University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Inclusive Gender Practices in High Schools: A Study on Supports and Practical Solutions
for California Administrators

Tuesday Hancock-Stoffers

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

May 2023

© Copyright by Tuesday Hancock-Stoffers 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Tuesday Hancock-Stoffers certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Alison Muraszewski
Gregory Franklin
David Cash, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study applies social cognitive theory from the academic literature to determine the influence
between a principal’s behavior and actions, the principal’s beliefs and motivation, and the
environment in which they work to support transgender and gender non-conforming students.
The purpose was to examine how the experiences and beliefs of high school principals in Los
Angeles County, California determines how they currently implement gender identity legislation
to drive site-based decisions that support this student population. Using a qualitative approach,
surveys and interviews were conducted with a sample of 26 high school principals. The research
questions focused on the extent to which principals were implementing state, federal, and local
policies, the district support received, and the role of personal motivation in implementing these
policies. Findings indicated that while most principals had implemented some form of support
for transgender and gender non-conforming students, there was a lack of specific policies and
procedures in place specifically for this population. Additionally, staff professional development
and interactions with these students varied greatly, with some principals reporting a lack of staff
knowledge and understanding on the topic. The role of the school counselor and mental health
specialist emerged as a key finding in providing support for these students. Community
resistance was also identified as a factor influencing principals' decision-making in implementing
policies for transgender and gender non-conforming students. Lastly, professional development
aimed specifically at site leaders was found to be lacking in the districts involved in the study.
Overall, the findings suggest a need for increased support and training for high school principals
in effectively serving the needs of transgender and gender non-conforming students.

x
Dedication
To my husband, John, my daughter, Gia, and my D.S., Christa, I could not have achieved this
goal without your love, patience, and support. I am and will always be forever grateful.

xi
Acknowledgements
A special thank you to Dr. David Cash, my first professor in the USC Doctoral program
and my dissertation Committee Chair. His knowledge, insight, and call for perseverance is a true
testament to the USC battle cry, “Fight On”. I would also like to extend my absolute appreciation
to Dr. Alison Muraszweski, who made the journey of learning about social cognitive theory,
online, engaging and completely applicable to real life. In addition, I would like to thank Dr.
Gregory Franklin for serving as a member of my committee.
Readers will also note that this dissertation is a collaborative effort with Christa Dalene
Glembocki, who is a beloved friend and fellow classmate in my doctoral program. After many
deep discussions about the topics that face us both, as principals, we discovered a mutual interest
in the need to highlight the increased challenges faced by school principals, at the secondary
level, to support students who identify as transgender and gender non-conforming. Although I
serve in the Los Angeles area and she serves in the Orange County area we sought to find
commonalities between the two counties, which are often in conflict over topics such as ours.
Finally, but most importantly, I would like to thank my husband John, who completely
understands the painstaking effort a dissertation takes. During the writing of this paper, he took
over most of the parenting duties while I worked, spent many a night providing his editorial
skills, and patiently supported me through the process of completing this work. Thank you, my
love. Thank you.

xi
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 5
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 6
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 7
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 11
Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Theory ........................................................... 11
History of Laws and Policies for Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming
Students ............................................................................................................................. 22
Implementation of Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Policy ............................. 27
Leading Through Controversial and Political Issues ........................................................ 34
District and School Based Resources ............................................................................... 40
Summary of the Literature ................................................................................................ 46
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 48
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 49
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 50
Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 50

xi
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 52
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 53
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 54
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 55
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 57
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 58
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 61
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 61
Findings............................................................................................................................. 64
Findings: Research Question 1 ......................................................................................... 65
Discussion Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 73
Findings: Research Question 2 ......................................................................................... 74
Discussion Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 84
Findings: Research Question 3 ......................................................................................... 85
Discussion Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 95
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 96
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 99
Findings........................................................................................................................... 100
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 107
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 107
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 109
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 111
References ................................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................. 119

xi
Survey Items ................................................................................................................... 120
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 128
Opening ........................................................................................................................... 129
Environment .................................................................................................................... 129
Behavior .......................................................................................................................... 130
Beliefs/Motivation .......................................................................................................... 131
Closing ............................................................................................................................ 132
Appendix C: Research Question Alignment to Protocols Matrix ............................................... 133

xi
List of Tables
Table 1: Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Principals 51
Table 2: Survey Participant Race/Ethnicity 62
Table 3: Survey Participant Gender 63
Table 4: Interview Participants 63
Table 5: District Training/Professional Development 83
Table 6: For Each of the Following Terms, Please Indicate Whether You Are
Familiar With and/or Can Define These Terms 87

Appendix C: Research Question Alignment to Protocols Matrix 133

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Triangulation of the Data 58
Figure 2: Identify Which of the Following Practices Are Present at Your School Site 67
Figure 3: My Staff Would Benefit From Training to Develop Their Skills in How to
Support Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Students 71
Figure 4: In the Last Academic Year, I Have Provided Sufficient Training/
Professional Development for My Site Staff to Support Transgender
and Gender Non-conforming Students 72
Figure 5: How Diverse Would You Say Your School Is? 76
Figure 6: How True Is This Statement? Bullying Is a Problem for Students in
My School 77

Figure 7: How True Is This Statement? Transgender and Gender Non-conforming
Students, at My School, Are Bullied More Frequently Than Their Peers 78

Figure 8: Approximately How Many Transgender and Gender Non-conforming
Students Do You Have on Campus and How Many Gender-Neutral
Restrooms Do You Have on Campus? 81

Figure 9: Comparison of Collaborating With Colleagues Within and Outside of
District to Get Ideas for Supporting Transgender and Gender
Non-conforming Students 90

Figure 10: Please Answer the Following Based on Your Own Personal Beliefs 93

xii
Preface
Some of the chapters of this dissertation were co-authored and have been identified as
such. While jointly authored dissertations are not the norm of most doctoral programs, a
collaborative effort is reflective of real-world practices. To meet their objective of developing
highly skilled practitioners equipped to take on real-world challenges, the USC Graduate School
and the USC Rossier School of Education have permitted our inquiry team to carry out this
shared venture.
This dissertation is part of a collaborative project with one other doctoral candidate,
Christa Glembocki. In our professional practice, we both saw an area of need to study
surrounding principal’s practical implementation of transgender and gender non-conforming
policies and laws. Since we work in different counties with differing political, demographic, and
sizes of school districts, we aimed to work together to understand the challenges in each county.
We were also interested in any differences within secondary school levels. I studied high school
principals in Los Angeles County, California, while Christa Glembocki studied middle school
principals in Orange County, California (see Glembocki, 2023).

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Issues surrounding the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others (LGBTQ+)
community have received increasing attention throughout the past decade both in the general
population and in schools. While K–12 school policy that centers on inclusion of LGBTQ+
students is promoted as a way of improving the school climate for them, the policy may be
limited in achieving that goal beyond what is written on paper. While California has passed over
a half dozen laws in the past decade intending to prevent bullying and suicide, and foster
inclusive learning environments for LGBTQ+ students in schools, California school districts are
implementing these laws inconsistently or often times not at all (Cano, 2019). Although attitudes
toward LGBTQ+ students have improved in recent years and legislation to protect students who
identify with this community has been adopted by the state, a common challenge amongst
California schools is a lack of professional development and support for staff to recognize biases,
identify microaggressions, or respond appropriately to transgender victimization. Overall, school
staff, including administrators, have received little to no formal training in the area of diverse
sexual orientations and gender identities (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016).
As more students identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, schools must
consider supports and inclusive practices that ensure their safety and success. Equal protection
does not necessarily mean equal solutions and these students’ unique needs should always be
considered (Croteau & Lewis, 2016). Students who identify as transgender or gender non-
conforming are faced with school climates where there are daily microaggressions from other
students, staff, and administrators, yet there are not consistent avenues for them to seek help
from the adults on campus (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). Recent studies have shown that this
population of students have experienced trauma in the following ways: 50% have been victims of
2

sexual assault, 40% victims of physical assault, 41% have attempted suicide, and as adults are
twice as likely to be unemployed and four times as likely to live below the poverty line (Croteau
& Lewis, 2016). Stargell et al. (2020) asserted while educators share the ethical duty to serve all
students and provide them with equal educational opportunities, not all school personnel are
equipped to ensure equity for all LGBTQ+ students.
Background of the Problem
Supporting students who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, in schools,
should look no different than any other group seeking equity and inclusion. However, many
schools have done little to include these students as part of the larger school community. In 2017,
California School Superintendent Tom Torlakson stated, “All students deserve a safe and
supportive school climate. California will continue to work to provide that environment for our
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students regardless of any misguided directives by the
federal government and the Trump administration” (Beese & Martin, p.70, 2018). The political
climate of recent years has led to educators expressing higher levels of fear and anxiety when
working with transgender and gender non-conforming students, thus limiting what is being done
in schools (Croteau & Lewis, 2016).
With the increased number of students coming out at a younger age, schools are no
longer able to assist in individualistic ways. Inclusive practices should not be dependent upon a
student being required to declare their gender identity in order to receive a fair educational
experience, but rather systems should already be in place (Martino et al., 2020). Administrators
may have the knowledge or the determination to address these inequities, but they may not have
practical tools or solutions to enact in their school setting. In addition, administrators are pulled
3

in so many directions that a school district’s focus or local cultural climate may deter the
implementation of these policies for students.
Statement of the Problem
As attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community continue to become more accepting, it
stands to reason that schools should have policies in place that support and provide for students
who identify with this community. However, the data shows the opposite. Demissie et al. (2018)
suggested that one of the many challenges to schools implementing state policy is cost. In this
particular study it was found that the one practice that had a significant increase was the creation
of safe spaces. This could be due to the low or no cost of creating a room where students feel
comfortable. There is no professional development required to create a safe space. However, the
adult facilitating the area should be trained in best practices to support students who are seeking
the space. Most districts lack policies, guidelines, and/or professional development opportunities
aimed at supporting transgender or gender non-conforming students, which leaves them in a
vulnerable position within the state’s education system. Disregard for this legislation by school
districts potentially increases exclusionary school environments and increases the rate of at-risk
behavior for a population that already experiences at-risk behavior due to additional societal
stressors such as bias and discrimination.
Meyer and Keenan (2018) shared that while K–12 school policies that focus on the
inclusion of transgender students are viewed as a way to improve the circumstances transgender
students may face, they are often limited in accomplishing that goal beyond the rhetorical level.
Meyer and Keenan (2018) also suggested this may be a result of schools being ill-equipped to
support the needs of transgender students, lack of experience in creating schools that have
4

transgender inclusive environments, or school environments that are actively hostile toward
students who are transgender or gender non-conforming.
Currently there is a lack of research surrounding administrator’s implementation of
comprehensive school practices that support transgender and gender non-conforming students.
Most studies discuss reactive policies rather than proactive inclusive policies, in that schools
provide accommodations and support for these students only when their gender identity is known
or “out” (Coolhart & MacKnight, 2015; Martino et al., 2020; Meyer & Keenan, 2018).
Administrators have to navigate the often delicate balance between advocating for transgender
students as dictated by law, while sustaining optimal learning opportunities for all other students
and families (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). In my experience, parents of cisgender students are often
uninformed or unaware of the laws and policies regarding transgender and gender non-
conforming students which results in contacting the school with complaints focused on bathroom
and locker room usage.
Administrators who are supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students
should center on building trust through strong policies, a supportive school climate, and
confident navigation of the legal implications (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). Based on my experience
working in and observing other schools, administrators do not often have all of these components
in place to support these students. Although certain elements may be in place, the overarching
structural changes to heteronormativity have not taken hold in most schools and districts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the experiences of high school principals in Los
Angeles County, CA in relation to the implementation of gender identity legislation and policy
within their school sites. Based on the data, the intent was to provide real-world, practical
5

solutions for other site administrators trying to navigate the challenging parameters of
inclusionary practices for transgender and gender non-conforming students, while also meeting
the needs of the rest of the school community. Interviews were conducted with high school
principals in Los Angeles County to gain insight into their personal and professional motivations
to implement these policies, as well as the influencing factors from their local district and school
site. In addition, interview topics delved into successful implementation of practices that support
students who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming.
This study was framed by social cognitive theory, as I looked at the interplay between the
principal’s behavior and actions, the principal’s beliefs and motivation, and the environment in
which they work. Social cognitive theory rests within a framework of triadic reciprocity, which
Schunk (2020) explained from Bandura’s larger theory, as a bidirectional and dynamic set of
learning and behavioral variables. These variables assert that learning and behavior occur within
a social environment that is highly context dependent, hence the reciprocity between the self,
environment, and behaviors (Schunk, 2020). Social cognitive theory helps to distinguish between
the knowledge one holds and the performance they take. People tend to emulate what they agree
with or find self-satisfying, and reject or ignore what they disagree with (Wood & Bandura,
1989).
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do Los Angeles County, California high school principals implement gender
identity legislation to drive site-based decisions that support transgender and gender
non-conforming students?
6

2. How does the district and school culture influence a high school principal’s
implementation of policies for students who identify as transgender or gender non-
conforming?
3. To what extent does the motivation of the principal play a factor in implementing
these policies?
Significance of the Study
Research to support equity is paramount because, “Doctoral students, among others, can
change and advance the research literature in ways that validate and give voice to people who
have often been silenced, misinterpreted, misrepresented, and placed on the margins” (Milner,
2007, p. 397). This study is significant in that it will help site administrators to recognize the lack
of systems of traditional support for students who identify as transgender or gender non-
conforming, and then assist the administrators to act on creating systems within their work
environment. Currently, many principals are reactive in their support of this population of
students and are not engaging in gender affirming practices as part of their school culture
(Martino et al., 2020). This study sought to find examples of schools in which these policies are
embedded in systemic ways. This study’s importance is to share practical solutions for policy
implementation which surrounds gender identity and may be used by school administrators and
future researchers.
Limitation and Delimitations
While completing this study, I was professionally serving as a high school principal in
Los Angeles County. Potential limitations to this study included interviewer influence, which can
lead to various biases throughout the study (Creswell, 2014). However, the central focus of the
study was high school principals, resulting in a peer-to-peer relationship between the interviewer
7

and the interviewee, thus reducing a potential power dynamic. The personal beliefs of the
participants may have served as a limitation due to the potential controversial nature of the topic.
In response to potential interviewee discomfort or bias, the participants were able to opt out at
any given moment during the study due to various, unforeseen challenges.
Marzano et al. (2005) asserted that effective leaders have the potential to build school
culture which positively influences teachers, who, in turn positively influence students. Because
this study focused on the impacts high school principals have on the implementation of state
legislation surrounding transgender and gender non-conforming students, the boundaries of this
study was high school principals and did not include students. The study limited participants to
Los Angeles County for convenience of the location where I work, in addition to the familiarity
and networks I have in the area.
Definition of Terms
AB 1266: The School Success and Opportunity Act. This California state law protects the
rights of transgender students. It states that, “A pupil shall be permitted to participate in sex-
segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions and the use
of facilities consistent with his or her gender identity, irrespective of the gender listed on the
pupil’s records” (Meyer & Keenan, p. 741, 2018).
Cisnormativity: the belief that gender is a solely, binary category that flows naturally
from sex that is assigned at birth (Martino et al., 2020).
Gender: Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women, men, girls
and boys. This includes norms, behaviors and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or
boy, as well as relationships with one another. Because gender is a social construct, it varies
from society to society and is always evolving (World Health Organization, 2008).
8

