show respect by acknowledging the various intersectionalities of their
identity as a means of creating a deeper level of trust and understanding between the researcher
and the participants (Tillman, 2002). However, as previously noted, a researcher’s bias may

34
easily cloud judgment and compromise the credibility and trustworthiness of the study such as
personal opinions regarding the lack of inclusion and equitable representation of the LGBTQ+
community. Due to this, data analysis had the potential to be skewed in order to solely identify
faults within school policies, daily pedagogy, and curriculum hence furthering the deficit
narrative ascribed to these marginalized populations and systemic failures.
Regarding credibility in relation to design choices, the instruments chosen for data
collection had the potential of limiting the authenticity of findings. For example, the questions
asked in the interview may have led the participant to answer in a specific way that may not be
accurate of their true opinions, values, and beliefs. With that, interview questions were evaluated
by colleagues while responses were reviewed by participants to ensure that they were being
represented correctly and to maximize credibility and trustworthiness of data analysis. Similarly,
documents met specific criteria in order streamline the selection process and guarantee
objectivity. As such, peer-review was an excellent way to mitigate subjectivity as it provided a
third-party perspective that helped identify any flaws within the research design, methodology,
and evaluation.
Ethics
In studying historically marginalized groups, researchers must be conscious of how their
findings contribute to the participants’ narrative as oftentimes, studies rely on deficit storytelling
that focuses solely on the hardships and heartache of the community being represented.
Consequently, the Westernization of modern research has placed the researcher in a position of
power rooted in saviorism while those being researched continue to be viewed as powerless as
the research being presented continues to be disempowering (Smith, 2002). With that, the goal of
this study was to utilize the past experiences, traumatic or otherwise, of the participants to inform

35
future practices that will not only emphasize their unique needs and challenges but also highlight
and celebrate their identities as LGBTQ+ individuals.
Regarding participation, having an openly gay teacher lead the interview process may
have encouraged LGBTQ+ students to participate in the study as they were able to have more
meaningful dialogue with someone who directly identified them and thus provided an additional
aspect of comfortability and understanding. Here, LGBTQ+ students were provided a platform to
express their personal views on school and classroom policy and its relation to inclusivity and a
safe learning environment and discuss it in a manner that is most relevant to their generation.
However, having an honest discussion may have caused additional trauma for participants as it
required them to discuss such topics as coming out, bullying regarding their gender identity, and
gender dysphoria. Additionally, for some of these students being associated with the study had
the potential of exposing them to their peers, teachers, and family which in turn may have caused
a loss of relationship and further scrutiny. In order to reduce harm, confidentiality was
maintained throughout the entirety of the study while students were provided with the option to
opt out of answering certain questions that they may have felt uncomfortable responding to.
Formally, each student participant was provided with written documents pertaining purpose of
the study and their role as a voluntary participant, consent forms to confirm participation in the
study, and release forms to allow their transcripts to be quoted as necessary (see Appendix B).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
Limited Size of Data Resources
The data collected throughout the study was based on the responses of 10 participants, as
well as three versions of student handbooks and classroom syllabi from all teachers. Due to the

36
limited number of participants, data may not have comprehensively represented the LGBTQ+
student population.
Generalizability of the Study
The reliability of any given study is often dependent on the ability of future research to
conduct the study under similar conditions and produce the same outcome (Johnson &
Christensen, 2017). However, the subjective nature of student perspectives may have limited the
generalizability of the collected data as responses changed depending on the interviewee.
Similarly, school documents may have varied based on the location of the school and any federal
and local mandates that influenced the policies that guide school practices. As such, the level of
transferability may have been minimal within the context of other schools as student populations,
teacher biases and attitudes, school infrastructure, community resources, and local legislation
also varied. For example, some schools in the area may have had a thriving LGBTQ+ student
population with accessible LGBTQ+ support systems while others, such as religious private
schools, perhaps leaned more conservative in nature with comparatively fewer resources.
Delimitations
As the study primarily centered around the impact of anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral
policies on LGBTQ+ students, nonrandom, purposive sampling that specified the characteristics
of the population of interest provided the most accurate data (Johnson & Christensen, 2017).

37
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter 4 will provide a comprehensive discussion of findings from the interviews and
document analysis that were previously discussed in chapter three. Findings will be organized
according to emergent themes and will include qualitative data collected via student interviews
from 10 LGBTQ+ adult students who were either currently enrolled or graduated within 5 years
of the study. A list of student participants is provided in Table 3 which includes assigned
pseudonyms as well as the participants’ ages, LGBTQ+ identities, and preferred pronouns.
Additional data was obtained through a document analysis of current student handbooks and
classroom syllabi.
Table 3
Interview Participant Profiles
Student name (pseudonym) Age LGBTQ+ identity Preferred pronouns
Marsha 19 Transgender, female She, her, hers
Frida 18 Bisexual, female She, her, hers
Alec 18 Bisexual, male He, him, his
Billie 19 Genderqueer They, them, theirs
Oscar 18 Gay, male He, him, his
Violet 19 Genderqueer They, them, theirs
Janelle 18 Non-binary They, them, theirs
James 18 Gay, male He, him, his
Jazz 18 Pansexual, male He, him, his
Sally 19 Lesbian, female She, her, hers
.

38
Theme 1: Creating Opportunities for LGBTQ+ Students to Share Their Valued
Perspectives
Policies affect how LGBTQ+ students experience their school by influencing the type of
interactions they have with their peers, teachers, and other staff. As such, policies have the power
to provide students with a learning environment that is either restrictive and unwelcoming or one
that values their voices and provides them with a greater sense of community and belonging.
With regards to student learning environments, the student handbook stated that all
students are entitled to the right to a safe space to learn while syllabi encourage students to
participate in classroom discussion and make personal connections to assignments, if applicable.
In the English courses, students were prompted to write about their personal experiences and
how they align to the concepts, themes, and characters in the novels they were reading and
included such topics as how human connection can improve lives and overcoming imposter
syndrome. Through reflective writing, students had the opportunity to write about what meant
most to them and thus provided more insight into who they truly were. Having been able to
engage in such exercises, six students noted in their interviews that they felt like they were able
to tell their story without the fear of being judged or censored (See Table 4). Marsha, a recent
graduate, and 19-year-old transgender woman, was quoted saying,
It was really valuable to me to be able to put into writing how my journey as a trans
person has influenced how I saw the world … it was also really cool that I was able to
just talk about this stuff openly with my classmates and teachers and not just in GSA.
In addition to engaging with meaningful academic lessons with integrated social
emotional aspects, the LGBTQ+ students interviewed were also committed to attending GSA
(Genders and Sexualities Alliance) meetings throughout the school year. Here, all 10 students

39
stated that these meetings truly felt like a space that was created just for them and their allies (see
Table 4). Within these weekly gatherings, each student expressed that they finally felt seen,
valued, and heard and were either able to have open and honest conversations about LGBTQ+
topics or simply exist and spend time with like-minded students. Alec, a bisexual male who is
currently only out to his friends, stated,
Our [GSA] meetings are the only time when I don’t have to pretend or hide myself. My
parents are super unsupportive when it comes to things that aren’t really aligned with
their church or whatever … so it’s actually really comforting to have friends that I can
relate to.
Overall, the school valued the perspectives of its LGBTQ+ students and did its best to
incorporate social emotional learning into classroom curriculum while providing extracurricular
opportunities for students to gather with peers with whom they could identify with. As a whole,
the school was committed to ensuring that each student’s voice was heard and that they had a
safe, judgment free environment to express themselves.

40
Table 4
Theme 1: List of Relevant Participant Quotes
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 1
Marsha It was really valuable to me to be able to put into writing how
my journey as a trans person has influenced how I saw the
world … it was also really cool that I was able to just talk
about this stuff openly with my classmates and teachers and
not just in GSA.
GSA was such a great space to hang out with my [LGBTQ+]
friends. It was one of the few things I looked forward to
each week.”
Frida There aren’t a lot of opportunities to talk about being bi but I
remember this one time when [my teacher] had us do a
presentation about our cultural heritage so I took it as my
chance to talk about what it was like to be bi and Latina.
Out of all the clubs I’m in, GSA is my favorite because I like
being able to just be with other students who are like me.
Alec Our [GSA] meetings are the only time when I don’t have to
pretend or hide myself. My parents are super unsupportive
when it comes to things that aren’t really aligned with their
church or whatever … so it’s actually really comforting to
have friends that I can relate to.
Billie I’ve met some of my best friends in GSA.
Oscar I’ve always been open about being gay but I don’t really get
the chance to talk about it in class … it’s cool when I’m
able to actually write about how I came out or what I’ve
been through … sometimes we get homework that asks us
to connect our personal life to whatever book we are
reading.
I’m really passionate about being an advocate for LGBTQ+
rights. It’s something I want to do in the future…GSA
gives me a place to share my ideas for what would make
our school a better place for queer kids.
Violet I love GSA because it’s almost like having a class about queer
people that’s taught by other queer people.
Janelle Having clubs like GSA are so important because it allows us
to hang out with people who share the same interests and
won’t judge us for anything.