Gender identity: the “intrinsic feeling of ‘being male or female or some combination of
both or neither.’ Their appearance or behavior may be displayed differently from traditional
norms” (Beese & Martin, p. 68, 2018).
Gender non-conforming: Students who identify as gender non-conforming exercise
fluidity between male and female gender norms. They may move back and forth between
genders or may not identify as either.
GLSEN: Stands for Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network and is an educational
organization that works to end discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual
orientation, gender identity, and gender expression in K–12 schools. GLSEN is often used as a
resource for administrators and teachers and can be found at glsen.org.
GSA: The Genders and Sexualities Alliance is a club that is often found on secondary
campuses. These are student-run organizations that unite LGBTQTAI2+ and allied youth to
build community surrounding issues that are faced in schools for this population. In the past,
these clubs were known as Gay Straight Alliances.
Heteronormativity: The assumption that all people are straight
LGBTQ+: An acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (or questioning) and
others. This label encompasses the myriad of distinct groups within this community.
Seth’s Law: This is a California law that requires public schools to update their anti-
bullying policies and programs. It is predominantly focused on protecting the rights of students
who are bullied based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity, as well
as their race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability, and religion.
Title IX: Title IX protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs
or activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states: “No person in the United
9

States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance” (Office of Civil Rights, 2021).
Transgender: This term refers to the spectrum of individuals whose gender identities do
not align with cisnormative expectations for the gender assigned to them at birth, or the
expectations associate with that gender (Enke, 2016).
Organization of the Study
Inclusive Gender Practices in High Schools: A Study on Supports and Practical Solutions
for CA Administrators is organized into five chapters, including this introductory chapter.
Chapter 2 presents a literature review of important topics surrounding school administrator’s
implementation of California policies to protect transgender and gender non-conforming
students. Chapter 3 describes the methodology selected for this research study and includes
participant selection, a survey instrument, interview questions, data collection, and data analysis.
Chapter 4 is a detailed report of the findings from the previous chapter. Chapter 5 concludes this
study with a summary of the findings, implications for practitioners, conclusions, and
recommendations.
In summary, Inclusive Gender Practices in High Schools: A Study on Supports and
Practical Solutions for CA Administrators is a worthwhile study because of its implications for
principals who are working toward equity and inclusion for all students, including but not limited
to, the transgender and gender non-conforming community of students in their building. Site
administrators may have been able to support individual students in the past, but with the
growing numbers of students questioning their gender identity, more systematic and global
protocols may be needed. Kurt and Chenault (2017), as well as Martino et al. (2020), posited that
10

students, as a whole, are accepting and ready to address the inequities that transgender and
gender non-conforming students face; Are the adults ready?

11

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Transgender issues have attracted increased attention during the last decade. Although
overall societal attitudes have improved toward transgender and gender non-conforming
individuals, the need to establish legislation that defines the rights of these individuals still exists.
As a result of consistent policies and practices, schools are dealing with transphobia and non-
inclusive practices. In 2013, California passed The Student Success and Opportunity Act (AB
1266) which allows students who identify as transgender to participate in school sponsored
activities and sports and to use facilities, such as locker rooms and restrooms, for the gender with
which they identify (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016).
Although this legislation was passed in 2013, many school districts across the state have
failed to implement it with fidelity. Most districts lack policies, guidelines, and/or professional
development opportunities aimed at supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students,
which leaves them in a vulnerable position within the state’s education system. While some
literature exists about supporting transgender and other LGBTQ+ students, most of the research
studies populations starting in the ninth grade and does not include middle grade children
(Boyland et al., 2018). Disregard for this legislation by school districts potentially increases
exclusionary school environments and increases the rate of at-risk behavior for a population that
already experiences at-risk behavior due to additional societal stressors such as bias and
discrimination.
Theoretical Framework: Social Cognitive Theory
This study focused on how the support of transgender students, in secondary schools,
may come about as a result of the interplay between the principal’s behavior and actions, the
principal’s beliefs and motivation, and the environment in which they work. This triadic
12

relationship describes the connection between cognitions that are environmental, behavioral and
personal variables and is reflective of Bandura’s social cognitive theory which emphasizes the
concept that most human learning happens in a social environment (Schunk, 2020). Bandura’s
framework further explained that people, in this case site principals, do not behave just to suit the
preferences of others. Rather, an abundance of their behavior is motivated and controlled by
internal criteria and self- evaluative reactions to their own actions (Schunk, 2020). Wood and
Bandura (1989) further explained that although behavior, environment, and personal cognition
comprise a triadic reciprocal relationship, reciprocality does not imply that all influences have
equal strength. Time is required for causal factors to exert their influence and motivate reciprocal
influences. Due to this bidirectionality of influence, people serve as both products and
manufacturers of their environment.
Origin of Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory postulates about learning and performance. Whether we carry out
what we learn depends on components such as our motivation, interest, incentives to execute
tasks, perceived obligation, physical state, social pressures, or type of competing activities.
Schunk (2020) shared that the greatest influence on performance is not learning, it is
reinforcement or the belief that reinforcement is imminent.
Elements of Social Cognitive Theory
Social cognitive theory also stresses the understanding that the greater portion of human
learning occurs in a social environment and the acquisition of rules, skills, strategies, beliefs and
attitudes occurs by observing others. A key point of social cognitive theory is that learning is
profoundly context dependent. Individuals gain an understanding of the value and
appropriateness of behaviors, as well as the consequences of modeled behavior, and they
13

perform analogously with beliefs about their capabilities and the predicted results of their actions
(Schunk, 2020).
Wood and Bandura (1989) observed the role social cognitive theory plays in the
management of organization. They found that three facets of social cognitive theory are
particularly significant to the management of organizational fields: “the development of people’s
cognitive, social, and behavioral competencies through mastery modeling, the cultivation of
people’s beliefs in their capabilities so that they will use their talents effectively, and the
enhancement of people’s motivation through goal systems” (p. 369). In this model, reciprocal
determinism is shaped by the bidirectionality of behavioral, cognitive, and other personal factors
and environmental events experienced by the manager of the organization.
Social cognitive theory differentiates between performance and acquisition because
individuals do not imitate everything they learn. If a strategy produces valued outcomes,
individuals are more likely to embrace the modeled strategy or behavior. There must be an
experience of notable success for individuals to believe in both themselves and the value of the
modeled strategy. Social cognitive theory was selected for this study, surrounding school site
supports for transgender youth, because it allows for considerable advantages over alternate
models of decision making for leaders: it does not require decision making to be based on a
certain sequence of events, permits a compelling, developing nature of leadership which allows
managers to move back and forth between alternate decisional activities, it accounts for
reciprocal influences between personal factors, actions, and environmental effects, and it
highlights how leaders learn to cope with demands and how they learn from failures, setbacks,
and success (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
14

Bandura’s social cognitive theory analyzed the reciprocal relationship between a person’s
environment, behavior, and self. Wood and Bandura (1989) reported that people serve as both
the product and producer of their environment. In addition, they also contended that people can
have the power to influence their lives through the selection of their environment and the
environments they construct. Teachers at school sites may react to a principal based on
characteristics they have typically assigned previous administrators (e.g., lack of teacher input
regarding professional development) rather than on the principal’s actual practice about
professional development (person to environment). Teachers may judge such principals as less
capable of selecting the correct PD and hold little regard or professional respect for the principal,
even if the principal performs otherwise. In turn, feedback can impact self-efficacy (environment
to person). When a teacher gives positive feedback to the principal about their choice of PD, the
principal will most likely experience a feeling of confidence about the accomplishment. The
behavior of principals and the work environment impact one another in a variety of ways. If a
principal asks teachers to observe a Powerpoint slide during a PD session, environmental
influence on the teacher’s behavior is observed because they will automatically look at the slide
without much debate (environment to behavior). A teacher’s behavior may alter the environment
in that the teacher may disagree with the content of the PD and the principal may have to
reconsider an alternative strategy to implementing the content (behavior to environment). Wood
and Bandura (1989) also reported that the interaction of cognitive and motivational processes is
essential to understanding how leaders manage the ongoing surge of decisions that must be made
in complicated and unclear decision environments.
Behavior is also a component of Bandura’s triadic relationship in social cognitive theory.
Wood and Bandura (1989) reported that people are influenced by the successes of those they
15

perceive to be similar to themselves, but they are deterred from following behaviors that they
have witnessed ending in unwanted consequences. People self-reflect on their behavior and this
controls which activities they are most likely to attempt. There may be principals that are
supportive of transgender or gender non-conforming youth because they have witnessed the
success of other principals in implementing supports, while at the same time, a principal might
not implement supports for transgender youth because they have seen other principals try and
fail, with dire consequences.
The motivation to behave or perform is controlled by several factors and possessing the
necessary skill set doesn’t always mean having the ability to use it well or consistently under
diverse situations (Wood & Bandura, 1989). Self-efficacy plays an important role in motivation
because people with similar skill sets may perform insufficiently, appropriately, or exceptionally
depending on whether their self-efficacy reinforces or hinders their motivation and efforts. How
an individual perceives their self-efficacy establishes their degree of motivation, which reflects
the amount of effort they are willing to exert and how likely they are to persevere (Wood &
Bandura, 1989). Motivation is also monitored through people’s internal standards and
evaluations of their own performance. A strong motivator is adopting goals and evaluating one’s
progress in achieving those goals because it gives people a sense of purpose and direction and
goals influence and maintain the amount of effort required to reach them (Wood & Bandura,
1989). Research suggests that the best way to regulate motivation is to establish long-range goals
that include a series of achievable sub goals that leads and encourages efforts along the way. In
order for principals to achieve a goal such as the implementation of procedures to support
transgender and gender non-conforming students they need to perpetually adapt their practices to
adjustments in available resources and environmental circumstances while understanding that the
16

process will require effective practical strategies and elevated levels of motivation. In addition,
the motivation of a leader will often be influenced by prior decisions and outcomes. A leader’s
behavior will be influenced by the environment in which they serve, noted threats or setbacks
can reduce eagerness to achieve the goal, and stressful situations can cause leaders to establish
alternate routes that will also provide success in achieving the desired outcome.
The third component of Bandura’s social cognitive theory triadic relationship is self. An
essential assumption of social cognitive theory is that people want “to control the events that
affect their lives” and to view themselves as the instrument of control which becomes apparent in
their intentional acts, cognitive processes, and affective processes. Self-regulation plays an
important role because this process is purposely directed toward the achievement of goals
(Schunk, 2006). Individuals must experience some form of success when they use newly
acquired skills in order to trust in themselves and value the new approach. As people acquire
skill and belief in controlling simpler tasks, they slowly engage in more challenging situations. If
success is not experienced, people will weakly approach situations with the new skill but begin
to discard the new approach when they fail to get immediate results or encounter challenges
(Wood & Bandura, 1989). How people measure their own efficacy also determines their level of
motivation, which is determined by the amount of effort they are willing to exert and the length
of time they will persevere. When faced with challenges, people with a strong belief in their
competence tend to persist in their efforts. Those who exhibit self-doubt lessen their efforts or
abandon their goals too soon and settle for moderate results (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Individuals who are highly self-efficacious visualize success storylines that provide positive
outcomes for performance, whereas those who view themselves as inefficacious are more likely
to see themselves failing in situations which sabotage their performance (Wood & Bandura,
17

1989). In order for a leader to be successful in an organization they must see themselves as
highly efficacious and triumphant. If not, the opportunity to succeed is fleeting and is less likely
to occur.
Social Cognitive Theory and Leadership (Transformational vs. Transactional)
Principals play an essential role in confronting the systemic inequities that avert students
from wholly accessing the benefits of public education. They must work collaboratively with
their staff to provide an inclusive school environment where the social, emotional, and academic
needs of all students are met (Louérs-Phillips, 2019). School leaders who advocate and
encourage transformative actions understand the importance of advocating for “people because it
is the right and moral thing to do irrespective of whether or not the subjects of the advocacy are
in the room at the time” (Lindsey et al, 2013, p. 91).
Schools are constructed to support students collectively, with social exchanges between
key stakeholders, staff, and principals, toward the achievement of educational goals (Da’as,
2020). In order to achieve those goals principals and teachers must establish positive relations
and understanding in order to develop a school culture that is inclusive of all and can handle
unknown situations, changes in circumstances, reforms, and any alternate challenges that may
impact the school environment (Da’as, 2020). Often times principals and teachers may lack the
necessary tools to understand stakeholder’s needs, particularly transgender and gender non-
conforming youth, and this can lead to negative outcomes such as the exclusion of student
groups, increases in stereotyping, inability to accept student diversity, increases in students
exhibiting withdrawal behavior, and negative outcomes for students (Berson et al, 2015).
The role of the school leader is essential in providing an environment where all students
have equitable access to opportunities, the capacity of teachers is increased to improve their
18

practice, and trusting relationships are built with all stakeholders to increase change capacity and
disrupt the status quo (Da’as, 2020). The principal’s leadership style, whether it be
transformational or transactional, has an impact on the organizational processes experienced by
both teachers and stakeholders. Transformational leadership can be described as relationships
between principals and stakeholders that ends in higher motivation and values for both (Da’as,
2020). Transformation leadership, as found by Jensen et al. (2019), can be noted within four
areas:
• charisma, also defined as idealized influence
• inspirational motivation
• individualized consideration
• intellectual stimulation
Transformative leadership starts with inquiry aimed at justice and democracy and it challenges
inequitable practices and ensures an environment where all individuals, regardless of gender, can
greatly achieve and experience a better life amongst others (Shields, 2010). Principals that
demonstrate a deep understanding for the importance of social justice in leadership, exhibit
transformative practices (Shield, 2010). Based on the qualities of a transformative leader,
students who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming may have a better educational
experience attending a school where the principal demonstrates transformational leadership.
Louérs-Philips (2019) explained that principals are essential in confronting the
institutional inequities that stop students from wholly acquiring the advantages of public
education. It is imperative that school leaders collaborate with their staff to revolutionize their
school environment to one that is inclusive and meets the emotional, social, and academic
demands of all students (2019). Gulmez and Negis (2020) described transformational leaders as
19

individuals who motivate followers to not only move past their own interests, but recognize the
significance of site goals, for the betterment of the school and its students. Gulmez and Negis
(2020) also identified the triadic reciprocal relationship within transformational leadership as:
1. Inspirational motivation (environment) refers to the strategies a principal implements
to motivate staff.
2. Idealized influence (behavior) refers to the principal who focuses on values, missions,
and beliefs and uses captivating strategies to lead their team.
3. Idealized influence (self) refers to the level of self-confidence the principal possesses
or does not possess.
Transformation leadership may have a greater positive impact for students who are transgender
or gender non-conforming because it focuses on the collaboration between evaluation and
agreement, the elimination and remodeling of systemic structures that create inequity, endeavors
to achieve profound and equitable outcomes, brings about awareness of biases and privilege,
recognizes the significance of both individual and collective accomplishments, and highlights
moral courage, activism and the pursuit of democracy, equity and justice (Shields, 2010).
Principals who demonstrate transactional leadership work towards staff compliance using
a system of rewards or discipline based on performance. As transactional leaders, principals seek
to motivate staff through a relationship of bartering and the use of staff’s own self-interest
(Da’as, 2020). This type of leadership does not allow for open, inventive solutions to challenges.
Transactional leadership relies on a status quo system of solving problems which may lead to
some students not being able to access educational benefits because their particular situation
does not fall within the plan set forth by the principal. Jensen et al (2019) noted the three
dimensions of transactional leadership as:
20