41
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 1
James I’m not like super into doing homework but I do like it when
[my teacher] makes it more personal. It’s easier to write
and I can actually get into it.
My last school didn’t have a GSA. I had friends who were
also gay or whatever but we didn’t have any clubs or
celebrate PRIDE month the way this school does. It’s cool
that they have GSA cause it gives me a place to feel like I
belong.
Jazz School would not be the same without GSA. It’s basically my
second family.”
Sally One time we were able to choose our own book for English
class, so I chose [a book with lesbian characters] and it was
awesome to finally read something that I could see myself
in even if I had to go out and find it myself.
I always feel relieved walking into GSA. I just started
attending but everyone’s super nice.
Theme 2: The Growing Need for Adult Allyship on School Campus
While students generally felt comfortable with peer-to-peer interactions, four students
commented on the lack of adult allyship (see Table 5). In their interview, Billie, who identified
as genderqueer, mentioned that it was rare that they were able to find a teacher, counselor, or
staff member with whom they felt comfortable enough to open up about LGBTQ+ topics. Billie
went on to say, “I just feel like they wouldn’t get it and I’m over having to explain myself and
basically come out again.” Additionally, Frida, a bisexual female, commented on the fact that she
was only able to identify one or two openly LGBTQ+ teachers with whom they can relate with
and referred to these individuals as possible role models as they gave them a glimpse into what
adult life as an LGBTQ+ person could be. She goes on to say,

42
I never really had any [LGBTQ+] adults in my life that I could go to for advice … I have
my friends which is great and all but sometimes it would be nice to talk to an actual adult
who’s gone through similar things. My parents don’t really get it and I don’t think they
ever will.
Lastly, Violet, another genderqueer student, communicated that “it would be nice to be a part of
a school event outside of PRIDE month … we only have one event, and no one even goes
because it's always a mess because it's student-run.”
Overall, the students interviewed raised a valid point that allyship should not stop at the
student level but rather a whole school approach is required to make the LGBTQ+ student
population feel validated and must incorporate openly supportive teachers and other staff
members. Thus, it can be said that school policies can influence how LGBTQ+ students
understand their socioemotional well-being by providing them both an opportunity and space to
share their life experiences and unique perspectives while also allowing them access to a greater
community of other LGBTQ+ students and allies. Unfortunately, the extent to which these
opportunities are available may vary in the future as policies continue to shift according to the
political climate and school bias.

43
Table 5
Theme 2: List of Relevant Participant Quotes
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 2
Frida I never really had any [LGBTQ+] adults in my life that I
could go to for advice…I have my friends which is great
and all but sometimes it would be nice to talk to an actual
adult who’s gone through similar things. My parents don’t
really get it and I don’t think they ever will.
Billie I’m not super comfortable talking to [staff] about [LGBTQ+
topics]. I just feel like they wouldn’t get it and I’m over
having to explain myself and basically come out again.
Violet It would be nice to be a part of a school event outside of
PRIDE month … we only have one event and no one even
goes because it's always a mess because it's student-run.
Jazz I’ve never felt unsafe at school because I have alot friends
who support me and like one teacher who’s gay … the
other teachers seem indifferent or sometimes like super
uncomfortable when someone brings up [LGBTQ+ topics]
in class.
Theme 3: Understanding and Protecting LGBTQ+ Student Identity
For LGBTQ+ students, inclusivity and safety mean more than just displaying generic
respect but rather having a space that truly acknowledges their identity and incorporates it into
the daily language of the school while ensuring that there are protections specific to the
LGBTQ+ community embedded in their practices. As LGBTQ+ students become more selfaware in terms of their gender identity and gender expression, school policies must acknowledge
that students may situate themselves anywhere along the gender spectrum. Accordingly, both
handbooks and syllabi recognized preferred names, pronouns, and genders in school documents
and daily classroom practices. In the analyzed documents it was noted that if a student indicated

44
a preferred name, pronoun, or gender, changes would be made to their student dashboard and any
documents associated with the student, including but not limited to homework, IEPs, and
transcripts. Furthermore, the handbook noted that changes to preferred name, pronoun, or gender
must be communicated to teachers and staff in order to make any formal adjustments. Here, eight
students expressed in their interviews that honoring their true identities was not a common
practice in their previous schools and that seeing their preferred name or gender on school
dashboards, certificates, and report cards affirmed who they were and showed support from the
school (see Table 6). In continuing her story, Marsha stated,
When I decided to come out as transgender, it was one thing to have my friends call me
by my chosen name but to see it on [official documents] made it feel so much more
validating, like people actually cared.
Similarly, Janelle noted that “as a non-binary person, it’s pretty rare to see an option for gender
neutral pronouns so it was nice to finally have it” when discussing their gender identity and how
it was reflected on their student dashboard.
However, the practice of utilizing preferred pronouns was not perfect as three students
mentioned several occasions of mis-gendering and misnaming or the use of their former names
(see Table 6). One example noted by Violet involved a teacher continuing to use “she/her”
pronouns when referencing the student when it was clearly indicated on their student dashboard
that the student utilized “they/them” pronouns. Additionally, Janelle shared about a time when
their teacher referred to them by their “dead name” (the name was assigned at birth that was no
longer being used by the student) rather than their “chosen name” (the name Janelle selected for
themselves as it was a better representation of their identity). Lastly, Marsha stated that when
moments of mis-gendering or the use of “dead names” occurred it “felt like I was starting over,

45
and it really hurts … sometimes I’ll correct them but usually I just smile and move on.” In such
cases, instances of mis-gendering and misnaming caused students to feel invalidated as their true
identity went unrecognized whether the occurrence was intentional or not.
Similarly, LGBTQ+ students were conscious of the gender binary that was embedded in
many topics of discussion, classroom resources, and syllabi. One common example provided by
students was regarding many of the classroom rules listed in their syllabi. When referring to
students, both the syllabi and handbook utilized such phrases as “his or her'' and “he or she.” For
example, in the section about bullying, the documents stated that if bullying or harassment are
observed by a student “he or she” must immediately report the matter to a teacher or an
administrator. Students were aware that the school respected their use of preferred names and
pronouns, however six students found the lack of gender-neutral pronouns frustrating and
hypocritical of the school’s attempt of being mindful of the gender spectrum (see Table 6).
Violet noted that the lack of gender-neutral pronouns in school policies “feels like the restroom
debate all over again. We barely got gender-neutral restrooms a year or two ago and yet they still
use binary pronouns when referring to [students].” With similar sentiments, Billie stated,
using only ‘his’ and ‘her’ pronouns is just so out of touch … other cultures have used
gender-neutral pronouns for centuries, so why can’t our school? I think if they’re going to
let us use different names and pronouns, they should really update their handbooks to
show that they understand their students.
In the same vein, Marsha noted,
I was the only trans person at school when I went there and used she/her pronouns
because I identified as female, but I knew a lot of my [non-binary] friends used

46
“they/them” pronouns … it was sad to see their identities left out because I also knew
what it was like to have people use the wrong pronouns when referring to you.
The theme of identity continues to be a topic of discussion as students become more open
about their identities and the school continues to update their policies to reflect its student
population. According to the data, LGBTQ+ secondary students considered their schools to be
inclusive in that they are able to use their preferred names and pronouns, however it was evident
that the practice of considering such aspects of gender identity was not consistent amongst
teachers and staff. In review, while some parts of classroom syllabi and student handbooks were
beginning to move towards gender neutral pronouns, each document still contained language that
defaulted to a gender binary.
Table 6
Theme 3: List of Relevant Participant Quotes
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 3
Marsha When I decided to come out as transgender, it was one thing to
have my friends call me by my chosen name but to see it on
[official documents] made it feel so much more validating,
like people actually cared.
When people mis-gender me or use my dead name it feels like
I was starting over and it really hurts … sometimes I’ll
correct them but usually I just smile and move on.
I was the only trans person at school when I went there and
used she/her pronouns because I identified as female, but I
knew a lot of my [non-binary] friends used ‘they/them’
pronouns … it was sad to see their identities left out because
I also knew what it was like to have people use the wrong
pronouns when referring to you.
Frida I don’t have to use any of the non-binary options or preferred
name stuff but I like that there’s an option for those that do.
It’s crazy that people still don’t get the whole pronoun thing
yet. Like how is that hard?