• rewarding based on performance
• perpetual monitoring of staff work, by the principal, and immediate corrective action
if there are any variances from the original plan
• a laissez-faire approach to leadership in which the principal only addresses an issue if
it varies from the original plan and is brought to principal’s attention
Since transactional leadership does not focus on opportunities to question the status quo or
address structural inequities, it may serve to enhance the lack of supports students who are
transgender or gender non-conforming traditionally face in typical public school settings.
Social Cognitive Theory and Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students in
Schools
Transformational leadership provides opportunities for principals to understand the
perspectives of their staff through interaction, feedback, and collaboration. Marx et al. (2017)
highlighted the importance of principals understanding the views of adults on their campus when
working to support students who are transgender or gender non-conforming because
this increased understanding could help to create a cadre of allies who would proactively
alter their own school climates to ensure that and gender non-conforming students were
not systematically discriminated against and were free to learn, thrive, and grow (p. 2).
Marx et al (2017) also found that negative outcomes for LGBTQ+ students appear to decrease
when nurturing and uplifting relationships are developed between them and school staff.
Consequently, mastery of developing these relationships and envisioning school staff’s
perspective of allyship could have profound outcomes for students (Marx et al, 2017). In
addition, these relationships may serve to further the understanding that gender and sexuality are
21

not fundamentally connected and that conclusions should not be drawn based on an individual’s
gender or vice versa.
McGuire (2010) pointed out that marginalization is often experienced at a higher rate by
students who are transgender or gender non-conforming as compared to their peers who are
homosexual or bisexual. This is because policies are often designed to protect those who are
homosexual or bisexual and do not offer protections constructed around gender expression or
identity. A potential remedy to this challenge is empowering school staff by providing
professional development that addresses gender identity and sexual orientation training
(McGuire, 2010). In addition, school site adoption of policies that recognize the importance of
name and pronoun choices, support gender-neutral bathrooms, and provide protection of gender
identity at school dances, athletic events, physical education classes, and locker facilities serve to
provide a safe and inclusive environment for transgender students (McGuire 2010). As matters
surrounding the safety and inclusivity of transgender and gender non-conforming students
continue to become more prevalent on school campuses it is imperative that policy makers and
school administrators collaborate with the intention of creating trans-affirming structures and
systems (McGuire, 2010).
Relevance of Social Cognitive Theory to the Study
Now, more than ever, principals must lead faculty and staff who work with transgender
and gender non-conforming students using transformational strategies. They must have the
willingness to persevere in the face of obstacles and the knowledge to provide staff with learning
opportunities to support students (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). It is imperative that they are able to
collaborate with stakeholders to ensure the safety and inclusivity of transgender and gender non-
conforming students. Reflecting on Bandura’s social cognitive theory, a principal’s confidence in
22

their self-efficacy has an impact on how they determine their goals, as a leader, and the level of
commitment and perseverance they demonstrate toward accomplishing a task (Gulmez & Negis,
2020). Four sources of self-efficacy as defined by Gulmez and Negis (2020) are:
• experiences that lead to mastery
• social modeling
• social persuasion
• emotional arousal
If a leader has strong self-efficacy they are highly likely to use those sources more often and with
higher success rates versus a leader with low self-efficacy. Based on the literature, a principal
with high self-efficacy and transformational leadership skills is better positioned to serve and
support the needs of transgender and gender non-conforming students.
History of Laws and Policies for Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students
Transgender issues have attracted more attention throughout the last decade. Although
overall societal attitudes have improved toward LGBTQ+ individuals, the need to establish
legislation that defines the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals still exists as a result of the transphobia
and non-inclusive practices they face (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016). As a result of federal and state
legislations, public school personnel, who may not have otherwise considered the experience of
students who are transgender and gender non-conforming, are now constructing and supporting
school environments that can either champion or harm transgender and gender non-conforming
youth, which in turn, affects all students (Marx et al, 2017).
Currently, California is one of 13 states that provides non-discrimination laws protecting
the sexual orientation and gender identity of K–12 students. According to Meyer and Keenan
(2018), California was an essential role model for monitoring how policy reforms focused on
23

developing more inclusive school environments may define how future legislation is constructed
to address the needs of transgender and gender non-conforming students. Unfortunately, many of
these laws carry punitive consequences for failure to comply rather than supporting or
encouraging a transformational approach to implementing policies and practices meant to ensure
the safety and inclusion of marginalized students (Meyer & Keenan, 2018). In addition, Meyer
and Keenan (2018) also shared that while K–12 school policies that focus on the inclusion of
transgender students are viewed as a way to improve the circumstances transgender students may
face, they are often limited in accomplishing that goal beyond the rhetorical level. The following
laws, acts, and assembly bills comprise the legislation that is currently in place and offers certain
protections to some of the most marginalized population including transgender and gender non-
conforming people.
Seth’s Law
Seth’s Law went into effect on July 1, 2012 and requires that California public schools
update their policies and programs aimed at anti-bullying and it focuses on safeguarding students
who are bullied due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender
expression, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, disability or religion. It mandates that adults who
are witnesses to any form of bullying report the act immediately to a supervisor (ACLU, 2012).
Unfortunately, many students who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or questioning report
that they experience a significant number of encounters that meet the definition of bullying and
that staff on campuses often fail to report situations of bullying that they witnessed.
FAIR Act
The FAIR Act went into effect on January 1, 2012 and requires public schools in
California to provide Fair, Accurate, Inclusive and Respectful representations of our diverse
24

ethnic and cultural population in the K–12 grade history and social studies curriculum.
(lgbtqhistory.org/fair-education-act). The curriculum must illustrate and explain the contributions
of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, people with disabilities, and members of
other ethnic and cultural groups to the total economic, political, and social construction of
California and the United States (lgbqthistory.org/fair-education-act).
AB 1266
In 2013, California passed The Student Success and Opportunity Act - AB 1266 which
allows students who identify as transgender to participate in school sponsored activities and
sports and to use facilities, such as locker rooms and restrooms, for the gender with which they
identify (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016). Although this legislation was passed in 2013, many school
districts across the state have failed to implement it with fidelity. Most districts lack policies,
guidelines, and/or professional development opportunities aimed at supporting LGBTQ+
students, which leaves them in a vulnerable position within the state’s education system.
Disregard for this legislation by school districts potentially increases exclusionary school
environments and increases the rate of at-risk behavior for a population that already experiences
at risk behavior due to additional societal stressors such as bias and discrimination (Agee-
Aguayo et al., 2016).
Title IX
Title IX is perhaps the legislation with the most impact on the accommodation of
transgender students, as federal funding is contingent upon a school’s adherence to Title IX
guidelines (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). It is part of the Education Amendments of 1972 and states
that
25

No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular,
research, occupational training, or other education program or activity operated by a
recipient which receives federal financial assistance.
In addition, Weiss (2013) contended that in the educational environment there are four
rights, included in Title IX, that are distinctly essential for transgender and gender non-
conforming students, beyond freedom from bullying, harassment, and assaults:
• acknowledgement of proper names and pronouns
• appropriate restroom and dressing room usage
• fair and accurate dress codes
• “Protection from harassment that involves invasive questioning of one’s
identity, right to maintain such an identity, medical history, and anatomical
configuration.” (p. 339)
Title IV , the First Amendment, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Title IV, the First Amendment, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
provide additional protections for transgender and gender non-conforming students. Title IV
requires schools to maintain environments that are violence free and students can attend class,
learn in a space that is supportive of academic achievement, and is free of bullying and
harassment (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). The First Amendment protects freedom of speech which
includes the right to freely express one’s gender identity, according to law. The Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) protects the personal information of students and
families by prohibiting the release of confidential and personal information without consent
(Kurt & Chenault, 2017).
26

A study conducted by Demissie et al. (2018) found that although policies that prohibit
bullying and harassment in schools lead to better outcomes for students, many states, including
California, have seen little to no changes in the implementation of school practices associated
with legislation that pertains to the protection of LGBTQ+ students. Legislation such as the
School Success and Opportunity Act, Seth’s Law, and the FAIR Education Act have the
potential to decrease some of the challenges transgender students might face at school, given the
correct support from school professionals. However, in summation, the literature confirms the
disconnect between the passing of state legislation that specifically addresses transgender
students and the implementation of the law at the district and school level. Challenges to
implementation include lack of funding, little or no professional development focused on the
needs of transgender youth, hostility towards the LGBTQ+ community, and lack of appropriate
staff. Keenan and Meyer (2018) also noted the policies that currently exist have been largely
designed without examining the deeply layered conditions that direct how schools define
transgender and non-binary gender. This also serves as another challenge to the implementation
of policy at the district level. While these policies are intended to support transgender youth, the
responsibility of change seems to rest primarily on the individual and “are primarily focused on
the management of individual people and cases rather than institutional change” (Keenan &
Meyer, 2018, p.749). Implementation of this legislation, at the district level, is attainable. Until
actual structures are changed, a portion of district LCAP funds could potentially be directed
towards professional development targeted at supporting the needs of LGBTQ+ youth,
appropriate staffing, and adding any additional support to increase inclusivity of this community.
If districts continue to ignore this legislation, they inadvertently increase the stressors faced by
our LGBTQ+ youth, they continue to deny support for students in this community and they
27

increase their opportunity for lawsuits. To best serve all students it is imperative that districts
develop policies and support site management that works to implement state legislation until
structures are disrupted and the real work can be done.
Implementation of Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Policy
Although there are multiple federal and state policies, as noted above, to protect students
who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, the implementation of these laws and
policies can differ vastly between states, counties, districts, and schools. The literature in this
section pointed to several practical ways that principals and schools are implementing these
policies, as well as several influences that served as barriers. It was found that some of the
biggest influences to policy implementation came from the current culture of a district and
school (Kurt & Chenault, 2017) and the political climate of the time, which in current times has
become very unfavorable toward those in the LGBTQ+ community (Lugg & Murphy, 2017).
Practical Solutions to Policy Implementation
Solutions for school principals who are implementing policy for transgender and gender
non-conforming students are limited in the research. Much of the information that can be found
is theoretical and not specific for those on the ground. One overhauling idea for site
administrators was to shift the systemic ways that shape school culture through a critical trans
pedagogy (Martino et al., 2020). To do this, a school must, “un-script the current gender system
that confines us all and how that interacts with other systems like race, class, and ability”
(Martino et al., 2020, p. 2). In order to advance LGBTQ+ inclusion at school sites, an integrated
model is needed to fully disrupt heteronormativity by having supportive school organizations,
policies, curriculum, and ongoing professional development (O’Malley & Capper, 2015). The
principal should strive to focus on systems for change rather than on individual transgender
28

students and their needs, as students should not need to come out to be supported (Martino et al.,
2020).
Educational leaders should also look to build resources for supporting LGBTQ+ students.
When bettering resources, principals should look to create a sustainable environment through
systematic planning rather than chance or disjointed interventions and resources (O’Malley &
Capper, 2015). Some of the resources that made the biggest impact for students were in-school
specific things that directly impacted LGBTQ+ issues, such as supportive teachers and staff,
inclusive curriculum embedded into classes, supportive student clubs (like GSAs), and explicit
anti-bullying policies (Greytak et al., 2013). Greytak et al. (2013) found that GSAs, or the like,
served as a critical source of information for cisgender students and their families, as well as
being extremely beneficial for the transgender students themselves (even more so than cisgender,
lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer students). It was also found the having an adult ally on campus
(including but not limited to the GSA advisor) lowered victimization since biases were less
tolerated and information was more readily available to students. When schools implement the
resources suggested by Greytak et al. (2013), transgender and gender non-conforming students
missed fewer days of school and reported less incidents of bullying.
One other important practical solution for principals was the variability in policies and
the levels of power they held. Kurt and Chenault (2017) stated that when gender policies were
left fluid from a district level and leaders were able to have the power to control the narrative for
unique student experiences, they felt empowered as the primary stakeholder to make change.
These principals strived for a happy medium between reference policies at the district level and
autonomy for their own site culture and student need - a loose but tight approach. The tight part
of the approach occurs when a district details expected responses for situations that may arise in
29

schools (Persinger et al., 2020). When these responses are specific to protected groups and focus
on services and safe spaces they are the most effective against preventing bullying. Educational
leaders should also support transgender students in their schools by establishing support plans
that name a few key staff members as important institutional support leaders (Meyer & Keenan,
2018). These support plans can be for students who are newly transitioning, questioning, or those
who are already out and in need of accommodations, access, and a support system.
Barriers to Policy Implementation at the District and Site Level
There are many barriers that school principals and other administrators face when trying
to positively implement policy for transgender and gender non-conforming youth. Fear and
anxiety is high on the list of reasons that leaders felt limited in what they could do to support
gender diverse students (Croteau & Lewis, 2017). Another issue faced is that some communities
frame transgender students’ needs as problems which restricts a supportive school culture
(Meyer and Keenan, 2018). These schools that see the presence of transgender students as a
“problem” expect the student to fit into their existing culture that does not have the policies or
practices to address their needs or help them feel wanted or included (Mason et al., 2017).
Schools and districts like mentioned above have pervasive heteronormative cultures in
place that make change difficult for any leader. In these schools, administrators who are
implementing policies for LGBTQ+ students without much support or know-how may actually
reinforce the hegemonic structures and challenge the issues that they are trying to address
(Lustick, 2016). In order for changes to be made to these structures, the school community must
be on the same page and accept students for the gender they identify with; otherwise, policies
like bathroom and locker room usage, dress codes, and safety protocols will continue to cause
challenges for transgender students (Greytak et al., 2013). Our society is riddled with
30

assumptions and reinforcements about gender, both in and out of schools. Persinger et al. (2020)
found schools to be very unsafe for transgender youth because the heteronormative and gender
normative cultures are prevalent and seldom questioned. They shared that the only way to
change this is to increase visibility of transgender culture and normalize it in schools. They
suggested educating school staff with more terminology and ways to build inclusive
environments, as well as creating more policies and practices that were supportive of all.
Martino et al. (2020) conducted a case study about barriers, assumptions, and
environments in schools. It was discovered that in this study, the majority of school leaders took
an individualistic approach when dealing with transgender and gender non-conforming students.
In this approach, it requires a student to be “out,” to be named, and publicly identified in order to
receive support. Not only did this cause students to deal with more transphobia and
microaggressions, but it did little to none to address systemic barriers for these students. The
Board Policy in this study was reactive in that is relied on accommodations for transgender
students only when they requested help. This study also found that those students who
transitioned their gender identities, while in school, had a much harder time because they often
became the sacrificial lamb or catalyst for change to occur in their school or their district. Meyer
and Keenan (2018) added that when the family of a transgender student is the first in the school
or district to advocate for their child, they bear a large burden.
The findings of the Martino et al. (2020) study enforced the ideas that principals needed
to invoke broader educative work with their staff to address the systemic issues of cis- or
heteronormativity. They sought to provoke districts and individual leaders to see that having
policies that require students to come forward for assistance did not show others in the school the
importance of learning about and embracing gender diversity, thus driving more systemic
31

silencing of transgender and gender non-conforming needs. Meyer and Keenan (2018) agreed
that resources and policies set up by school leaders, “rest upon a model of inclusion that requires
institutional legibility and recognition and are focused on the management of individual people
and cases rather than systemic change” (p. 749). In other words, these schools and their policies
task children with leading the process for solving a set of problems that they did not create.
The final set of barriers that the literature found to be quite frequent are adults in the
community and parents of students. Kurt and Chenault (2017) found that many school principals
support transgender and gender non-conforming students, although some around them were
discriminatory while others shared their support. They found the most visible source of pushback
came from parents of cisgender students who felt that transgender students pose threats to their
children in schools. These parents had limited knowledge of school policies regarding dress
codes, bathrooms, and locker rooms, yet were very vocal and persistent about being against the
rights of the students with gender diversity (Greytak et al., 2013). The findings of Kurt and
Chenault’s (2017) study suggested the best way to lessen the barrier of misinformed parents is to
educate the community early and proactively about what it means to be transgender and how
these students pose no harm to others.
Influences of District and School Culture on Policy Implementation
School principals and district level leaders have a difficult job of balancing topics that
become political in schools. Croteau and Lewis (2016) shared that many counties and school
districts feet that transgender topics are taboo in schools, especially grade levels with younger
children. Principals who want to lead for social justice often express feelings of being caught
between the perceived opinions of the public in their community and the governmental
regulations that are imposed upon them (Persinger et al., 2020). Furthermore, this study
32

explained that at the most local level, community politicians, religious leaders, and candidates
for office tend to claim they represent the community's values, thus furthering their influence on
the policy direction and actual implementation. School leaders must delicately do what is right
by students while challenging heteronormative beliefs of many. Marx et al. (2017) suggested that
administrators adhere to a “queer school framework,” in which a school does not gloss over
hegemonic binaries or inequities by claiming that all students are equal (p. 2).
Many studies found that district level policies are helpful in setting the stage for school
level leaders to take action (Croteau & Lewis, 2016; Kurt & Chenault, 2017; Mason et al., 2017;
Stargell et al., 2020). Kurt and Chenault (2017) discussed how districts having established anti-
bullying policies that name LGBTQ+ rights and securities really help school administrators
frame the appropriate strategy for implementing policies on their campuses. Most principals in
this study hoped for top-down overarching policies to support their local policies, but felt that
fluid goals (or policies) that promoted safety, equity, and education of the community were most
helpful. They stated that the establishment of district level procedures was paramount for
creating a united front between school sites, but many administrators hoped that more power
would be delegated to the sites to handle issues on a case-by-case basis. When principals were
interviewed, there was no consensus on the best way to determine district-wide policy
implementation - some wanted the superintendents to guide them and give answers while others
wanted independence with their site policies (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). One area that was found
to be crucial in a district-wide implementation plan was school counseling roles (Mason et al.,
2017). They found that school counselors were often the ones who directly supported
transgender and gender non-conforming students, but their effectiveness can only reach as far as
the overall school climate allows. To truly make major changes in their schools, counselors need
33

the support of their principals and should model systemic change by leading, collaborating, and
advocating for their students (Mason et al., 2017).
The literature pointed to the most effective way a district and school can support policy
implementation for transgender and gender non-conforming students is to foster and create a safe
and supportive school environment. A school setting is an important microcosm for addressing
marginalization and oppression because youth encounter so many developmental milestones
while in this setting (Stargell et al., 2020). Backing up this claim, Kurt and Chenault (2017)
shared that because a safe and supportive environment at schools is so important, schools should
be ideal places for school leaders and teachers to preach acceptance and courage in students.
When students perceive and feel that they are safe, their environment for effective learning is
heightened (Croteau & Lewis, 2016). LBGTQ+ students feel this same safety and enhanced
learning opportunities when their school leaders actively disrupt harassment, have clear policies
for anti-bullying, include curriculum with positive LGBTQ+ experiences, and endorse student
groups like a GSA on campus (Marx et al., 2017). All in all, it takes district level leaders who set
forth inclusive policies and school level leaders who implement these policies for transgender
and gender non-conforming youth to succeed.
Political Influences of Policy Implementation
The changing political landscape of America over the past few years has made huge
impacts on transgender and gender non-conforming policy implementation at the local level.
District and school level administrators must navigate many changes and conflicting messaging
that is coming from the federal government (Lugg & Murphy, 2017). In some areas, the political
shifts between supporters and opposers of the LGBTQ+ community, including the Trump
administration and their rhetoric, made it difficult for educational leaders to have the impact that
34

they know they needed to have for their transgender students (Lugg & Murphy, 2017; Watkins &
Moreno, 2017). Watkins and Moreno (2017) found that a stronger call of support was needed
from our nation’s capital to allow school administrators to safely be social justice advocates in
their respective districts.
Leading Through Controversial and Political Issues
Leadership can be a difficult task at any time, but add issues that are seen as controversial
or political and it can be a tough storm to navigate. Principals and other school leaders who have
a moral obligation to support transgender and gender non-conforming students will need to
weather this storm to make the necessary change in their local environment so that students
receive the best education and safe, supportive schools. These changes are often difficult because
they involve tenets of social justice leadership, which are not widely taught and discussed in
principal preparation courses (Payne & Smith, 2018). Despite the lack of formal preparation,
many leaders charge forward to support all students and their individual core beliefs seem to play
a major factor in these actions (Croteau & Lewis, 2016).
Principals As Change Agents
Principals are seen as the lead change makers of schools, including the climate and
culture, curriculum, and local policies. Kurt and Chenault (2017) found that a “localising
leadership framework” worked best, where individual school principals were empowered to
write policies that dealt with the unique needs of transgender students at their sites. Although this
sounds like the perfect opportunity for leaders to advocate for their LGBTQ+ students, research
has shown that many leadership preparation programs are out of touch with current issues that
include transgender and gender non-conforming youth (Boyland et al., 2016).
35

Moreover, for schools to have real shifts and changes that affirm transgender youth,
principals must be able to influence more than just academics. They must employ a moral
imperative that includes a commitment to democratic values of justice and equity, as well as
respect for others and an inclusive school environment (Boyland et al., 2016). There is not a lot
of literature specifically addressing middle school principals and leading for LGBTQ+ support
and acceptance, but the limited research does point to implementing policies and best practices to
support all students with an emphasis of inclusion for students who identify as transgender or
gender non-conforming (Boyland et al., 2018). Boyland et al. (2018) also pointed out that the
middle grades are crucial for building positive school experiences and are fundamental building
blocks for future health outcomes, life satisfaction, and reducing negative health risks. Principals
at this age level have a very important role in creating school environments that are safe,
inviting, and inclusive of all.
Principals can show advocacy for transgender and gender non-conforming students in a
myriad of ways. They can affirm students through enacting policies that provide for non-
discrimination and anti-bullying, eliminating gender biased language and practices, providing
gender-neutral facilities and spaces, and introducing and supporting curriculum that is inclusive
of LGBTQ+ topics (Coolhart & MacKnight, 2015). Principals should also be visible and
proactive in their supports for transgender students, as it is their professional and ethical
responsibility to protect all students (Coolhart & MacKnight, 2015; Boyland et al., 2016).
Boyland et al. (2016) and Boyland et al. (2018) shared practical solutions for principals
and other school administrators to enact on their campuses in support of transgender and gender
non-conforming youth. Up front, they discuss developing policies that specifically name gender
identity for anti-bullying and suggest strategies for students to report bullying anonymously.
36

Staff should also be trained to prevent discrimination and celebrate diversity in their classrooms
and principals should also communicate clear expectations to staff about using preferred names
and pronouns and how to handle situations in bathrooms and locker rooms. Finally, the authors
suggested including inclusive curriculum, establishing areas of the school for transgender
students to find resources and support, and for leaders to help establish clubs and organizations
for students to join in support of their identities. In order for school systems to change, it is going
to take brave leaders who are role models for others to substantiate and celebrate diversity that
includes transgender students.
Social Justice Leadership
The research on social justice leadership is limited and often has contradictory
information for how principals can best lead their school sites. The literature mentioned some
approaches to social justice leadership but stated that many principal preparation programs tend
to shy away from this theme because it deals so heavily with peoples’ attitudes and beliefs that
are often connected with political, social, and religious connotations (Allen et al., 2017).
O’Malley and Capper (2015) added that when a program does address social justice, specifically
with LGBTQ+ experiences, it is due to a particular faculty member who has an interest and is not
woven into the entire curriculum of the university. Furthermore, when social justice is a topic in
a leadership preparation program, there are differing degrees in which historically marginalized
identities are positioned, with LGBTQ+ topics being the least identified (O’Malley & Capper,
2015).
Social justice leadership, although not widely emphasized, is critical in principal
preparation programs because these leaders are the gatekeepers and influencers for this work at
their school sites (Payne & Smith, 2018). Those administrators who are allies for transgender and
37

gender non-conforming students are social justice-oriented leaders who tend to be caring,
reflective, inclusive, action-oriented, and make important decisions on their site to support this
group of students (Croteau & Lewis, 2016; Payne & Smith, 2018). When leading their school
staff, they tend to focus on themes of advocacy for students, shared decision making,
dispositions, and relationships (Allen et al., 2017). Within those themes, Allen et al. (2017)
found that leaders who advocate for LGBTQ+ students, specifically transgender students, tended
to have personal dispositions that emphasized common good over personal interests, building a
safe and supportive environment on campus, celebrating diversity as an asset, and focusing on
student learning that builds upon diverse social and cultural identities. Through the current
research, it seems that leaders who are passionate and feel the moral responsibility to build an
inclusive school community must teach themselves much of the information, rather than rely on
what they were taught during their preparation program.
Motivation and Beliefs of Individual Leaders
Based on the literature, it appears as though the individual leader and their core beliefs
play a big factor in how much a school does to support their students who identify as transgender
or gender non-conforming. Many leaders have fear and anxiety when working to support
transgender students and this often limits what they are willing to do in their school community
(Croteau & Lewis, 2016; Kurt & Chenault, 2017). It has been found that when administrators
and school staff openly include and support transgender students, there is backlash from other
staff and even those in the outside community (Kurt & Chenault, 2017; Payne & Smith, 2018).
Juxtaposing this idea, internal staff and students often report that they feel the school
administrator is the biggest barrier to inclusive practices and LGBTQ+ visibility on a campus
(Payne & Smith, 2018). There is little empirical research that actually studies school principals’
38

efforts to create these inclusive environments specifically for LGBTQ+ students, and what is out
there is that principals tend to be committed to safety and inclusivity for all students yet are
reticent to name gender identities as part of their work outside of anti-bullying curriculum and
policies (Payne & Smith, 2018). Payne and Smith’s (2018) study found that educators feared and
avoided gender identity topics because of their concern that others felt sexual orientation topics
were not appropriate for educational settings.
Individual leader’s beliefs play an important role in their support, or lack thereof, for
transgender and gender non-conforming students. Research shows that principals who are
committed to inclusion of all students develop caring and supportive schools, however their
actual thoughts and beliefs about LGBTQ+ issues must be recognized (Allen et al., 2017;
Stargell et al., 2020). Principal preparation programs are charged with assessing the dispositions
of their future leaders which can be difficult to ascertain directly (Allen et al., 2017). Actions and
reflection exercises will help leaders confront their personal values and allow them to recognize
their automatic thoughts about LGBTQ+ individuals, thus disregarding previous assumptions
they may have had (Allen et al., 2017; Stargell et al., 2020). Allen et al. (2017) and Stargell et al.
(2020) also found that these self-investigatory exercises may be more difficult (or non-existent)
for leaders who have been in the field prior to recent laws being set regarding LGBTQ+ rights. In
fact, when leaders have not confronted their own beliefs, it may be uncomfortable for them to
match their behaviors to their beliefs.
Marx et al. (2017) found that some leaders felt they only needed to have conversations or
lead belief exercises with their staff when a transgender person was “out” on their campus. These
leaders did not feel that professional learning was appropriate or necessary, and they only need to
disrupt normative assumptions about gender, when transgender people are present. These belief
39

systems of the leaders, possibly due to their lack of interaction with LGBTQ+ individuals or
their Christian upbringing, politically shapes the extent to which the teachers and staff on their
campuses feel they can include topics of transgender and gender non-conforming students into
their curriculum and class discussions (Payne & Smith, 2018). Participants in the Payne and
Smith (2018) study acknowledged their obligation to create a safe school environment, but
continued to refer to transgender youth as victims rather than a marginalized group that needs
support and assistance. For school leaders to believe in their transgender students, they must
reject the deficit perspectives so often given to this group (Mangin, 2019). Their value system
must shift from seeing these students as diseased and deviant victims to a more student-centered,
asset-oriented approach of ethical and culturally responsive leadership (Mangin, 2019). By doing
so, they provide a message to all stakeholders in their community that they value equity and
institutional change surrounding the LGBTQ+ community (Payne & Smith, 2018).
For many school leaders, it is not a matter of beliefs or motivation, it is a matter of lack
of training and know-how (Leonardi & Staley, 2018). Mangin (2019) found that principals want
to put the needs of children first, including transgender children, but the perception is that the
needs of these students are at odds with the larger population. Principals in this study reported
that they needed to put their initial disbeliefs aside to learn more about the actual needs of
transgender students and some had to put their personal convictions aside to allow teaching of
gender identity to youth. Stargell et al. (2020) added to these notions in that their study looked at
a leadership code of ethics and found many leaders wanted to do right by all students but lacked
awareness and skills to properly support an equitable experience for students in the LGBTQ+
community. Leaders in the study named lack of knowledge, an unsupportive school or district
culture, and a lack of personal self-efficacy as some of the barriers to taking action in support of
40

transgender students. All in all, leaders must find information about LGBTQ+ students either
through preparation programs, district professional development, or personal learning in order to
lead for social justice. Allen et al. (2017) stated that the four key leadership dispositions to a
successful social justice leader are leading for the common good over personal interests,
celebrating diversity as an asset, creating a safe and supportive environment, and every student
learning through a social and cultural lens.
District and School Based Resources
School leaders may have the motivation and knowledge to support students who identify
as transgender or gender non-conforming, but they will also rely on resources (or lack thereof) in
their local district and school. Principals often have the authority to provide professional
development at their sites and may be able to influence changes for LGBTQ+ students in this
manner (Marx et al., 2017). This section also highlights the importance of inclusive curriculum
and mental health supports within school sites. Outside influences from a district or state level
that may play an important role in determining resources for schools also comes into play with
school site facilities, often one of the most controversial areas for change (Persinger et al., 2020),
and in how budgets and funding is allocated to assist in supporting transgender and gender non-
conforming students.
Curriculum
One of the most consistent suggestions for ways to improve school environments for
transgender and gender non-conforming students, and the entire LGBTQ+ community, is
awareness and support through curriculum (Meyer et al., 2016; Sadowski, 2017). When schools
include LGBTQ+ issues and figures into classrooms and there are other school policies that
support this community (such as specific anti-bullying policies), there tends to be increased
41

acceptance for transgender students on campus (Stargell et al., 2020). However, when there is no
mention in the curriculum, that is termed as erasure of the LGBTQ+ population (Lugg &
Murphy, 2017).
It is interesting to note that much of the hesitation of inclusive curriculum in schools
comes from the constructs of what adults believe and carry with them. As Martino et al. (2020)
pointed out, children are quite ready to learn about gender diversity, yet the adults are too
concerned with anticipated pushback or resistance from the students. It really takes a strong
school leader to push their staff about instruction and curriculum and how it can be more
inclusive of transgender and gender non-conforming students (Allen et al., 2017; Meyer et al.,
2016). Educators must be ready to look for and pushback on hidden curriculum that affirms
cisnormativity and that may condemn diversity of gender (Meyer et al., 2016). Principals play a
big role in developing and supporting this shift in curriculum. They oversee both the formal
(instructional content) and informal (culture, climate, stance against bullying, and inclusive
clubs) curriculum and set the tone for teachers to feel supported in shifting attitudes about
student identity in all aspects of the school (Boyland et al., 2016).
Mental Health Supports
For many reasons, transgender and gender non-conforming students do not have the
proper or adequate mental health supports in schools. Typically, it is up to the school counselor
and psychologist to offer these types of services in the school setting. Agee-Aguayo et al., (2016)
found that while school psychologists have the power to influence a school to become safer and
more inclusive, they tended to have little to no formal training to address the needs of students
identifying in the LGBTQ+ community. Although their positive attitudes and will to include all
students is needed, it is not enough to change cultures of schools. Agee-Aguayo et al., (2016)
42