47
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 3
Alec Having the option for preferred names is really important and
shows that our school actually cares about our identity.
Billie It was really comforting to know that I can use my preferred
name here and that people will actually use it.
Using only “his” and “her” pronouns is just so out of touch …
other cultures have used gender-neutral pronouns for
centuries, so why can’t our school? I think if they’re going
to let us use different names and pronouns, they should
really update their handbooks to show that they understand
their students.
Oscar It’s funny because I think we make pronouns more
complicated than it has to be. Like I don’t know about
everyone else but using they/them just comes natural to me
and I wish people would just get on board.
Violet So, on my student profile it says that I use “they/them”
pronouns. Most of my teachers are pretty good at using my
preferred pronouns but I have one teacher that still uses
“she/her” when they are talking about me.
It feels like the restroom debate all over again. We barely got
gender-neutral restrooms a year or two ago and yet they still
use binary pronouns when referring to [students].
Janelle As a non-binary person, it’s pretty rare to see an option for
gender neutral pronouns so it was nice to finally have it.
I have this one teacher who still calls me by my deadname
because that’s what was on my records when I first came to
this school even though I’ve officially changed [my name].
I’m always correcting her but she doesn’t seem to get it.
James I think that being able to choose a name and gender you
identify with is so important because it makes people feel
valued and seen for who they really are.
Jazz I like that I see my chosen name on everything. When I
enrolled I remembered there being an option and I was kind
of hesitant to put my name down but the person helping me
enroll said that it was ok and that she would make sure that
that’s what people would call me.
I think we’re getting close to making sure that gender neutral
pronouns are common practice but it’s not perfect. Nothing
is. It’s just going to take more practice.
Sally I’ve always thought about using a preferred name. I still

48
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 3
haven’t decided what to use but it’s nice to know that if or
when I do decide to use one it won’t be a huge issue.
Theme 4: General Protections for LGBTQ+ Students
Inclusivity and safety are used as universal terms that do not carry much weight as
oftentimes many interpret these words as simply respecting one another without a clear
definition as to what that looks like. Like many institutions and organizations, the school site
utilized a handbook that lists a number of foundational policies regarding student rights and
conduct to ensure that all students were given equal opportunity to attend a school where they
were safe, welcome, and accepted. Under the section titled “Section One-Introductory Policies,”
the handbook provided statements regarding on-campus equality and diversity which ensured the
school’s commitment to promoting equality in educational practices and student outcomes while
promoting an environment of trust, fairness, and equality. Further, under the subsection marked
“Safe Place to Learn'' the handbook states that the school prohibited harassment, unlawful
discrimination, intimidation and bullying–whether in-person or online–and encouraged those
who witness such acts to immediately intervene when it is safe to do so and to report the action
as soon as possible. These policies were reiterated in many of the classroom syllabi to ensure that
they were equally enforced from teacher to teacher.
However, while the statements were well-intended and meant as a general protection for
all students, they did not define what was classified as bullying nor do the statements identify
how specific marginalized groups could be harassed through racial, sexist, homophobic,
transphobic, anti-religious, or culturally demeaning comments, slurs, or acts. Moreover, there

49
was only one subsection that references the LGBTQ+ community. Here, the handbook’s
subsection regarding non-discrimination stated that discrimination on the basis of gender which
included gender identity, gender expression, and transgender identity would be strictly
prohibited. Aside from this one statement, there was no other reference to the LGBTQ+
community. The majority of the data pertaining to this theme was collected from document
review and analysis. When students were asked about the policies in the handbook and syllabi,
comments simply acknowledged the promise of safe spaces for all students made by the school.
Alec stated, matter-of-factly, that “no one really pays attention to the details of the handbook, but
I know that there’s a part about bullying.” Others had similar sentiments to Alec, however, one
student did mention the generality of the student handbooks. Oscar, an 18-year-old gay male,
stated,
honestly, I’ve never seen the [LGBTQ+] community actually mentioned. The rules they
put out there just seem to be copied and pasted from whatever rule book they have, and
no one really goes over it. We just sign the form and move on. I guess it’s just common
knowledge that we should be nice to each other.
The lack of inclusion in non-discrimination and bullying policies masked by blanketed
statements continue to go unrecognized and unexamined. Due to the generalized nature of these
policies, the extent to which LGBTQ+ students feel safe is open to interpretation as the school
has overlooked this population when developing its policies and practices.
In short, improvements to anti-bullying and anti-harassment policies were not apparent as
the LGBTQ+ student population continued to go unrepresented thus leaving specific protections
and protocols with regards to homophobic or transphobic actions unaddressed. As such, it was
also clear that the current syllabi and handbooks were a mixture of updated policies and

50
antiquated statements that have simply been transferred from one document to another year after
year. See Table 7.
Table 7
Theme 4: List of Relevant Participant Quotes
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 4
Alec No one really pays attention to the details of the handbook,
but I know that there’s a part about bullying.
Oscar Honestly, I’ve never seen the [LGBTQ+] community actually
mentioned. The rules they put out there just seem to be
copied and pasted from whatever rule book they have, and
no one really goes over it. We just sign the form and move
on. I guess it’s just common knowledge that we should be
nice to each other.

51
Theme 5: Concern for the Future Well-Being of LGBTQ+ Students
With the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral policies, many students were anxious
that their own school may begin the process of erasing the LGBTQ+ student population as their
local community had already started banning LGBTQ+ inclusive resources and removing the
privacy rights of transgender students. As such, nine students were aware of the gravity of these
actions and the negative impact that it would have on their safety and mental health. While
classroom policies or practices were generally positive and accepting of LGBTQ+ students, a
common theme in student interviews centered around the potential that anti-LGBTQ+ policies
may inevitably be enacted. In their response, nine students expressed their growing concern and
commented on numerous anti-LGBTQ+ legislation that has been passed including Florida’s
“Don’t Say Gay'' bill, the outing of LGBTQ+ students in Texas, and most recently the banning of
LGBTQ-affirmative books in their local school district and public libraries (see Table 8). Since
their school site was a part of a charter system, it had not been affected by such rulings and had
not explicitly banned LGBTQ+ resources. Additionally, there was no mention of the removal of
LGBTQ+ related material or curriculum according to classroom syllabi or student handbooks.
However, the current state of school policies and resources did not provide the solace that these
students needed. “If it can happen in other states, it can happen here,” said Alec. With similar
sentiments, recent transfer James said,
My parents moved me to this school because I was being bullied for being gay at my
other school … if [laws] like this start to pass in California, it’s no longer going to be safe
for people like me and where am I supposed to go then?
As previously noted, there have been well over 500 anti-LGBTQ+ laws that have been
introduced in 2023 alone with 314 laws specifically directed towards the removal of LGBTQ+

52
resources from education; this is a record number in comparison to the 180 total anti-LGBTQ+
laws from 2022. As of 2023, 22 states have officially enacted anti-LGBTQ+ laws including but
are not limited to Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Arizona, Tennessee, Utah, and North Carolina.
Despite these conservative measures, Janelle, who was heavily involved in local
LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, was ready to fight back and recounted their time at a recent banned
books protest at the local library. Janelle states, “it was pretty cool to see people get together to
stand up for something as simple as a book.” The student went on to say,
We need to keep books like this in our libraries and in our classrooms … book bans are
just the start … soon they’re going to start dress coding us for not wearing the right kind
of clothing or banning my friends from wearing makeup because they’re “supposed to be
boys.”
From Janelle’s retelling, it was clear that they did not stand alone in their sentiments towards
book banning and anti-LGBTQ+ laws as fellow community members made of parents, students,
and educators were willing to gather in protest and solidarity in hopes of preserving inclusivity
for LGBTQ+ students.
Each student interviewed shared the same consensus that anti-LGBTQ+ policies
regardless of who they target or where they are being implemented have had a negative impact
on their social emotional well-being and mental health. As Jazz, a pansexual student who comes
from a culturally and religiously conservative background, stated, “just because these laws
haven’t reached our school yet, doesn’t mean they won’t. I recently just watched a show about
the Stonewall Uprising, and this is basically history repeating itself.” Jazz continued saying, “it’s
not fair that [LGBTQ+] students are being targeted for trying to be themselves and that parents