found that in California, 54% of school psychologists had not received the proper training in
their previous education to adequately prepare them to meet the needs of transgender youth and
only 20% of them had had any specific education for this population in their career. The one
thing that this study found that counselors and psychologists can do to impact a campus is to
serve as allies and advocates for change. They can promote youth empowerment and activism at
their local level.
Some of the struggles in supporting transgender and gender non-conforming youth with
mental health comes from the lack of training of providers (as mentioned above) and not the care
and concern. Coolhart and MacKnight (2015) found that parents are often the advocates for
support of their children in school, however many times parents dealing with transgender
children are often struggling themselves to understand their child and dealing with their own
mental health and emotions surrounding the topic. This can lead to less formal referrals of
children needing support. In addition, although school psychologists and counselors want to be
there for and support students
limited research investigated these topics in the field of psychology and the lack of
specific training on the part of most school psychologists regarding gender identity,
transgender issues in particular, effective practices, and advocacy efforts on behalf of
trans students may be insufficient or even harmful. (Agee-Aguayo, 2016, p. 155)
Much more research and preparation need to occur in the area of mental health support for
transgender and gender non-conforming students.
Professional Development
Knowledge and training to support transgender and gender non-conforming youth is a
part of overall diversity exposure and training. However, when Kurt and Chenault (2017) looked
43

into diversity training for school personnel, LGBTQ+ topics were found to be either absent
altogether or the lowest priority in these training programs. Many times, when school leaders and
teachers are offered professional development, it is not standard practice to include topics
surrounding the LGBTQ+ population, or it is given as a voluntary, one-time session (Coolhart &
MacKnight, 2015; Mangin, 2019). Another reason that many school personnel are not properly
trained (or given any professional learning opportunities) is that some administrators who plan
staff development do not see this issue as a priority and have differing opinions of when, how,
and if at all these trainings should be administered to their staff (Mason et al., 2017; Stargell et
al., 2020).
For those administrators who do see transgender youth as a priority in their school and
district, they have to start by building other adult allies in their buildings. School personnel can
function as judge and jury in that “they shape and foster a school environment that can either
support or damage transgender and gender non-conforming youth, one that can disrupt or
reinforce cisnormativity, affecting all students” (Marx et al., 2017, p.2). More learning should be
put towards developing allyship and what it truly means for an adult on a campus to be an ally to
students. Mason et al. (2017) saw this as an important way for school counselors to get involved.
School counselors should conduct professional development as a service activity that is proactive
in shaping the culture and climate of the school at a systemic level, while drawing attention to
the areas that need to change. One area that is seen as a concern for school counselors in doing
this work is that they may lack confidence in training others about the LGBTQ+ needs, as well as
they may fear peer ostracism or questioning from their administrators (Mason et al., 2017). Many
counseling programs have not caught up with gender issues as part of their graduate programs
44

and therefore, some counselors are hesitant to engage in leading this professional learning as part
of their duties (Mason et al., 2017, Stargell et al., 2020).
Traditional professional development has leaned on care and concern for transgender and
gender non-conforming students. Marx et al. (2017) stated that you must push to move beyond
this surface level approach and focus on interrogating cisnormativity in your school culture.
These authors found that if you only focus on attitudes, knowledge, and supportive behaviors,
but neglect allyship, the culture will not shift for any in the building. Participants in any training
or learning focused on supporting transgender youth should aim to create long-term shifts in
beliefs and behaviors (Stargell et al., 2020). This requires ongoing and reciprocal relationships to
be built between the participants, their environment, and their behavior. Stargell et al. (2020)
gave an example of a highly successful training protocol in which participants were taught basic
helping skills to support students such as eye contact, body positioning, and attentive silence. To
follow up these basic skills, staff were asked to role play scenarios and to observe other
colleagues in using these skills. They found that there was a large increase in empathy for
students in the LGBTQ+ community from the staff that participated in these exercises.
As the above example noted, professional development that is going to have an impact on
staff must be ongoing and not a one-time session. Sessions need to focus less on content and
laws (although that is important as a base) and more on experiences, dialogue, and reflection
(Marx et al., 2017). Barnard et al. (2018) looked at a case study of a district where a face-to-face
training was given, in addition to an online component, to all 140 schools. The findings showed
that all schools in that district had great improvement with knowledge of transgender laws and
support plans, but still found issues around student information system privacy. Another study
found that many principals who do not have support from their district level actually create their
45

own professional learning for their staff, using their own knowledge that was learned on the job
regarding student rights, laws, terms, and bathroom issues (Mangin, 2019).
Facilities
School facilities, such as bathrooms and locker rooms, have seen the largest and most
controversial debates in recent times surrounding transgender and gender nonconforming youth
Kurt & Chenault, 2017; Persinger et al., 2020). The debates stem from a concern of privacy for
all students, but most commonly come from cisgender students and families and even from
community members without students in the building (Persinger et al., 2020). School site
administrators are struggling to figure out a balance of doing what is right by all students while
following district and state regulations. Kurt and Chenault (2017) pointed to a shift that is
occurring toward better accommodating differences, in that schools need to de-gender
traditionally gendered areas of campus.
Schools tend to be one of the main places that students encounter such rigid gender
norms and rules. There is a sort of policing of gender by staff, students, and community members
at most school sites (Mangin, 2019). Leaders must facilitate learning on their sites to interrogate
these rigid gender norms or they face having school cultures in which there are dire
consequences for the students who are perceived to be transgressing these gender norms
(Mangin, 2019). Beese and Martin (2017) raised an important point for school leaders to ponder:
“Should schools do the minimum to reach civil rights compliance, or should they go above and
beyond and do as much as they possibly can to accommodate and protect all of their students?”
(p. 70). As stated in the next section, sometimes doing more than a leader feels is right, could
have external barriers, such as funding for any new or improved gender-neutral facilities.
46

Funding/Budget
When looking at school and district budgets in relation to transgender and gender non-
conforming youth, there is little in the literature that shows trends in funding going toward
supports. Mangin (2019) shared that the best way for parents to ensure that a school is prepared
to support their transgender child is to provide their own financial support. There are so many
priorities in schools that lead to an overall lack of resources and funding for the appropriate
professional development. In order for adequate professional learning to take place, a supportive
site leader or parents often need to be involved (Mangin, 2019). Inadequate funding also has
impacts on whether or not schools are able to update existing facilities to support transgender
and gender non-conforming youth.
Summary of the Literature
Legislation such as the School Success and Opportunity Act, Seth’s Law, and the FAIR
Education Act have the potential to decrease some of the challenges transgender students might
face at school, given the correct support from school professionals. However, in sum, this
literature review confirmed the disconnect between the passing of state legislation that
specifically addresses transgender students and the implementation of the law at the district and
school level. Challenges to implementation include lack of funding, little or no professional
development focused on the needs of transgender youth, hostility towards the LGBTQ+
community, and lack of appropriate staff. Keenan and Meyer (2018) also noted the policies that
currently exist have been largely designed without examining the deeply layered conditions that
direct how schools define transgender and non-binary gender. This also serves as another
challenge to the implementation of policy at the district level. While these policies are intended
to support transgender youth, the responsibility of change seems to rest primarily on the
47

individual, which can either be the student or the principal of a school site, and “are primarily
focused on the management of individual people and cases rather than institutional change”
(Keenan & Meyer, 2018, p. 749).
Implementation of this legislation, at the district level, is attainable. Until actual
structures are changed, a portion of district LCAP funds could potentially be directed towards
professional development targeted at supporting the needs of LGBTQ+ youth, appropriate
staffing, and adding any additional support to increase inclusivity of this community. While
literature was reviewed pertaining to transgender and gender non-conforming youth, much of the
existing research is aimed at the LGBTQ+ community as a whole. Some of the issues faced by
transgender and gender non-conforming youth are the same as LGBTQ+ students, however,
transgender and gender non-conforming students deal with added stressors of bathroom usage,
locker rooms, and misgendering (Mangin, 2019). If districts continue to ignore this legislation,
they inadvertently increase the stressors faced by our transgender and gender non-conforming
youth, they continue to deny support for students in this community and they increase their
opportunity for lawsuits. To best serve all students, it is imperative that districts develop policies
that reflect state legislation until structures are disrupted and the real work can be done.

48

Chapter Three: Methodology
As attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community continue to become more accepting, it
stands to reason that schools should have policies in place that support and provide for students
who identify within this community. Most districts lack policies, guidelines, and/or professional
development opportunities aimed at supporting transgender or gender non-conforming students,
which leaves them in a vulnerable position within the state’s education system. Disregard for this
legislation by school districts potentially increases exclusionary school environments and
increases the rate of at-risk behavior for a population that already experiences at-risk behavior
due to additional societal stressors such as bias and discrimination (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016).
Meyer and Keenan (2018) shared that while K–12 school policies that focus on the
inclusion of transgender students are viewed as a way to improve the circumstances transgender
students may face, they are often limited in accomplishing that goal beyond the rhetorical level.
Meyer and Keenan (2018) also suggested this may be a result of schools being ill-equipped to
support the needs of transgender students, lack of experience in creating schools that have
transgender inclusive environments, or school environments that are actively hostile toward
students who are transgender or gender non-conforming.
Currently there is a lack of research surrounding administrator’s implementation of
comprehensive school practices that support transgender and gender non-conforming students.
Most studies discussed reactive policies rather than proactive inclusive policies, in that schools
provide accommodations and support for these students only when their gender identity is known
or “out” (Coolhart & MacKnight, 2015; Martino et al., 2020; Meyer & Keenan, 2018).
Administrators have to navigate the often delicate balance between advocating for transgender
49

students as dictated by law, while sustaining optimal learning opportunities for all other students
and families (Kurt & Chenault, 2017).
The role of an administrator who is there to support transgender and gender non-
conforming students should center on building trust through strong policies, a supportive school
climate, and confident navigation of the legal implications (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). Based on
shared experiences working in and observing other schools, administrators often do not have all
of these components in place to support these students. Although certain elements may be in
place, the overarching structural changes to heteronormativity have not taken hold in the vast
majority of schools and districts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of public high school
principals in Los Angeles County, California in relation to the implementation of gender identity
legislation and policy within their school sites. This study only focused on traditional high
schools and did not include charter or private schools. Based on the data found in this study, the
intent was to provide real-world, practical solutions for other site administrators trying to
navigate the challenging parameters of inclusionary practices for transgender and gender non-
conforming students, while also meeting the needs of the rest of the school community. Surveys
and interviews were conducted with public high school principals in Los Angeles County to gain
insight into their personal and professional motivations to implement these policies, as well as
the influencing factors from their local district and school site. In addition, interview topics
delved into successful implementation of practices that support students who identify as
transgender or gender non-conforming.
50

This study was framed by social cognitive theory, as I looked at the interplay between the
principal’s behavior and actions, the principal’s beliefs and motivation, and the environment in
which they work. Social cognitive theory rests within a framework of triadic reciprocity, which
Schunk (2020) explained from Bandura’s larger social cognitive theory, as a bidirectional and
dynamic set of learning and behavioral variables. These variables asserted that learning and
behavior occur within a social environment that is highly context dependent, hence the
reciprocity between the self, environment, and behaviors (Schunk, 2020). Social cognitive theory
helps to distinguish between the knowledge one holds and how they perform. People tend to
emulate what they agree with or find self-satisfying, and reject or ignore that which they disagree
(Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do California high school principals implement gender identity legislation to
drive site-based decisions that support transgender and gender non-conforming
students?
2. How does the district and school culture influence a high school principal’s
implementation of policies for students who identify as transgender or gender non-
conforming?
3. To what extent does the motivation of the principal play a factor in implementing
these policies?
Selection of the Population
I surveyed and interviewed high school principals in order to gain a better understanding
of their beliefs, experiences, and values when working with students who are transgender or
51

gender non-conforming. This process gave me insight into why some schools support students
who identify with this community while others do not.
Participants in this study were five high principals in Los Angeles County, California,
currently serving in public schools during the 2022–2023 school year. Surveys were sent via
email to the census of high school principals in the county, excluding Los Angeles Unified
School District (LAUSD), which was 30. Interviews were conducted from participants whose
survey responses indicated they were interested in further engagement on this topic. A total of 5
interviews took place. Table 1 displays the survey and interview criteria for the principals in this
study.

Table 1
Survey and Interview Selection Criteria of Principals
Survey Interview
School level: High School level: High
Serving in a public school district
with Grades 9–12
Serving in a public school district
with Grades 9–12
Serving in Los Angeles County,
California
Serving in Los Angeles County
California
Purposeful sample of principals Purposeful sample of principals
Indicated on survey at least one
instance of having a
transgender/gender non-
conforming student

52

To conduct this study, I used convenience sampling since I only wanted to survey and
interview public high school principals within one county in California. Convenience sampling
supported the study since I live in Los Angeles County and these participants were accessible to
me and their locations were desirable in relation to time and cost (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As
part of the sample gathering process, I also used purposeful sampling since I have a network of
colleagues, through the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA), that were
called on to facilitate participation in the survey. When surveys were collected and participants
selected their willingness to be interviewed, I narrowed down the interviewees using comparison
purposeful sampling, which necessitated determining ranges of answers on the survey (Maxwell,
2013). Since the purpose of the study was to find practical solutions for administrators, some
interview participants were chosen because of their vast experience with transgender students,
and others were chosen due to their lack of experience. Race/ethnicity, gender, nor years of
experience were determined in the selection process, as my focus was on the principal's
implementation of policies and practices overall. In the end, there were five high school
principals selected to be interviewed from Los Angeles County, California public school
districts.
Design Summary
For this study, it was essential to conduct a qualitative research study so that I was able to
interact with the participants in their natural setting and interpret how the participants made sense
of their world and their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, the qualitative research
approach that was conducted also enabled me to conduct research that will potentially improve
existing practices, programs, or policies and help site administrators to interrogate the systems of
53

traditional support for students who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming (Maxwell,
2013).
This study was constructed using themes centered on Robinson and Leonard’s (2019)
steps on conducting a research survey, as well as Patton’s (2002) design for conducting a
qualitative interview. Inclusive Gender Practices in Secondary Schools: A Study on Supports and
Practical Solutions for CA Administrators is organized into five chapters. The study focused on
the research problem and purpose of the study in Chapter 1, and Chapter 2 presented a literature
review of important topics surrounding school administrator’s implementation of California
policies to protect transgender and gender non-conforming students. Chapter 3 describes the
methodology selected for this research study and includes participant selection, interview
questions, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 is a detailed report of the findings from
the previous chapter. Chapter 5 concludes this study with a summary of the findings,
implications for practitioners, conclusions, and recommendations.
Methodology
The methodology included qualitative data from surveys using a questionnaire that
contained 20 close-ended questions in addition to data from open-ended interview questions that
were obtained from high school principals in Los Angeles schools. When developing the
interview protocol, I used a semi-structured interview in order to achieve flexibility in
questioning and the ability to respond to the interviewee with any new ideas that might emerge
during the interview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, it was necessary to interview and
identify principals who used supports to embed policies that support transgender or gender non-
conforming students as part of their school culture. These interviews were juxtaposed with other
principals who are reactive in their support of this population of students and are not engaging in
54

gender affirming practices as part of their school culture (Martino et al., 2020). This study will
seek to find examples of traditional public high schools in which these policies are embedded in
systemic ways. All three research questions were addressed using qualitative design for both the
interview and survey questions.
Instrumentation and Protocols
Qualitative Instrument: Survey
The initial qualitative data was gathered through the use of surveys. The surveys
consisted of 20 questions (see Appendix A). All 20 questions were focused on answering the
research questions and were categorized by themes from the conceptual framework of social
cognitive theory. Questions 1–4 focused on knowledge, beliefs, and Research Question 1.
Questions five through 14 focused on environment and Research Question 3, while questions 15
through 19 sought to answer Research Question 2 which is focused on motivation. The final
question on the survey asked about a follow-up interview. The instrument was designed to ask
questions that were straightforward, avoided low-frequency terminology, and were not leading or
biased (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The survey questions were intentionally written to be as
non-threatening as possible due to the sensitive nature of the topic. More sensitive topics were
addressed in the interviews. To combat any non-response or forfeiting of the survey due to the
content, a “prefer not to answer” option was added to certain questions (Robinson & Leonard,
2019). Likert scale questions were not used because I wanted respondents to choose a varying
side of opinion statements, and not a midpoint neutrality option (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The following descriptors were used on some rating scale questions: strongly disagree, disagree,
agree, and strongly agree. Using a scale without a neutral option also reduced the likelihood of
satisficing, which is non-substantive and does not help researchers understand the interest of the
55

question (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Other questions used item specific rating scales to more
accurately capture data. This survey instrument was accessible to all 30 high school principals in
Los Angeles County.
Qualitative Instrument: Interviews
The second set of qualitative data was gathered through the use of interviews, and like the
survey, the interview questions were written to target information regarding the research
questions. The interview protocol consisted of 20 questions (see Appendix B). The questions
were grouped into three main categories related to social cognitive theory: environment,
behavior, and beliefs/motivation. Follow-up, or probing questions, accompanied several of the
initial questions. These types of unstructured follow-ups were important to ensure clarification of
ideas and to maintain closeness to the research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I decided to
conduct face-to face interviews that lasted approximately an hour in length. The interviews
conducted were open-ended and semi-structured, allowing me to deviate slightly from my
protocol, if needed (Maxwell, 2013). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and researcher notes
were taken during the process. Appendix C aligns the research questions with the items and
questions from the survey instrument and the interview protocol.
Data Collection
The qualitative survey for principals was sent to all 129 public, high school principals in
Los Angeles County, excluding LAUSD. The initial survey collection was started by an email
sent by me, including a brief statement about the survey and a Google Form of the survey. To
combat survey fatigue (Robinson & Leonard, 2019) and bring a personal connection, a brief
video was created by me to introduce myself and talk about the research topic. I felt that a video
56

of me explaining the purpose helped build familiarity to the researcher, thus compelling
respondents to complete the survey (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
The emails to principals also included an incentive to participate. Prospective respondents
were offered an opportunity to enter a raffle once they completed the survey. This was done on
the honor system and required participants to fill out a separate Google form asking for their
name and email address. After this initial reach to high school principals, a sufficient amount of
surveys were not gathered, so I reached out to ACSA members to seek their assistance in
connecting with eligible principals to answer the survey questions.
In order to collect the other data set through interviews, surveys were reviewed to look
for principals to interview. From those participants who responded on the survey that they were
willing to be interviewed, five were chosen. Interview participants were chosen not only from
their volunteerism, but also from having some experience with transgender and gender non-
conforming students. Once the interviewees were chosen, I contacted them via phone to set up
the interview time and place. I offered to travel to their place of work so that the respondent
would be comfortable and the process did not add any further burden to them. All interviews
took place in the principal’s office on their school site.
For each interview, several protocols were followed. Each participant was sent a consent
form via email prior to my arrival at their school site. During the phone conversations and again
in-person prior to the interview, I reminded participants that I would be recording the interview
(with their permission) and taking notes. Each interview took approximately 45 minutes to
complete, but not longer than 1 hour. Follow-up phone calls were made when necessary to gather
clarifying information to connect my notes from the interview to the research questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All of the interviews were transcribed and analyzed.
57

Data Analysis
This study will use a qualitative analysis that will draw upon data collected using a
survey and interview protocol. The analysis steps will broadly relate to the formation,
investigation, and explanation of the data (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The entirety of the items
in the survey as well as the interview protocols were developed using the research questions as a
guide. The research questions also guided the data analysis for this study.
Subsequent to the collection of the data from the surveys and the interviews, I wrote
memos, developed coding strategies, and created matrices as well as other displays to document
the findings from each data source (Maxwell, 2013). All of the responses in the interviews and
surveys were immediately transcribed and coded once completed by the participants. An analysis
was developed from the information supplied by the participants using both the survey and
interview protocol (Creswell, 2009). Utilizing a process of sequential triangulation (see Figure
1), I used the findings from the survey data to determine who would participate in the interview
portion of the study. Data from both the survey and interview protocol, in addition to the review
of literature, were used to determine convergence, divergence or a combination of both for the
findings (Creswell, 2009). Social cognitive theory was applied as a method of linking the
findings within these larger perspectives. I ensured that the confidentiality of each participant
was preserved throughout the interview, survey, and data analysis process.
confidentiality of each participant was preserved throughout the entire process.

58

Figure 1
Triangulation of the Data

Validity and Reliability
In each step of this study, I made concerted efforts to use a variety of validity and
reliability strategies. I used Merriam and Tisdell (2016) as a basis for overall steps to promote
validity and reliability, as well as Robinson and Leonard (2019) to assist with similar checks for
the survey. Maxwell (2013) and Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested triangulation of data,
member checking, and purposeful variation in my sample selection, all of which were used
during my study. In addition, pretesting of the survey was conducted (Robinson & Leonard,
2019) and practice interviews were done using my protocol before Institutional Review Board
(IRB) approval was completed. Questions were altered as needed to increase validity between
research questions, surveys, and interviews. As Fowler (2013) posited, “Good questions
59

maximize the relationship between the answers recorded and what the researcher is trying to
measure” (p. 87).
Another essential component of validity in this study was the lens I use to view the world
as well as my biases and assumptions. I recognized that my views, biases, privileges and
assumptions as a researcher caused me to make certain assumptions and altered perspectives
about the data. As Maxwell (2013) suggested it is essential to recognize any preconceived ideas
and not make premature claims as a result of subjectivity. I acknowledged that my positionality
as a cisgender female, who serves as a high school principal in Los Angeles County, caused
participants to view me unilaterally. I felt as though a balance of power existed between me and
the respondents because we share similar experiences as principals. However, serving as the
researcher did add the component of power to a degree, in that survey respondents and
interviewees knew I had a vast knowledge of the topic at hand. In order to minimize this
component of power I reminded participants my knowledge was a result of being in the process
of research. Although I am not a transgender or gender non-conforming individual, I am an ally.
As an African-American women, reflecting on my own schooling experience, I understand the
importance of having safe spaces and systems in place to support marginalized youth. I have the
privilege of being in the position of principal and can implement practices that support and
protect transgender and gender non-conforming youth. Acknowledging my positionality helped
me focus on staying neutral while conducting interviews and analyzing data.
Prior to distributing the survey and interview instruments, a prototype was developed
through brainstorming sessions and given to high school principals in my district for a pre-test
design. This step was taken in an attempt to increase the validity and reliability of the
60

instruments (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Edits to the instrument were made based on the
feedback from the high school principals in the field test.
Summary
This study used a qualitative approach, with data from surveys and interviews. The data
collected from high school principals in Los Angeles, California public schools were analyzed to
target the three research questions in the context of social cognitive theory: principal behaviors
towards implementation of gender identity legislation and policies within the school and district
environment, district and school culture and its impact and influence on said policies and
practices, and the personal beliefs and motivation of the individual principals and how that may
play a factor in gender identity policy implementation. These findings have been presented in
Chapter 4, with a discussion of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in Chapter 5.

61

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of high school principals in
Los Angeles County, California in relation to the implementation of gender identity legislation
and policy within their school sites. Based on the data found in this study, the intent was to
provide real-world, practical solutions for other site administrators trying to navigate the
challenging parameters of inclusionary practices for transgender and gender non-conforming
students, while also meeting the needs of the rest of the school community. The research
questions focused on principals’ implementation of policies and practices for transgender and
gender non-conforming students, both from the school site and district cultural lens, as well as
their motivation and leadership actions to carry out and follow through with the policies and
practices.
Participants
All participants in this study met the criteria of being a principal in a public high school
in Los Angeles County, California. Principals serving in Los Angeles Unified School District
were excluded. The census of high school principals (n = 108) was invited to participate in the
survey portion of the study, of which 26 volunteered to proceed with the 20-question online
survey. After all surveys were completed, five participants indicated that they would be willing
to be interviewed in person. Interviews took place over the span of 3 weeks, each online, using
the Zoom platform.
In the survey, participants were asked about their race/ethnicity and which gender they
identified with. Of the 26 participants, those that identified as White or Black/African American
made up approximately 31%, 23% were Hispanic/Latino, 11% were Asian, and 3.7% were
American Indian/Alaskan Native. No participants declined to state their race/ethnicity. From this
62

group, there were 54% who identified as women, 46% who identified as men, all participants
shared their preferred gender. For the five interview participants, two were Latino, two were
White, and one was Native Hawaiian/ Other Pacific Islander. All five of the principals who were
interviewed identified as a man. See Tables 2–4.

Table 2
Survey Participant Race/Ethnicity
Race/ethnicity Raw number Percentage
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Asian
Black/African American
Hispanic/Latino
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
White
Prefer not to respond
1 3.85
3 11.54
8 30.77
6 23.07
0
8
0
0.00
30.77
0.00

63

Table 3
Survey Participant Gender
Gender Raw number Percentage
Woman
Man
Transgender
Non-binary/non-conforming
Prefer not to respond
Other
14 53.85
12 46.15
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0

Table 4
Interview Participants
Interview respondent Race/ethnicity Gender
Principal A
Principal B
Principal C
Principal D
Principal E
Latino Man
Latino Man
White Man
White Man
Asian Man

64

Findings
The results of the research are presented in this section and are organized by research
question. Each question on the survey instrument used to collect data was aligned with one or
more of this study’s research questions. Maxwell’s (2013) strategies for qualitative data analysis
were used in identifying specific passages relevant to the three research questions and this
study’s conceptual framework, social cognitive theory. I used the coding software, NVivo, to
code the data and minimize personal bias and positionality. First, I used the automated coding
feature of NVivo to identify common themes that appeared in the transcriptions. Using an
analytical coding method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the data that was in line with each research
question was analyzed further for themes and sub-themes. Lastly, once the analytical coding was
complete, I compared the two coding outcomes to ensure validity, reliability, and reduction of
bias (Maxwell, 2013).
For each of the research questions, there is a summarized review of the literature and a
brief preview of the findings. The results are presented in themes that emerged from the
groupings of sub questions within each research question. Lastly, a summary of the results is
presented for each research question, as well as summary of all three research questions at the
end of the chapter. The following research questions were used to guide this study and the results
in this chapter:
1. How do California high school principals implement gender identity legislation to
drive site-based decisions that support transgender and gender non-conforming
students?
65

2. How does the district and school culture influence a high school principal’s
implementation of policies for students who identify as transgender or gender non-
conforming?
3. To what extent does the motivation of the principal play a factor in implementing
these policies?
It is of interest to note that of the five principals who were interviewed, all five did not
intend on being leaders when they entered the field of education. Each one responded when
asked an opening question about what inspired them to be a principal, something to the effect of
falling into the role of school leadership because they were asked to take on teacher leader roles
or a site leadership role was offered to them by a mentor. It is also of interest to the topic of this
research that all five principals reported that the number of students identifying as transgender or
gender non-conforming has continued to increase in the 2022–2023 school year. Each
interviewee spoke to the notion that the numbers of students in this group has been steadily
increasing since the year following the COVID shutdown (2021–2022).
Findings: Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: How do California high school principals
implement gender identity legislation to drive site-based decisions that support transgender and
gender non-conforming students? In the perpetual pursuit to serve students in a more inclusive
manner the principals in this study have wholeheartedly engaged in practices that foster
collaboration between staff, students, and community. The existing literature showed that the
principal should strive to focus on systems for change rather than on individual transgender
students and their needs, as students should not need to come out to be supported (Martino et al.,
2020). Some of the resources that made the biggest impact for students were in-school specific
66

structures that directly impacts LGBTQ+ needs, such as supportive teachers and staff, inclusive
curriculum embedded into classes, supportive student clubs (like GSAs), and explicit anti-
bullying policies (Greytak et al., 2013). Upon review of both the interview and survey data four
themes emerged related to Research Question 1. The first theme was school site student supports
in which principals identified both the existing and needed practices at their perspective
campuses. The next two themes addressed student and staff interactions, and the last theme
focused on how community resistance impacted the principal’s decision making towards
implementing gender identity legislation.
School Site Student Supports
Participants in the survey and interview shared information regarding various student
supports that are currently in place at their sites. Figure 2 illustrates that the majority of school
sites in this study have anti bullying procedures and policies, anti-bullying training, positive
behavior support programs, safe spaces, and student clubs that support individuals who identify
with the LGBQT+ community. More respondents noted that their site had specific bullying
procedures as compared to policies that are written explicitly for the LGBQT+ population and
there were a notable number of participants who identified the implementation of gender support
plans at their specific site.

67

Figure 2
Identify Which of the Following Practices Are Present at Your School Site

When conducting interviews with the five principal participants each one discussed the
practices that are currently being implemented on their campuses to support their transgender or
gender non-conforming students. Two of the five discussed the presence of GSAs at their sites
and the importance they play in the establishment of safe spaces for students as well as the
propensity they have for making the site feel more inclusive for students who identify with the
LGBQT+ community. Two principals, in the same district, shared that their sites were under
construction. They both disclosed that the construction allowed them the opportunity to install
gender-neutral bathrooms with the full support of their district office. To prevent community
backlash, both sites use the verbiage “single-use” bathrooms rather than “gender-neutral”.
68

All five principal participants shared that counselors or their site Mental Health
Professional (MHP) played an essential role, although different at each site in supporting
students who are transgender or gender non-conforming. During their interview Principal A
stated that the counselors supervised the site GSA and the development of safe spaces on
campus. Principal B shared that their site has two counselors who work with students in the
LGBTQ+ community and have been specifically trained to deal with issues that these students
typically face at a school site. In addition, the counselors provided self-care trainings to the
students to address harm prevention and the counselors worked with the staff to understand the
importance of using the correct pronouns. The counselors at Principal C’s site have established
an anonymous tip line for students who might be experiencing bias, from staff, due to them
identifying as transgender or gender non-conforming. The information received was then shared
with the site principal, who then spoke with the identified staff member in order to bring light to
the bias and arrived at some solution for the student. The counselors at Principal D’s site work
with transgender and gender non-conforming students to develop gender support plans that are
sent out to the staff to support the proper use of names and pronouns. Principal D shared that this
can be challenging due to some parents not knowing their child is transgender or gender non-
conforming and the school having to follow laws that ensured confidentiality for the students.
Principal E shared that the “counselors support transgender or gender non-conforming students
on their campus through counseling sessions and offering their offices as safe spaces if needed.”
Although all five principal participants shared that their counselors were essential to transgender
and/or gender non-conforming students it was clear that there was a huge disparity in how
principals utilized the counselors at their school site.
69

Student Interactions
The interviews with the principal participants in regards to student interactions revealed
positive stories about the principals working to build relationships with students who were
transgender or gender non-conforming and being conscious of using the correct pronouns when
speaking with their students. Principal C shared a story regarding the first graduation under their
supervision and how the girls wore robes of one color, while the boys wore robes of a different
color. After that graduation ceremony, Principal C quickly did away with that tradition because it
caused transgender and gender non-conforming students to feel excluded and uncomfortable. All
five interview participants shared a collective message of support for transgender and gender
non-conforming students, at their site, as well as the desire to do a better job of providing a
supportive and inclusive environment for this student population.
Staff Interactions
Principal respondents had mixed responses when it came to how much interaction they
had with their staff regarding gender identity issues. When asked on the survey if they felt their
staff could benefit from training to develop skills surrounding support of transgender and gender
non-conforming students, nine out of 26 felt this was completely true and 10 felt that it was
moderately or mostly true (Figure 3). During the interviews, principals stated that most of the
staff interactions had in regard to transgender and gender non-conforming students were based
on the law and ensuring teachers understood the policies that surround LBGTQ+ youth. A few of
the principal respondents reported push back from teachers regarding pronoun usage. Principal C
stated:
We did have one teacher that was troubled by it. They believe that it is wrong to respond
to someone by anything other than their pronoun that would be assigned based upon birth
70

gender. This particular teacher struggled with that, but by and large, our teachers were
very receptive.
Although the principals who were interviewed shared that most teachers were accepting
of the pronoun students wanted to use three of the five participants who were interviewed had
one or two teachers at their site who were not comfortable with accommodating pronoun
requests. Principal B shared, “I think you always seem to have that teacher that says, you know, I
need to refer to this person as their biological name. My response is well, that’s not how it
works.” Principal D reported:
In my many years here, I think I’ve dealt twice with situations with teachers and
pronoun usage. It’s not a whole lot, but we still have some that are grudgingly accepting
of being coached on pronoun usage. It’s different from how I grew up but it seems for
accepting now.
The three principals shared various strategies they used to work with teachers that
included trainings, building deeper relationships with teachers, or having the site counselor speak
with teachers regarding the needs of transgender and gender non-conforming students. Principal
C said, “We aim to be collaborative with our teachers and have those conversations and build
those relationships so it doesn’t become, I’m telling you to do this.”