53
are being called groomers or abusers for trying to get their kid the [gender affirming care] they
need.” On a similar note, Marsha states,
These laws are keeping [the LGBTQ+ community] from being who we are just because
some homophobic, conservative person believes that being [LGBTQ+] is a choice and
against his religion … as someone who’s been bullied and called a lot of names, it sucks
to see that no one is really doing anything about it and if anything there is a huge
possibility that it’s going to get worse.
The students were aware of the hate, bigotry, and homophobia that were deeply embedded in
these policies and were rightly concerned for their future safety.
Table 8
Theme 5: List of Relevant Participant Quotes
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 5
Marsha These laws are keeping [the LGBTQ+ community] from
being who we are just because some homophobic,
conservative person believes that being [LGBTQ+] is a
choice and against his religion … as someone who’s been
bullied and called a lot of names, it sucks to see that no one
is really doing anything about it and if anything there is a
huge possibility that it’s going to get worse.
Frida It’s scary. I watch stuff on [social media] and it makes me
really sad and angry … like that could be me or like one of
my friends.
Alec If it can happen in other states, it can happen here.
Billie I’m lucky that my school doesn’t enforce laws like this … but
that doesn’t mean that they won’t in the future. Like I don’t
want kids or anything when I get older but if I did, I would
want to make sure that they are in a safe school, especially
if they are gay.
Oscar All that [anti-LGBTQ+] stuff going on in Florida is wild! I

54
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 5
can’t imagine what it would be like to live there.
Violet “I can’t believe people are actually approving these laws. I
thought we were moving forward, not backwards.”
Janelle It was pretty cool to see people get together to stand up for
something as simple as a book … we need to keep books
like this in our libraries and in our classrooms … book bans
are just the start…soon they’re going to start dress coding
us for not wearing the right kind of clothing or banning my
friends from wearing makeup because they’re “supposed to
be boys.”
James My parents moved me to this school because I was being
bullied for being gay at my other school … if [laws] like
this start to pass in California, it’s no longer going to be
safe for people like me and where am I supposed to go
then?
Jazz Just because these laws haven’t reached our school yet,
doesn’t mean they won’t. I recently just watched a show
about the Stonewall Uprising, and this is basically history
repeating itself … it’s not fair that [LGBTQ+] students are
being targeted for trying to be themselves and that parents
are being called groomers or abusers for trying to get their
kid the [gender affirming care] they need.
Theme 6: Lack of Representation of LGBTQ+ Students in Classroom Curriculum and
Campus Resources
According to interviews, while LGBTQ+ students felt comfortable sharing their lived
experiences and unique views during class discussions and assignments, four students noted that
the opportunities for dialogue around LGBTQ+ issues were few and far between (see Table 9).
Sally, a lesbian student, confirmed this observation saying, “I’ve never read any books with gay
characters at school, and we don’t really learn anything about LGBTQ+ history or stories.
Whenever we talk about history, it’s usually about race or something but never about the gay

55
community.” Similarly, Billie noted, “the only time we talk about relatable stuff is in GSA but
that’s only once a week.” These responses showed that LGBTQ+ students were actively seeking
equitable representation in the classroom and were conscious of the lack of inclusion in
curriculum and instruction.
In examining classroom syllabi, it was noted that STEM subjects had no mention of
LGBTQ+ issues. Humanities courses, on the other hand, prompted in-depth examination of
gender roles and women’s’ rights with some courses specifically geared towards women’s
studies. However, these topics were aligned with a heteronormative gender binary and did not
include the perspectives of the lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and non-binary communities. After
further investigation, mentions of gender identity and LGBTQ+ specific topics were found in
two optional elective courses. In the mental, emotional, and social health unit of the Health and
Wellness course, the fourth lesson began with a reflective portion that asked students to consider
their social identities in regard to race, gender, class, and sexual identity and how these identities
were connected to privilege and how they shape one’s point of view. The second course to
specifically mention LGBTQ+ concepts was Integrated Health and Patient Care course. Here,
part of the first lesson provided a list of key LGBTQ+ terms and concepts which defined such
items as queer, pansexual, and transitioning while also providing additional resources and
readings regarding gender-affirming care and understanding sexual orientation. After students
became familiar with these terms, a section of the second lesson was devoted to discussing the
stereotypes about the LGBTQ+ community and included such discussion items as how
stereotypes might cause someone to act unfairly toward another person and how the media may
help perpetuate stereotyping.

56
Based on syllabi and student interviews, equitable representation in daily classroom
pedagogy was so minimal that LGBTQ+ issues were solely mentioned in an elective course at a
surface level. As such, students were relying on extracurricular clubs such as GSA to serve as a
space for dialogue centered around the LGBTQ+ community.
Table 9
Theme 6: List of Relevant Participant Quotes
Student name (pseudonym) Quote(s) relevant to Theme 6
Alec The books we read in English class are good … I like reading …
but it would be cool to read something with a gay or lesbian
main character. I don’t even think there are any of those books
at the library.
Billie The only time we talk about relatable stuff is in GSA but that’s
only once a week.
Janelle I don’t really remember learning about the gay rights. Like we
learned about equal rights for women and Black people but
like nothing else.
Sally I’ve never read any books with gay characters at school, and we
don’t really learn anything about LGBTQ+ history or stories.
Whenever we talk about history, it’s usually about race or
something but never about the gay community.

57
Summary
In summation, student interviews provided a clearer understanding of how LGBTQ+
students perceive their school to be an inclusive and safe space while document analysis
highlighted the extent to which safety and inclusion are provided for LGBTQ+ students. During
the interviews, students revealed how their lived experiences at school has shaped their social
emotional well-being. Here, the students talked in depth about the LGBTQ+ community on
campus and how it positively contributed to their sense of belonging and value. However, the
interviews also highlighted the shortcomings of school practices which seem superficial at best.
When analyzing the student handbook and classroom syllabi, the overall finding was that the
policies were well-intended and did support the LGBTQ+ population in terms of acknowledging
their identity with regards to preferred names and pronouns but failed to ensure that this practice
was implemented throughout the campus as misnaming and misgendering still occur. Lastly,
both interviews and document analysis reveal the need for additional intervention concerning
equitable LGBTQ+ representation in curriculum and campus resources through increased
allyship and awareness of LGBTQ+ issues.
Regarding how school policies influence how LGBTQ+ students understand their
socioemotional well-being, students confirmed that they do feel valued, seen, and heard by their
teachers and peers both in and out of the classroom setting. Nonetheless, there was a noticeable
gap between student allyship and adult allyship on campus as there was a lack of LGBTQ+ adult
representation as well as a sense of seasonal awareness of LGBTQ+ issues that did not extend
beyond PRIDE month and GSAs. Meanwhile, in terms of inclusivity and safety, policies and
practices acknowledge and respect all students, regardless of background. For LGBTQ+ students
specifically, the school respects preferred names, pronouns, and gender identity. However, the

58
protections provided by the school were general and limited without any specific mention of the
LGBTQ+ student population. Lastly, with regards to anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral
policies, students shared concern for their future safety as anti-LGBTQ+ and more conservative
policies started to become more prominent in both local and state legislation. Lastly, interviews
and document analysis also showed that though student perspectives were valued in the
classroom setting, there was a lack of LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum and resources, thus limiting
the opportunity to discuss issues specific to the LGBTQ+ community.

59
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
Chapter 5 will analyze the findings noted in chapter four in alignment with literature and
conceptual framework that were discussed in chapter two. Following the analysis,
recommendations for practice will be provided with the objective of providing educators and
education leaders with protocols that can readily be implemented to improve daily interactions
with LGTBQ+ students. Lastly, this chapter will enumerate recommendations for future research
that will further the dialogue around the needs and challenges of LGBTQ+ students and their
families.
Discussion of Findings
Expanding Allyship for LGBTQ+ Students Beyond GSA and PRIDE Month
According to interviews, LGBTQ+ students confirmed that their voices were heard and
welcomed by both their teachers and peers. Goldstein and Davis (2010) comment that uplifting
the voices of LGBTQ+ youth is integral to not just increasing awareness to LGBTQ+ issues but
also contributing to a greater sense of belonging while on campus. Considering the rise of recent
anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes and policies, truly acknowledging student voices and valuing their life
experiences allows for systemic change as representation of otherwise marginalized voices
increases (de Oliveira Andreotti et al., 2015). As LGBTQ+ students begin to feel a part of the
mainstream narrative on campus, schools have the opportunity to create safer and braver spaces
for students to express and explore who they are without the fear of being silenced thus having a
positive impact on their social emotional well-being (McGary, 2013).
Despite the opportunities for social and academic self-expression among peers, LGBTQ+
students still noted in their interviews the lack of adult allyship and representation. As explained
by the Goldstein and Davis (2010) study discussed in chapter two, LGBTQ+ students not only