71

Figure 3
My Staff Would Benefit From Training to Develop Skills in How to Support Transgender and
Gender Non-conforming Students.

Survey participants were consistent in their responses about providing PD at their school
site (Figure 4). When asked about providing sufficient training or professional development, two
out of 26 responded completely true and mostly true, while 18 out of 26 responded a little true
and not true at all. Responses to the interview questions were quite similar with Principal A
sharing that a staff meeting was held where the team did a walk-through of all California and
federal laws that pertained to transgender and gender non-conforming students. Principal D
shared that the staff was given directives to follow all laws pertaining to transgender or gender
non-conforming students. The other three participants stated that no trainings or professional
development was provided for staff at the school site.
72

Figure 4
In the Last Academic Year, I Have Provided Sufficient Training/Professional Development for
My Site Staff to Support Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Students.

Community Resistance
Although community resistance was not specifically asked about in the survey or in the
interview questions, it came up as a theme. There were two areas where principals discussed
community resistance: curriculum and facilities-bathrooms and locker rooms. Principal C shared
two events with community resistance, one having to do with curriculum and the other having to
do with the new instillation of gender-neutral bathrooms. In discussing the curriculum, Principal
C stated:
There is a Spanish teacher, who has been with us for years. I believe on a handful of
occasions parents of the particular persuasion were very offended by the fact that in the
73

Spanish class the teacher’s scenarios maybe include two boys and two girls. They are
age appropriate and illustrate characters that are both heterosexual and homosexual. The
individual is an excellent teacher. There was parent backlash with that. They felt the
snippets were inappropriate. Why, you know? But the students never reported that they
found the video offensive. I think the kids are pretty well acclimated and understand, for
the most part, some students are transgender or homosexuals.
Principal C was also at a site that was under construction and shared that the contractor did not
want to install gender-neutral bathrooms. Principal C had to work with the superintendent and
supervisor of school facilities to override the contractor’s decision and have the bathrooms
installed. Community resistance can have a strong influence on the decisions a principal makes
in terms of supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students. When asked about
barriers to having gender-neutral facilities, principals shared that they dealt with parent concerns
by stating the law. Principal A said that if a parent called regarding a transgender student using
the locker room they identify with, they would offer a separate changing room to the student of
the concerned parent, not the transgender student. All five interviewees stated that students have
rights and as principals they must uphold the law.
Discussion Research Question 1
Overall, the survey and interview data showed that high school principals in Los Angeles
County make some site-based decisions that support transgender and gender non- conforming
students. Although their practices vary at each school site the survey data suggested that there are
policies and procedures in place to minimize the bullying of transgender and gender non-
conforming students and provide them with safe spaces while they are at school. There was also
strong evidence that principals used counselors as an essential part of the plan to support these
74

students. Agee-Aguayo et. al (2016) noted that the role of school psychologists and/or mental
health professionals was essential to assisting students with navigating the implementation of the
law as well as the repercussions they might face. Based on the survey and interviews conducted
it appeared that although principals looked for ways to better support transgender and gender
non-conforming students, they are challenged in providing professional development for their
own staffs. This might be due to their perceived lack of knowledge surrounding the subject
matter or their fear of how the staff might react to training.
Findings: Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: How does the district and school culture
influence a high school principal’s implementation of policies for students who identify as
transgender or gender non-conforming? Culture can have a strong impact on the decision making
of a site principal. Survey and interview questions were asked specifically to principals to see if
there were differences or similarities between what was being implemented at their school and
what was being practiced at the district level. The impact of the site culture and makeup was
found to be a theme throughout the survey and interviews. Themes also emerged around the
school district’s guidance and support, as well as the lack of professional development offered by
their district.
Influence of School Culture
The literature pointed to the most effective way a district and school can support policy
implementation for transgender and gender non-conforming students, which was to foster and
create a safe and supportive school environment. A positive and inclusive school setting was an
important component for addressing marginalization and oppression because youth encounter so
many developmental milestones while in this setting (Stargell et al., 2020). The principals that
75

were interviewed shared the importance a safe campus has for the success of all students
particularly those that are transgender and gender non-conforming. Principal B shared, “We’re
very supportive with students, obviously, with the use of our database system and name policy,
which we follow very closely. I would have to say that our culture is very accepting, especially
our student body.” According to this principal, their school site wis very supportive with
students, and they follow pronoun usage and name policies according to the law. In addition,
Principal B also stated that because the school culture has a very accepting student body “there
has been an increasing number of students that are openly transgender on campus.”
The diversity on a school campus can have a major impact on the culture as well. In the
survey, respondents shared that their schools were a little to quite diverse in the areas of
race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and language. They rated LGBTQ+ diversity to be on the
lower side, with 19 out of 26 leaders saying there was no diversity at all or little diversity (see
Figure 5). As we found in Research Question 1, there were little supports that were directed
specifically for LGBTQ+ or transgender students, and this may be due to the fact that there are
not huge numbers of students identifying with this group at the high school level.

76

Figure 5
How Diverse Would You Say Your School Is?

Louérs-Philips (2019) explained that principals are crucial in confronting the institutional
inequities that limit students from wholly acquiring the advantages of public education. It is
imperative that school leaders work with their staff to foster a school environment that is
inclusive and meets the emotional, social, and academic demands of all students (2019). For
some students bullying can be a challenge, especially those that identified as transgender or
gender non-conforming. Out of 26 survey respondents 58% shared that it was not true at all and a
little true that school-wide bullying was still a problem for students at their school site. (Figure
6). The data showed that school wide bullying was an issue for principals at high schools in Los
Angeles. I expected more respondents to answer that bullying was not an issue at their school
site based on bias, however 42% reported that bullying on campus for transgender and gender
non-conforming students was moderately or mostly true.
77

Figure 6
How True Is This Statement? Bullying Is a Problem for Students in My School.

There was a 10% decrease in participants reporting the existence of school-wide bullying
as not true at all and a little true when asked about bullying that is specifically targeted towards
students who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming. This difference could be due to
the participants not wanting to report specific bullying events having occurred due to the student
being transgender or gender non-conforming (Figure 7). The data appeared to reflect that
bullying is consistent regardless of the student’s gender identity. In fact, bullying rates for
transgender students seemed to decrease with 68% of survey participants reporting that it was not
true at all and a little true that transgender students were bullied more frequently than their peers.
This may be due to principal bias regarding their campus or due to principals working with
counselors, staff, and students to ensure safe spaces and inclusive practices for transgender and
78

gender non-conforming students. Principals who were interviewed did not mention or elaborate
on the topic of bullying when asked questions that pertained to culture on campus.

Figure 7
How True Is This Statement? Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Students at My School
are Bullied More Frequently Than Their Peers.

79

District Guidance
District guidance for schools included initiatives and supports, provided by the district, to
ensure schools secured participation and learning success for all students. Between ever
changing student demographics and continuing race and socioeconomic based disparities in K–
12 public education, the guidance that principals received from the district was an essential
component for schools and their leaders to create an equitable and inclusive learning
environment for every child (Isamura & Galloway, 2014). The culture and practices of a district
also impacted how principals implemented policies for transgender and gender non-conforming
students. Many studies found that district level policies were helpful in setting the stage for
school level leaders to take action (Croteau & Lewis, 2016; Kurt & Chenault, 2017; Mason et al.,
2017; Stargell et al., 2020). When surveyed about district-level specific procedures that deal with
LGBTQ+ student bullying, approximately 61% of principals were able to identify that their
district has policies for this area and 26% reported that their district did not have policies in
place. Principals who were interviewed shared that most district guidance was not clear and
although there were laws supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students, it
appeared as though guidance took the form of defining the laws, not how to implement them, and
guidance on how to support all students with social emotional needs was given rather than
guidance for specific student groups. Principal C shared that support for this student group often
comes from their district Equity Officer but information is only supplied on a need-to-know
basis. Principal C included that the delivery of any information from the district was more
reactive rather than proactive.
80

District Support
District supports provided school campuses with comprehensive services to address and
eliminate disparities in well-being, provide school stability, and ensured student achievement.
Based on the survey and interview data district support varies from district to district. For this
study district support was used to describe how the district impacts the principal’s ability to
support transgender and gender non-conforming students with facilities and the implementation
of diverse and inclusive curriculum. Although supports vary depending upon the district the data
showed that the majority of principals surveyed report having one to 10 transgender and gender
non-conforming students on campus (Figure 8). In addition, the majority of principals reported
having one gender-neutral restroom on campus. Three of the five principals interviewed shared
that the one gender-neutral bathroom on campus was in the nurse’s office, while two principals
shared that since their sites were under construction, there were specific restrooms being built as
gender-neutral. Although the nurse’s office restroom was somewhat of a solution, California
Education Code 221.5 states that transgender students and gender non-conforming students are
not required to use them if they are not willing. Schools are required to allow students the option
of using the restroom with the gender they identify. When asked about locker room use, all five
principals interviewed shared that they allow transgender and gender non-conforming students to
use the locker room of the gender they identify with.

81

Figure 8
Approximately How Many Transgender or Gender Non-conforming Students Do You Have on
Campus and How Many Gender-neutral Restrooms Do You Have on Campus for Student Use?

A school district can also support school sites by adopting curricula that are inclusive and
diverse. Of the 26 principals surveyed, nine principals reported that they have access to district
approved curriculum that depicts transgender or gender non-conforming people in society while
eight shared that no district approved curriculum was available. The other nine principals were
unsure of the availability of district approved curriculum that was inclusive of transgender and
gender non- conforming people. Of the five principals surveyed Principal C reported that the
Spanish teacher at the site used examples, during lessons, that include members of the LGBQT+
community and Principal A shared that their district’s health curriculum included lessons that
included topics specific to this student group.
District Professional Development
When survey participants were asked about any district level training regarding bullying
prevention, 74% said that their district had provided it at some point. However, when asked if
82

their district had provided a sufficient amount of training specific to transgender and gender non-
conforming policy and law, only 19% found that to be mostly or completely true. Thirty–one
percent felt this was not true at all, inferring that their district had provided little to no training in
this area (Table 5). Only one of the principals who were interviewed said that their previous
district had provided a training for leadership, or all staff, that pertained to supporting
transgender and gender non-conforming students. Principal E stated, “My last school district was
more progressive. They consistently sent information about supporting students, parents, and
working with the community.” Principal C reported, “We had Title IX training and the presenter
included transgender and gender non-conforming students as having rights, like all students, but
there was nothing specific. It was more general, like students have rights, make sure you honor
them.” Principal C further described the training as being, “directed at the laws schools were
required to follow and it didn’t address implementation or go beyond regurgitating facts and
policies.”

83

Table 5
District Training/Professional Development
My staff would benefit
from training to develop
skills in how to support
transgender or gender
non-conforming students.
In the last academic year, my
district has provided
sufficient
training/professional
development for me to
support policy and law for
transgender and gender non-
conforming students.
n % n %
Not true at all
A little true
Moderately true
Mostly true
Completely true
1 3.84 8 30.77
7 26.92 9 34.62
5 19.23 4 15.38
4 15.38 4 15.3
8 30.76 1 3.8

In terms of professional development, the study data confirmed what the literature stated.
Any professional development done to support this group of students was often cursory and
linked to the law, where it should be focused on experiences, dialogue, and reflection (Marx et
al., 2017). It was also not consistent across districts within the same county, nor at school sites
within the same district. The priorities of the site leader and the climate and culture of the school
and community might dictate how much professional development was offered and embraced.
84

Discussion Research Question 2
The four themes in Research Question 2, influence on school culture, district guidance,
district support, and district professional development, highlighted that school site leaders were
often on their own to find ways to support transgender and gender non-conforming students. The
data also pointed to the fact that district support and guidance was not consistent and much more
professional development was needed for school staff, as well as for site principals to be properly
equipped to lead training at their own site. These results were in line with the literature which
stated that most principals hope for top-down, overarching policies to support their local policies,
but needed fluid goals that promoted safety, equity, and education so that they can make
decisions that were positive within their school culture (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). Unfortunately,
in the data found in this study, several principals were not even sure of district policies in place
to assist them. Principals also found there to be little curriculum adopted by their districts that
was inclusive to the transgender and LGBTQ+ population.
Although principals shared that there is not enough support for professional development
and facilities at the district level, overall, they were positive about their own school culture and
the steps they were taking to be more inclusive of transgender and gender non-conforming
students. Constructing and fostering an inclusive and supportive school environment was an area
where principals made the most difference, whether they specifically worked toward inclusion of
transgender students or they broadened systems for all students on campus. In order for leaders
to make the most impact on this population of students, social cognitive theory states that
principals should lead with a transformational style which can increase change capacity and
disrupt the status quo (Da’as, 2020). Major decisions of systemic disruption were much more
difficult when the leader was acting alone and not in alignment with their district guidance. In
85

all, school and district culture were found to be a key factor in the daily decisions that were made
by site administrators and address this topic.
Findings: Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the questions: To what extent does the motivation of the
principal play a factor in implementing these policies? Wood and Bandura (1989) asserted that
people tend to emulate what they agree with or find self-satisfying, and reject or ignore that
which they disagree. They further explained that although behavior, environment, and personal
cognition comprise a triadic reciprocal relationship, the theoretical framework for this study,
reciprocity does not imply that all influences are equal in strength. Motivation was one of the
triadic components of social cognitive theory. The motivation to behave or perform in distinct
ways is influenced by several factors, which includes possessing skills, but does not always mean
having the ability to use the skills well or consistently under varying situations (Wood &
Bandura, 1989). Policies for supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students are not
revolutionary, however, in the past few years there has been a noticeable increase in the number
of students that have begun to question their gender identity at younger ages. High school
principals are now seeing an increasing number of students, each year, that require support and
this research question seeks to determine if an individual leader’s motivation and beliefs around
the support of transgender and gender non-conforming students affects their actions for this
population at their school site.
Personal Knowledge of Topic and Laws
Although there are a number of California laws, including AB 1266, Fair Act, Seth’s
Law, and Title IX, that provide protections for students who identify with the LGBTQ+, they are
not implemented with fidelity across the state’s education system. Most districts lack guidelines,
86

policies and/or professional development opportunities aimed at supporting LGBTQ+, which
leaves students who identify with this group in a vulnerable position. Interview and survey
participants were asked about their knowledge of terms and laws surrounding transgender and
gender non-conforming students. Table six illustrates survey respondents’ answers regarding
vocabulary that is used when addressing individuals who identify with this community.
All survey participants could easily define or were familiar with the terms transgender,
gender non-conforming, gender identity, and GSA (although this acronym has taken on different
meanings in the last few years). The majority of principals surveyed were familiar with gender
fluidity, non-binary, and safe zone. Noting the data, principals were least familiar with the terms
gender queer, gender dysphoria, binary gender, and gender expression. See Table 6.