60
seek representation and inclusion amongst their peers but also with their teachers and other oncampus staff. Having adult allyship models open-mindedness while also providing a greater
sense of safety. Furthermore, this level of allyship provides the opportunity for mentorship, as
students and educators learn to build positive relationships based on mutual respect and trust.
Conversely, the absence of adult allyship on campus may reinforce negative stigma and
association with the LGBTQ+ community brought on by generations of homophobia and gender
bias thus resulting in further isolation of LGBTQ+ students (Love, 2019).
Findings in this section align closely with research question one and the foundation of the
conceptual framework, queer theory. Here, the findings highlight the importance of each
student’s voice and lived experiences as they talked in-depth about the influence of school
policies on the extent to which they felt comfortable participating in classroom discussion,
reflective exercises, and extracurricular student clubs. Thus, personal interviews brought to light
how policies directly affected student social emotional well-being as it influenced the students’
sense of value and belonging to their peers, teachers, and school as a whole.
Increasing Protections for LGBTQ+ Students
When reviewing student handbooks and classroom syllabi, it was clear that the school
respected preferred names, pronouns, and gender identity of LGBTQ+ students. By
acknowledging such aspects of identity, the school provides its students the same dignity and
respect given to their cis-gender, heterosexual peers while combating gender binaries. Such
efforts is particularly impactful for transgender and non-binary students who experience
comparatively higher rates of bullying, verbal and physical harassment, and even sexual violence
based solely on how they identify (Kahn, 2016). Thus, as the school begins to embrace the
various aspects of the gender spectrum so must it also embrace gender expansive education not

61
only in terms of curriculum which includes the narrative of the LGBTQ+ community but daily
practices and student interactions as well (Martino, 2022).
Syllabi and handbooks also revealed the need for enumerated policies to specifically
include the LGBTQ+ student population. According to Meyer (20027), having general policies
and practices reinforces heterosexual male hegemony as a dominant ideology as it excludes
students who choose not to perform to their assigned gender roles, specifically LGBTQ+, nonbinary, and gender non-conforming students. Here, the school has the opportunity to establish
stronger connections with their LGBTQ+ students while establishing progressive and inclusive
policies to affirm and recognize the LGBTQ+ community.
Here the findings aligned with research question two and the second tier of the
conceptual framework which focused on school-wide and individual classroom policies. The
data showed how policies influence the way LGTBQ+ students consider their school
environment to be inclusive and safe. Specifically, the policies noted in the handbook and syllabi
address school-wide rules and how teachers interpret and implement them in their individual
classrooms. Lastly, the student interviews highlighted how these policies affect the overall
school climate and classroom environments by dictating how other students and teachers
address, acknowledge, and protect LGBTQ+ students.
Considering the Future of LGBTQ+ Students With Current Policies and Practices
Regarding anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral policies, interviews showed that many
students were concerned for their safety as recent conservative policies were now directly
targeting LGBTQ+ students and their families by removing protection from anti-discrimination
and access to healthcare and academic resources. As the cycle of oppression continues, many
LGBTQ+ policies are being overturned, giving way to legislation that bans inclusive classroom

62
material, restricts teachers from incorporating LGBTQ+ topics in classroom discussion, and
forces educators to out LGBTQ+ students to their families. With these policies increasing in
number, LGBTQ+ students are now experiencing significantly higher rates of verbal harassment
and physical bullying which in turn has led to equally higher rates of hospitalization from
assault, school absences, and suicide (Martino, 2022).
In addition to these concerns over anti-LGBTQ+ and LGTBQ-neutral policies, findings
also noted a lack of LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum and resources across all subjects except for
two optional elective courses. According to Farley and Leonardi (2021), the pendulum of
education policy has ranged from laws that condemn the LGBTQ+ community’s existence to the
extreme opposite that provide vaguely worded blanket statements that overlook LGBTQ+
students and their families. As previously stated, recent policies have specifically attacked
transgender and non-binary student populations by upholding the status quo and gender binary in
order to limit the extent to which their identities can be expressed and allowing continual
persecution by their peers and even their teachers.
These findings are directly connected to research questions three and encompass all three
sections of the conceptual framework: queer theory, school-wide policies, and individual
classroom policies. Regarding queer theory, interviews provided students a platform to share
their lived experience, intersectional identities, and their vulnerable voices to showcase how
these anti-LGBTQ+ and LGTBQ-neutral policies have affected them, their families, and what
they envision their future to look like. Meanwhile the generalized school-wide and individual
classroom policies made clear the absence of equitable representation of the LGBTQ+
community thus excluding LGBTQ+ students from truly connecting to the learning process.
Moreover, the lack of representation and curriculum and campus resources inhibits social

63
emotional growth of LGBTQ+ students as they are unable to access information that pertains to
their unique identities and needs. Without inclusive policies, practices, and curriculum, LGBTQ+
students will continue to be overlooked and excluded from the mainstream narrative that has
been established on campus.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1: Increasing LGBTQ+ Allyship and Awareness
According to student interviews, many commented on the lack of adult allyship as they
searched for someone who understands, identifies, and empathizes with their struggles
concerning their sexual orientation or gender identity. By implementing groups such as GSA and
increasing participation from teachers and counselors, schools have the potential to move
towards not only including but celebrating the LGBTQ+ community so that they feel seen, heard,
and supported while increasing awareness about issues specific to the LGBTQ+ student
population (Goldstein & Davis, 2010). Furthermore, a national survey of LGBTQ+ high school
students indicated that schools with GSAs reported a dramatic decrease in sexual orientation or
gender identity-based bullying and a greater sense of belonging overall (Kosciw et al., 2020).
However, allyship and awareness does not stop at the student level. As an educational
community, students need to see their teachers and school leaders actively participating in the
promotion of LGBTQ+ awareness year-round rather than just Pride month. Educators have an
opportunity to learn more about their LGBTQ+ students and how to address their social
emotional needs through safe zone training. These trainings have yet to be integrated into
mandated educator training as it often requires collaboration with community resources such as
the local LGBTQ+ center or through larger organizations such as GLSEN. However, safe zone
training is vital to understanding how educators can best support their LGBTQ+ students as these

64
professional developments provide comprehensive information about LGBTQ+ identities,
gender, and sexuality while prompting deeper conversation around prejudice, assumptions, and
privilege. Lastly, awareness from a school-wide level can readily promote visibility and
inclusion of LGBTQ+ students through school signs, posters, and assemblies.
Recommendation 2: Revising Policies to Specifically Include Protections for LGBTQ+
Students
As previously noted in chapter four, the handbook provides broad statements regarding
equality, inclusivity, and safe spaces while failing to clearly define these terms and how they
may apply to marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ+ community. Enumerated policies are
critical to creating safe and supportive environments for LGBTQ+ students as they explicitly
describe specific student populations that may experience higher rates of bullying at school.
These policies have protective value as they provide guidance for anti-bullying protocols while
emphasizing student’s right to safety and informing all educational stakeholders and community
members that discrimination against LGBTQ+ students will not be tolerated (Russell et al.
2021). At the classroom level, enumerated policies show teacher support for LGBTQ+ students
and advocate for more frequent intervention regarding homophobic or transphobic attitudes,
remarks, and behaviors. In creating a more inclusive environment and embedding LGBTQaffirmative classroom policies and practices, self-efficacy and engagement will dramatically
increase for LGBTQ+ students while identity-based maltreatment, chronic absenteeism, and
behavioral issues decrease (Kosciw et al., 2020). In light of these findings, school policies must
be more explicit about their provisions and protections for LGBTQ+ students. Here, school
leaders and teachers must take into consideration the voices of students and parents while

65
collaborating with LGBTQ+ professionals such as GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight
Education Network) to review policies and incorporate more inclusive language.
Upon the revision of school policies, it is recommended that communication of the
changes must reach the greater school community and not simply stop at the student level. More
often than not, students, parents, and even some school personnel are unaware of safe schools
policies, the embedded protections for LGBTQ+ students, and how to respond when identitybased harassment occurs. Without this vital knowledge, homophobic and transphobic behaviors
and microaggressions will continue to go unchecked.
Recommendation 3: Implementing LGBTQ+ Inclusive Curriculum and Classroom
Resources
Student-led clubs and policies are simply the start to creating LGBTQ-safe settings as
much of the LGBTQ-affirmative work relies on integrating LGBTQ+ voices in curricula through
state laws, educational guidelines, and school district policies and LGBTQ-friendly resources in
school libraries (Russell et al. 2021). During the study, student interviews and classroom syllabi
revealed that while LGBTQ+ student perspectives and voices are welcomed and valued, the
opportunity to discuss LGBTQ+ issues and concepts are minimal and were only found in elective
courses that many students do not take as they are not part of A-G requirements. As previously
noted, openly supportive LGBTQ+ allies on campus are key factors to furthering a sense of
belonging and value for LGBTQ+ students, thus LGBTQ+ inclusive courses play a pivotal role
in beginning much needed dialogue around gender identity and orientation by empowering these
students to claim their narrative in a safe and brave space (McGary, 2013).
The creation of an LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and resources requires collaboration,
feedback, and communication between all stakeholders. At a district level, superintendents are

66
able to increase representation of LGBTQ+ teachers, collaborate with program developers to
create more diverse curriculum, and advocate for systemic integration of LGBTQ-inclusive
curriculum into A–G coursework rather than simply offering it as an optional elective or
supplementary material. Once a change in curriculum and resource requirements has been
mandated, site leadership has the opportunity to provide meaningful professional
developments that supplies educators with the tools to effectively utilize new, inclusive
curriculum in an otherwise traditionally heteronormative, color-blind, and gender-neutral
school setting. With the proper resources available, teachers have the opportunity to truly
mold the curriculum to meet the needs of their students and integrate it into their pre-existing
curriculum and daily practices. Lastly, the most important voice in the dialogue must be that
of the students and parents. Here, it is vital that regular feedback is given regarding both the
relevance of the issues as well as the process in which they are being addressed.
Recommendation 4: Continued Collaboration With Local LGBTQ+ Advocacy and
Consulting Groups to Review and Amend Current Policies and Practices to Reflect
Cultural Responsiveness
Collaboration with external resources is essential for schools who desire to truly make
strides towards social justice and equity by engaging in the reflective process about their own
cultural identities, biases, and experiences while exploring the cultural backgrounds of their
students, families, and the communities (Colton et al., 2016). According to student interviews
and document analysis, there is much work that needs to be done in terms of updating school
policies and practices particularly in terms of ensuring the inclusion of the LGBTQ+
community. Students deserve more than recycled student handbooks or outdated syllabi but
rather they are entitled to policies and curriculum that are current and reflective of the

67
educational, social, political, and cultural needs of the local community. With that, it would be
beneficial for the school to work more closely and frequently with the local LGBTQ+ center
and other groups that are more in touch with local queer youth. In doing so, schools can begin
to take a more culturally responsive approach to developing and supporting the school staff
and promoting a school climate that is welcoming, inclusive, and accepting of LGBTQ+
students. By implementing monthly or bimonthly collaborative sessions with LGBTQ+
advocacy and consulting groups to remain current with LGBTQ+ issues, school leaders have
the opportunity to combat the trend of remaining unconsciously or consciously complicit to
continuing the cycle of oppression that has plagued the LGBTQ+ community and embracing
moral responsibility to protect and support all students (Khalifa et al., 2016).
Recommendations for Future Research
LGBTQ+ Inclusivity for Teachers and Parents
Due to recent conservative legislation, many teachers are being limited in their pedagogy
as classroom resources, lesson plans, and discussions around gender identity are being banned
(H.B. 1557, 2022; Hernandez, 2022). As a result, feelings of being unheard, unseen, and
undervalued continue to persist for LGBTQ+ students despite the efforts of educators and
advocates for inclusive curriculum. To exacerbate the issue, additional legislation has been
issued to prohibit parents of transgender students from receiving gender-affirming services and
labeling those parents who do support their children’s identity as “abusers” thus criminalizing
much needed care and further stigmatizing an already marginalized and vulnerable population of
students. (Goldstein & Davis, 2010). While the laws are generally centered around students,
educators and parents are also deeply affected, particularly those who are also a part of LGBTQ+
community, as their past trauma is now projected onto future generations with little to no hope

68
for progress (Matias, 2013). Though the enactment of law is recent, the struggle to receive
resources to become effective allies to LGBTQ+ students has been one that dates back to the
civil rights movement. Future research in this area may include examining the impact of support
groups for LGBTQ+ teachers and parents, exploring the effect of anti-LGTBQ+ legislation on
the mental health and well-being of teachers and parents, and considering ways in which teachers
and parents can still support their students despite limiting jurisdictions.
Alignment of Statewide, District-Wide, School-Wide, and Classroom Policies
Policies that specifically identify protected groups like LGBTQ+ students create contexts
that are more supportive for all students, not just the LGBTQ+ population, and are positively
associated with student adjustment and achievement. In creating these LGBTQ+ inclusive
policies, collaboration between stakeholders at all levels is required in order to reinvent supports
and systems and make room for cohesive and interconnected programs. While the impact of
inclusive, enumerated policies on school personnel support and training, student-led clubs, and
access to LGBTQ-related resources and curricula have been identified there is still a
misalignment of policies between the state, district, school site, and individual classrooms as
much of the guiding principles get lost in translation (Russell et al. 2021). Thus, detailed
qualitative and quantitative research regarding what an effective inclusive framework of policies
looks like would be beneficial in order to evaluate ways in which the protection and
representation of LGBTQ+ students will be clearly specified and upheld. Future research in this
area may include the revision of educational law, reevaluating school funding to focus on safe
school strategies, and reimagining classroom pedagogy.

69
Influence of Mental Health and Social-Emotional Well-Being on the Academic Success of
LGBTQ+ Students
Providing students with a safe, brave, and inclusive space gives them freedom to be their
true and authentic selves. However, as bullying and harassment of LGBTQ+ students continue to
persist, educators and educational leaders must become more vigilant in providing not only
protection but also resources to provide LGBTQ+ students with the holistic educational
experience they are owed. When a student’s mental health and social emotional well-being are
compromised due to harmful and toxic environments, the effects on their academic success can
be devastating as suicide, depression, truancy, and drop-out rates increase. As such, mental
health resources and social emotional learning (SEL) curriculum must become readily available
to all students, especially those in the LGBTQ+ population, and tailored to meet the needs of the
modern-day student. Future research in this area may also include identifying ways for educators
to better collaborate with counselors and mental health professionals, evaluating postsecondary
success of LGBTQ+ students, and investigating strategies to provide LGBTQ+ students at home
through parent or guardian involvement.
Conclusion
In review, educators and educational leaders are tasked with creating an inclusive
learning environment for all students, especially those a part of LGBTQ+ community, through
LGBTQ-affirmative policies that provide for LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum and a safe space for
LGBTQ+ students (McKibben, 2016). Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the
perspectives of LGBTQ+ students on how anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral policies influence
their sense of inclusivity and safety at school. After reviewing student handbooks and classroom
syllabi and conducting student interviews, it was concluded that in general LGBTQ+ students

70
felt safe and included in day-to-day practices. However, it was also evident that while schoolwide and individual classroom policies were not inherently anti-LGBTQ+ the provisions for
equitable representation in terms of school safety, resources, and curriculum were broad and did
not specifically mention LGBTQ+ students. Accordingly, it was recommended that LGBTQ+
allyship and awareness be increased both in the classroom and school-wide, policies be revised
to specifically include LGBTQ+ students, and LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum and resources
become more accessible and embedded in pedagogy.
In closing, Gloria Ladson Billings (2006) talks in depth about the education debt that is
owed to students noting “we must address the education debt because it has implications for the
kinds of lives we can live and the kind of education the society can expect for most of its
children” (p.10). While educators and leaders focus intensely on academic success of students,
little attention is given to their social emotional needs and the school policies that deeply affect
how they are seen, heard, and represented. The implementation of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies
allow LGBTQ+ students to see themselves in the learning process as well as the historical
narrative of the fight towards equity and social justice. By supporting LGBTQ+ youth through
enumerated policies, on-campus events, and meaningful curriculum, not only do LGBTQ+
students have the opportunity to not only learn more about their community but also have the
space to be their authentic selves without the pressures of assimilating to an otherwise cisgender
and heterosexual society. Furthermore, inclusive policies invite all students to confront personal
biases and prejudices in order to exist harmoniously while deconstructing stereotypes, practicing
safe zones, and holding restorative dialogue centered around LGBTQ+ issues. However, such
systemic change is only possible through authentic collaboration in order to address equity traps,
competing commitments, and historical inequities. As inspired and passionate teachers and

71
school leaders work together to maximize the effect of their teaching on all students in their care,
LGTBQ+ students will have access to the equitable representation they deserve characterized by
a supportive school community, accessible resources, and a framework that truly takes into
consideration their lived experiences, current challenges, and future triumphs.
The LGBTQ+ community has been marginalized and targeted for simply existing and
attempting to live authentic lives. Year after year there are countless reports of abuse, bullying,
and the loss of life of LGBTQ+ individuals and the system continuing to fail them. From
Matthew Shephard to Tyler Clementi to Nex Benedict–all victims of heinous acts of violence
which resulted in their untimely deaths–policies fall short of protecting those who need it most
thus allowing history to continue repeating itself. While anti-bullying statements and inclusive
practices are necessary, they are only the beginning of the change that is needed to bring justice
to the LGBTQ+ community, uplift their voices, and protect their humanity.

72
References
American Psychological Association (2021). Inclusive language guidelines.
https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines.pdf
Anzaldúa, G. (2012). Borderlands: La frontera: The new mestiza. Aunt Lute Books.
Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal of
Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14–19.
https://doi.org/10.2458/v6i1.18772
Bissonette, S., & Szymanski, D. M. (2019). Minority stress and LGBQ college students’
depression: Roles of peer group and involvement. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and
Gender Diversity, 6(3), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000332
Boyland, L. G., Kirkeby, K. M., & Boyland, M. I. (2018). Policies and practices supporting
LGBTQ students in Indiana’s middle schools. NASSP Bulletin, 102(2), 111–140.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019263651878242
Collins, P. H. (2002). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. Routledge.
de Oliveira Andreotti, V., Stein, S., Ahenakew, C., & Hunt, D. (2015). Mapping interpretations
of decolonisation in the context of higher education. Decolonisation: Indigeneity,
Education & Society, 4(1), 21-40
Colton, A., Langer, G., & Goff, L. G. (2016). Chapter 1. The collaborative analysis of student
learning: Essential features and benefits. The Collaborative Analysis of Student Learning:
Professional Learning that Promotes Success for All (pp. 10–30). ASCD.
Farley, A. N., & Leonardi, B. (2021). Beyond bathroom bills and the gender identity debate:

73
Complicating the policy conversation about supporting trans students in schools.
Educational Policy, 35(2), 274–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820986770
Goldstein, S. B., & Davis, D. S. (2010). Heterosexual allies: A descriptive profile. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 43(4), 478-494.
Goodman, J. D. (2022). Texas court halts investigation of parents over care for
transgender youth. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/
us/texas-transgender-child-abuse.html
Goodman, J. D., & Morris, A. (2022). Texas investigates parents over care for
transgender youth, Suit says. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/
2022/03/01/us/texas-child-abuse-trans-youth.htm
Halperin, D. M. (2003). The normalization of queer theory. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2–4),
339–343. https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v45n02_17
Hernandez, J. (2022). Florida house passes controversial measure dubbed the
'don't say gay' bill by critics. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/02/24/1082969036/
florida-house-passes-controversial-measure-dubbed-the-dont-say-gay-bill-by-criti
Hinga, B (2022). Paradigms of inquiry [PowerPoint presentation]. Blackboard@USC.
https://blackboard.usc.edu/webapps/login/
House Bill 1557, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess. (Fl. 2022) (approved). https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/
Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/PDF
Human Rights Campaign. (2018). Advocating for LGBTQ equality. Human Rights
Campaign. https://www.hrc.org/resources
Johnson, R.B. & Christensen, L.B. (2017). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (6th ed.). Sage

74
Kahn, E. (2016). The schools transgender students need. Educational Leadership. 74(3), 70-73.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/nov16/vol74/num03/
The-Schools-Transgender-Students-Need.aspx
Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A. & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A
synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 1272-1311.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The
2011 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender youth in our nation's schools. GLSEN
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
LGBTQ History (2018, August 8). The FAIR education act. LGBTQ History.
https://www.lgbtqhistory.org/fair-ed-history/
Lochmiller, C.R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Love, B. L. (2019). We want to do more than survive: Abolitionist teaching and the pursuit of
educational freedom. Beacon Press.
Lorde, A. (1982). Zami: A new spelling of my name. Penguin Classics.
Martino, W. (2022). Supporting transgender students and gender-expansive education in
schools: Investigating policy, pedagogy, and curricular implications. Teachers College
Record, 124(8), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681221121513
Matias, C. E. (2013). On the “flip” side: A teacher educator of color unveiling the dangerous
minds of white teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly, 40(2), 53–73.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). SAGE

75
McGary, R. (2013). Respect, resilience, and LGBT students. Educational Leadership. 71(1).
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept13/vol71/num01/Respect,
Resilience,-and-LGBT-Students.aspx
McKibben, S. (2016). Charting a course to transgender inclusion. Education Update.
58(1). http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education-update/jan16/vol58/
num01/Charting-a-Course-to-Transgender-Inclusion.aspx
McKibben, S. (2018). Creating a gender-inclusive classroom. Education Update. 60(4).
http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/education_update/apr18/vol60/num04/Crea
ting_a_Gender-Inclusive_Classroom.aspx
Meyer, E. (2007). Chapter 1. “But i’m not gay”: What straight teachers need to know about
queer theory. In M. Rodriguez & W. Pinar (Eds.), Queering straight teachers: discourse
and identity in education (pp. 15–32). Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
Nussbaum, F., & Hull, G. T. (1985). Give us each day: The diary of alice dunbar-nelson.
Black American Literature Forum, 19(4), 167. https://doi.org/10.2307/2904281
Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Chapter 2: Conceptual frameworks in research. In
Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. (2nd ed.,
pp. 32-61). Sage.
Russell, S. T., Bishop, M. D., Saba, V. C., James, I., & Ioverno, S. (2021). Promoting school
safety for LGBTQ and all students. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 8(2), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211031938
Sadowski, M. (2016). More than a safe space. Educational Leadership, 74(1), 33–36.
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership/sept16/vol74/num01/More-Thana-Safe-Space.aspx

76
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Chapter 6: Just the Truth. In Statistics for people who (think they) hate
statistics: Using Microsoft Excel 2016 (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Smith, L. T. (2002). Chapter 6: The indigenous people’s project: Setting a new agenda. In
Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. (pp. 117–120). Zed
Books, Ltd.
Solorzano, D. & Yosso, T. (2002) Critical race methodology: counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 2002 23–44
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of
the education of dominated cultures in the United States (8th ed.). Routledge.
Taylor T., Peter C. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on
homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report. Egale Canada
Human Rights Trust.
Tillman, L. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African-American
perspective. Educational Researcher, 31(9), pp. 3–12.
Tuck, E., & Gaztambide-Fernández, R. A. (2013). Curriculum, replacement, and settler futurity.
Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 29(1), 72–89.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. In D. Paris & M. T. Winn (Eds.),
Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry for youth and communities (pp.
223–247). Sage.
Warth, G. (2017). San Diego Unified board president calls for action on social issues.
San Diego Tribune. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/education/
sd-me-barrera-speech-20171018-story.html
White, J., Sepulveda, M.-J., & Patterson, C. J. (2021). Understanding the well-being of

77
LGBTQI+ populations. National Academies Press.
Yep, G. A., Lovaas, K., & Elia, J. P. (2014). Queer theory and communication: From
disciplining queers to queering the discipline(s). Harrington Park Press.

78
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
The following is an interview protocol that was utilized for all participant interviews and
includes:
● student friendly introduction
● interview questions
● closing
Student Friendly Introduction
Hello! So, first of all, I want to thank you for being willing to participate in this study. To
give you a little background on what I’m doing: I currently go to USC and am in the process of
getting my doctorate which requires me to research a topic of my choosing. For my study, I am
choosing to research LGBTQ+ high school students and their opinions on how inclusive and safe
their school is for themselves and other LGBTQ+ students. As an openly gay teacher, I have a
much different perspective on our school, so I wanted to see what you all had to say. Now, I just
wanted to remind you that your identity will remain anonymous and that after the interview, I
would like for you to go over my findings to ensure that I’m representing you in the best, most
accurate light possible.
Interview Questions
Interview questions, transitions, and probes are provided in Table A1 on the following
page.
Closing
Thank you so much for sharing your perspectives and opinions. It was really nice
hanging out with you today. If you have any questions or would like to follow-up on anything
you had to say today, please feel free to contact me.

79
Table A1
Alignment of Interview Questions With Research Questions (RQs) and Conceptual Framework
(CF)
Interview questions Alignment with RQs Alignment with CF
Please tell me your grade
level, preferred pronouns,
and how you identify
within the LGBTQ+
community.
None Lived experience
Student voice
Intersectionality
Transition: Let’s talk a little bit about your current high school experience.
Describe to me how your
school views the LGBTQ+
community.
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
School climate
Do you think your school as a
whole is a safe place for
LGBTQ+ students? Why or
why not?
RQ 1: How do school-wide
and classroom policies
influence how LGBTQ+
students understand their
socioemotional well-being?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
Rules and regulations
School climate
Probe: What kind of resources
does your school provide
for LGBTQ+ students?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
Rules and regulations
School climate

80
Interview questions Alignment with RQs Alignment with CF
Describe to me what your
high school experience has
been like as a/an [insert
identity] student.
RQ 1: How do school-wide
and classroom policies
influence how LGBTQ+
students understand their
socioemotional well-being?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Lived experience
Student voice
Intersectionality
School climate
In what ways does your
school allow you to express
your identity on campus?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
Rules and regulations
School climate
Lived experience
Student voice
Intersectionality
Probe: How comfortable are
you expressing your
identity on campus?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
Rules and regulations
School climate
Lived experience
Student voice
Intersectionality
Transition: For this next portion, I want you to think about specific examples regarding your
school and classroom setting.

81
Interview questions Alignment with RQs Alignment with CF
When you think about what
you’re learning in class,
how often do you learn
about LGBTQ+ topics?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice
Probe: What have you learned
about LGBTQ+ topics in
your classroom?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice
How comfortable are you
with discussing LGBTQ+
topics in class?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice

82
Interview questions Alignment with RQs Alignment with CF
Provide an example of how
you feel a part of the school
community.
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Rules and regulations
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice
Probe: Provide an example of
how you do not feel a part
of the school community.
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Rules and regulations
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice
How have recent antiLGBTQ+ policies
(example: Don’t Say Gay
Bill, book bans, and etc.)
influenced how safe you
feel at school?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Rules and regulations
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice
Probe: In what ways is your
school addressing antiLGBTQ+ sentiments?
RQ 3: What is the students’
perception of the impact of
anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQneutral classroom policies
and practices?
Rules and regulations
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice
Transition: For this last question, I want you to think of your ideal school for LGBTQ+
students.

83
Interview questions Alignment with RQs Alignment with CF
What are some ways your
school could make
LGBTQ+ students feel safe
and included?
RQ 1: How do school-wide
and classroom policies
influence how LGBTQ+
students understand their
socioemotional well-being?
RQ 2: In what way do
LGBTQ+ secondary
students consider their
schools to be inclusive and
safe?
Rules and regulations
Mandated curriculum
School climate
Interpretation of rules
Pedagogy
Classroom environment
Lived experience
Student voice

84
Appendix B: Information and Recruitment Letter
Hello! My name is Mr. Manese, and I am a science teacher and GSA advisor (Genders &
Sexualities Alliance) here at [INSERT SCHOOL NAME]. As part of my journey towards
creating a more inclusive and safe learning environment, I am working on a research project and
I need your help. To give you a little background on what I’m doing: I currently go to USC and
am in the process of getting my doctorate which requires me to research a topic of my choosing.
For my study, I am researching LGBTQ+ high school students and their opinions on how
inclusive and safe their school is for themselves and other LGBTQ+ students. As an openly gay
teacher, I have a much different perspective on our school, so I wanted to see what you all had to
say!
Currently, I am looking for 10 individuals to take an hour out of their week to meet with
me virtually for a one-on-one interview. Participants of the study MUST meet the following
criteria:
● 18+ years of age
● identifies within the LGBTQ+ community
● currently enrolled or recently graduated
Thank you in advance for your consideration. I am truly hoping that my research leads to
some changes on our campus to make our spaces more inclusive and safer for LGBTQ+ students.
For more information or if you are interested in participating in this study, please email me at
DManese@[school].org.
Mr. M

85
Participant Consent Form
Introduction
Thank you for your consideration in participating in this research study. Please take as
much time as you need to read the consent form. If you find any of the language difficult to
understand, please ask questions. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form.
A copy of the signed form will be provided to you for your records
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand in what ways LGBTQ+ high school students
feel safe and included on their campus and in their classrooms. In doing so, this study will
provide insight into a unique and diverse community of students that is often overlooked during
the development of school-wide and classroom policies.
Your Role as a Participant
In order to be a part of the study, you will be required to meet the following requirements
as a participant:
● 18+ years of age
● identifies within the LGBTQ+ community
● currently enrolled or recently graduated
If you meet the requirements, you will be asked to participate in a one-on-one virtual
interview on a day and time of your choosing. Please make sure that you allow for at least one
hour for the interview and that you will uninterrupted during its duration. Additionally,
interviews will be recorded in order to ensure accuracy of responses during the review process.
As part of the interview process, you will have the right to the following:
● Breaks, as needed

86
● Ability to skip questions
● Ability to ask clarifying questions during the interview
● Ability to revisit and edit your responses
● Ability to end the interview completely at any time, if you are uncomfortable
● Ability to review the recording to ensure an accurate depiction of yourself
Participant Information
Name: ________________________________________ Pronouns: _____________ Age:_____
Phone Number: (____) ________-__________ Email: __________________________________
Participant Signature
I (Full Name of Participant) ________________________________________ hereby
agree to participate in the research study that will be conducted in order fulfill the requirements
set forth by the University of Southern California. I certify that I am of legal age (18+) and have
the option to opt out of the interview and research process at any time. Lastly, I give permission
to be directly or indirectly quoted given that I am represented honestly and that my privacy is
protected.
Signature: ________________________________________ Date: ______________________
Printed Name: ____________________________________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The following study utilized queer theory as the foundation of a conceptual framework which analyzes school-wide and individual classroom policies with the central focus on inclusive and safe school environments for LGBTQ+ students. The purpose of this study was to critically examine the perspectives of LGBTQ+ students on how anti-LGBTQ+ and LGBTQ-neutral policies influence their sense of inclusivity and safety in a secondary school setting. Qualitative data was gathered from interviews of 10 LGBTQ+ students, as well as document analysis of student handbooks and classroom syllabi. Analysis of the data utilized a-priori coding via a template coding system and emergent coding via open and axial coding systems in order to identify common themes, keywords, or phrases. Findings from this study indicated that while LGBTQ+ students felt valued, seen, and heard by their teachers and peers, there was still limited allyship from teachers, a lack of enumerated policies for LGBTQ+ students, and noticeable absences of LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and resources. With that, this study provided a list of recommendations in order to make the school and classroom environments more inclusive and safe for LGBTQ+ students while also establishing a foundation for future research on inclusivity for teachers and parents, alignment of policies at all levels, and the influence of mental health on academic success of LGBTQ+ students.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Classrooms beyond the binary: elementary teachers gendered beliefs and classroom practices

PDF

The power of community-building circles (a restorative practice approach): fostering Black and Latino students’ sense of belonging

PDF

Reimagining computer science education for female students of color

PDF

Reforming student discipline policies in elementary schools: an improvement study

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Examining teacher retention and attrition in novice teachers

PDF

The effects of inclusive education on academic achievement for special education and general education students of color: a meta-analysis

PDF

Exploring teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education in Singapore

PDF

Efficacy drivers that aid teacher professional development transfer

PDF

Disciplinary systems in California high schools and their effects on African American males’ self-efficacy

PDF

TikToking and Instagramming: following high school teacher influencers' roles in supporting and informing teacher practices

PDF

Queer consciousness: one kindergarten teacher’s action research to support colleagues in creating safer schools for queer people

PDF

Disability disclosure: the lived experiences of medical school students with disabilities

PDF

Exploring primary teachers' self-efficacy and technology integration in early reading instruction

PDF

Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty

PDF

Inclusive vogue: exploring the demand for body diversity in the fashion and modeling world

PDF

Creative trouble: an exploration of elementary classroom teachers' perceptions of their roles in educational justice

PDF

Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences

PDF

Implementing inclusive education in Ukraine: developing teachers and partnerships for change

PDF

Critical reflection and action in supportive learning environments for LGBTQ+ adolescents of color

Asset Metadata

Creator Manese, Daryl (author)

Core Title Considering queerness: examining school policies and their influence on inclusivity and safety for LGBTQ+ secondary students

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 08/19/2024

Defense Date 08/15/2024

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

Tag High School,inclusivity,LGBTQ+,policy,queer,saftey,Secondary,students

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Krop, Cathy (committee member), Riggio, Marsha (committee member)

Creator Email manese@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1139991ZF

Unique identifier UC1139991ZF

Identifier etd-ManeseDary-13401.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ManeseDary-13401

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Manese, Daryl

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240819-usctheses-batch-1199 (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