87

Table 6
For Each of the Following Terms, Please Indicate Whether You Are Familiar with and/or Can
Define These Terms.
I can easily
define this
term.
I cannot easily
define this term,
but I am familiar
with it.
I am not familiar
with this term and
I cannot define it.
Term n N n
Transgender
Gender non-conforming
Gender fluidity
Gender identity
Non-binary
24 2 0
19 7 0
18 7 1
21 5 0
18 7 1
Genderqueer 7 14 5
Gender dysphoria 12 8 6
Binary gender 8 10 8
Safe zone 20 4 2
GSA 21 5 0
Gender expression 14 8 4

When asked about their personal knowledge regarding the topics and laws that
surrounded transgender and gender non-conforming students, the responses from the interview
participants were somewhat consistent in that the principals felt they had some understanding of
a few of the various laws, but they all shared a consistent sentiment, that their districts could do a
better job in educating site leaders about existing or new laws that pertain to this student group.
A desire to acquire a deeper understanding might be related to intrinsic motivational factors that
88

include perceived confidence and internal control of a topic or situation (Schunk, 2020).
Principal B explained that in their prior district they received multiple trainings on the laws and
supports for transgender and gender non-conforming students. However, Principal B considered
their current district to be very behind in the times because of the lack of training and
information on laws and supports that apply to this student group
I have not learned anything in this district, but as I mentioned before, my last school
district was very progressive. We were sent to trainings and given a lot of PD in regards
to gender support plans and making our sites more inclusive.
Principal C shared that if there was a question regarding laws or supports for this student
group, they sought out the district Equity Officer for guidance. All five participants stated that
they were aware of and support the law surrounding restroom use for this student group.
Principal C shared that if they were asked by a parent about limiting access to restrooms for
transgender or gender non-conforming students their response would be, “I’m sorry you feel that
way but all of our students have rights and we are going to support that.” The other principals
had very similar answers when asked about parents concerned with the use of facilities. Principal
D stated, “Ultimately, we have to abide by the law and we have to support our minority students.
I would have a conversation with a concerned parent and share information about students’
rights.” Principal A took the opportunity to share personal information, “I am more biased
because my own [child] is questioning [their] gender, but I would explain to parents that kids are
not trying to be sexual about going to the bathroom. They just want to use the bathroom.” These
principals appeared to be intrinsically motivated to learn more and discussed factors of self-
determination that Schunk (2020) stated would excite people’s desire to satisfy needs and resolve
conflicts.
89

When principals were surveyed regarding the need for support with laws and policies,
79% reported that they needed at least a little more support and 21% reported needing a lot of
support. Although the participants largely reported having a need for support only 8% of the
survey respondents shared that they spend their own time researching and studying transgender
and gender non-conforming policies and laws. The data showed that 80% of principals surveyed
rarely or sometimes spent time on investigating laws and supports for this particular student
group. It appeared as though a few administrators felt intrinsically motivated to learn more about
this student population, while the majority seemed to be waiting for additional guidance.
Personal Motivation to Support Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Students
The theoretical framework for this study was social cognitive theory which encompasses
a triadic relationship between the person, environment, and behavior and how these components
influence motivation. Questions in both the interview and survey were asked to address the
motivation of a principal to support transgender and gender non-conforming students. Although
the survey data reflected that the majority of principals were not motivated to offer staff PD
(72% reported not true at all and a little true when asked if they held staff PD regarding this
student group) or research laws that pertain to this student group they were motivated to
advocate for these students in instances where there was potential for mistreatment or violation
of rights. During the interviews, Principal D explained, “Ultimately, we must abide by the law.
We could have conversations with the parents, guardians, and other students, but ultimately we
have to serve and protect our minority folks, like trans gender and non-conforming kids.”
Similarly, Principal E shared, “Every student has rights. Every student uses the locker room and I
would defend all students’ rights. I would not give in. I would not deny that student because our
transgender students have every single right.”
90

When asked about needing additional support to deal with issues that affect transgender
and gender non-conforming students, 91% of the survey participants felt that they needed at least
a little more training for themselves, if not more. Fifty–seven percent of the survey participants
reported that the topic of transgender and gender non-conforming students has never come up in
a staff meeting or only came up once. Figure 9 illustrates the number of principals who were
motivated enough to seek support from other principals within their district as well as attempts to
connect with colleagues outside of their school organization on ways to support this student
population.

Figure 9
Comparison of Collaborating with Colleagues within and Outside of District to Get Ideas for
Supporting Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students

91

The data revealed that collaboration and networking with colleagues, both inside and
outside of their district, was a method that principals used to find support and information about
dealing with issues surrounding transgender and gender non-conforming youth. Five principals
out of 26 reports not speaking, at all, to colleagues within their school district as a way of finding
supports for transgender and gender non-conforming students and 21 out of 26 principals stated
that they had spoken with other colleagues outside of their district in an attempt to find ways to
better support students. When asked about working with other principals to find ways to better
support this student population, Principal C answered, “It’s all about collaboration. Sometimes
people in your district can help and sometimes you have to phone a friend on the outside because
they have access to things the district might not have. You just have to remember, it’s about the
students.”
Leader’s Beliefs and Values
An essential point of social cognitive theory is that learning is profoundly context
dependent. Individuals gain an understanding of the value and appropriateness of behaviors, as
well as the consequences of modeled behavior, and they perform analogously with beliefs about
their capabilities and the predicted results of their actions (Schunk, 2020). Alternately, the
actions and leadership style of a principal can be greatly influenced by their beliefs and values.
Two, out of the five principals who were interviewed, described themselves as servant leaders
while the other three described themselves as collaborative leaders who worked with their staff
to better serve students. When addressing the needs of transgender and gender non-conforming
students and attempting to implement and follow policies regarding this group of students,
principals may let their values guide their decision making or they may have to put their values
aside. This particular study included principals that work in Los Angeles County, an area of
92

California that can be very liberal in viewpoints, beliefs, and politics. Figure 10 displays the
personal beliefs of the survey respondents. Although some of the 26 respondents skipped this
question, 91% of those that did respond agreed that a person’s gender may differ from their
assigned birth sex and 100% do not believe transgender individuals are just seeking attention.
When asked about transgender and gender non-conforming students being allowed to use the
facility of their identified gender, 76% of survey respondents felt they should use the bathroom
of their choice.

Figure 10
Please Answer the Following Based on Your Own Personal Beliefs.

93
94

Interviewees were specifically asked about students using the restroom and/or locker
room of their identified gender. All five principals responded that they follow the law and that
students were allowed to use the facility of their identified gender. The overall belief of these
principals was that schools should follow state and federal mandates to support students and
foster an inclusive school environment. Principal A shared, “All students have rights, and we
have to do what's best for them. Students should be able to go into the bathroom that they
identify with. I'll support whatever bathroom they choose to use.” In regard to this specific issue,
all of the interviewed principal’s beliefs, values, and actions were in alignment with the law
although the potential for community pushback was perpetually present.
During the interview, principals were also asked about their personal beliefs and if they
had ever had to compromise those beliefs due to their job. None of the respondents shared that
they had to compromise their beliefs, as their beliefs are aligned with the law. Principal A
explained, “It's not difficult because my personal beliefs are in line with my professional beliefs
in regards, that all students have rights, and we have to do what's best for them. Principal D
shared an altruistic understanding of their role
My personal beliefs have no bearing on my professional duties when I'm on the clock.
When I’m on duty, I serve the public, I serve scholars, I serve the community period. Now,
for me, I’m aligned so it's not an issue. But even if I did have an issue, I've learned through
years of training, as an administrator, that should not impact my ability to lead.
All of the principals interviewed shared consistent viewpoints about supporting transgender and
gender non-conforming students when it comes to the use of facilities.
The values and beliefs of the principal interviewees became more transparent when they
were asked to construct the ideal high school for transgender and gender non-conforming
95

students. Principal A shared that although there were a lot of community politics that surrounded
this topic, their ideal school “would just be a campus that's inclusionary of all students regardless
if students were transgender or not. My ideal thing would be to have embedded structures within
curriculum and single use facilities, so there aren’t any issues.”
Principal C revealed their strict religious upbringing and how they have worked to
address their biases towards this student group
I still have super conservative religious roots that I inherited from my parents. I grew up
in a faith that said homosexuality was wrong. Though I profess differently now, I really
have to consciously make sure those biases aren't preventing me from serving students.
Overall, the principals interviewed did not seem to change their personal beliefs for the
work they do with transgender students and their ideal schools were models of inclusivity for all
students regardless of gender or sexual orientation. There may have been biases that were not
present in the interview session that appeared in the survey due to the anonymity of the survey.
The survey question about beliefs showed that high school leaders in Los Angeles County had
various beliefs in relation to this topic.
Discussion Research Question 3
Research Question 3 examined the personal areas of the leaders’ values and beliefs.
Although the literature stated that many leaders have fear and anxiety, which led to less
motivation to act, when dealing with issues surrounding transgender and gender non-conforming
students (Croteau & Lewis, 2016; Kurt & Chenault, 2017), principals in this study did not shy
away from acting on what they believed was right for students. Principals reported that they
wished to learn more about the topic, law, and policies for the reason of supporting students in
their schools. There was little evidence in the survey and interviews that suggested initiatives for
96

transgender youth were a priority for leaders. However, principals said they prioritize the needs
of students in general, which included the needs of students who identify as transgender and
gender non-conforming. All five of the principals interviewed felt no need to compromise their
personal beliefs to do what is right for students. The majority of educators advocate for the rights
of their students, and this was evident from the data in this study. Principals shared that they
believe more could be done to support this group of students, including additional help from their
district office. The data suggested most of the support they received as leaders was from
networking with colleagues who have similar experiences. As Schunk (2006) and Wood and
Bandura (1989) found, people’s self-motivation, beliefs, and actions played a factor in what and
how they accomplished goals. In this study I found that the principals supported transgender
students in ways that were in line with their beliefs and when needed, they sought out assistance
from models around them.
Summary
Research Question 1 focused on the school site-based decisions that principals made to
implement the policies and procedures of the law as it pertained to transgender and gender non-
conforming students. Four themes emerged to show that the principal’s modeling of staff and
student interactions played an essential role in fostering a positive and inclusive culture on
campus. Principals, in this study, described student supports that led to a safer, inclusive campus
however, most of these supports were not specifically targeted to help transgender and gender
non-conforming students. Counselors and mental health support programs were the most
commonly named site supports in both the survey and interviews. Although it was not
specifically asked about, an additional theme regarding community resistance resulted from the
feedback given during the interview process.
97

Research Question 2 inquired about how the school and district culture affected the site
leader’s implementation of the laws and policies that surrounded transgender youth. The findings
indicated that district guidance and support greatly varied which resulted in principals resolving
many issues on their own. Few districts had offered any formal training to staff or leaders and
many of the survey respondents were unsure of actual policies meant to support transgender and
gender non-conforming students. Based on the collected data, school culture appeared to be the
biggest influence on how transgender and gender non-conforming students were supported.
Research Question 3 examined the site leader’s motivation and personal beliefs and
values and whether those factors influenced their implementation of policies. Leaders shared
personal beliefs and values that exemplified a deep level of caring for all students as human
beings, with rights and protections. All of the principals who were interviewed were personally
motivated to support students and follow the laws protecting this student group. Those who were
interviewed share that their personal beliefs and values were in alignment with the laws that
support transgender and gender non-conforming students. One trend that emerged from the data
was that principal’s felt they did not know enough about transgender students, the laws
surrounding them, or how to best support them and they desired a firmer direction from their
individual districts. Each interview participant hoped to learn more and survey responses showed
that many will continue to use colleagues and outside resources to continue learning about this
topic. These findings support social cognitive theory, in that a principal’s confidence in their
self-efficacy has an impact on how they determine their goals, as a leader, and the level of
commitment and perseverance they demonstrate toward accomplishing a task (Gulmez & Negis,
2020). In addition, some principals appeared to have the drive, or intrinsic motivation to acquire
more knowledge surrounding this topic, possibly due to their perceived competence and moral
98

calling to do what was right for all students. Their beliefs came into play when determining their
commitment to transgender and gender non-conforming students, despite the obstacles that may
have arisen from various avenues.
In Chapter 5, these findings will be discussed in connection with social cognitive theory
and how a principal’s self-efficacy can impact the school site supports that are provided for
transgender and gender non-conforming students. Chapter 5 will also discuss how the influences
of school culture, district office, and the community drive a principal’s decision making
surrounding the success of this particular student group and what principals can do to
successfully navigate the challenges that arise when working to support students who identify as
transgender and gender non-conforming.

99

Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter 5 summarizes findings which are related to implications for practice within the
realm of high school principals. Key research findings are discussed in order to inform current
and future school administrators of practical solutions to assisting students through policies as it
relates to transgender and gender non-conforming students. The chapter concludes with
limitations to this study, as well as recommendations for future research within this topic.
This study focused on high school principals in Los Angeles County and the ways in
which they implement policies for transgender and gender non-conforming students. Systematic
implementation of policies for transgender and gender non-conforming students is necessary in
schools to minimize at-risk behavior and exclusionary practices for this group who already
experience biases and discrimination (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016). Administrators have to
navigate the delicate balance between advocating for transgender students, as dictated by law,
while sustaining optimal learning opportunities for all students and families (Kurt & Chenault,
2017). The majority of the literature on administrative practices with this population tended to
focus on reactive measures that were taken, rather than established, proactive policies that were
school wide (Coolhart & MacKnight, 2015; Martino et al., 2020; Meyer & Keenan, 2018).
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of high school principals in
Los Angeles County, California, in relation to how social cognitive theory impacts a principal’s
decision making when supporting and implementing gender identity legislation and policy within
their school sites. Social cognitive theory was used as the theoretical framework to examine how
environment, motivation, and actions influence the extent to which a principal supported this
particular student group. The following research questions were used to guide this study:
100

1. How do California high school principals implement gender identity legislation to
drive site-based decisions that support transgender and gender non-conforming
students?
2. How does the district and school culture influence a high school principal’s
implementation of policies for students who identify as transgender or gender non-
conforming?
3. To what extent does the motivation of the principal play a factor in implementing
these policies?
This study implemented a qualitative research design which included online surveys and
in-person interviews, all with high school principals in Los Angeles County, California. This
allowed for surveys to be conducted first and principals to volunteer to be interviewed after the
surveys were completed. Survey data was analyzed using Qualtrics software and interview data
was coded into themes using NVivo software.
Findings
Study findings suggested that principals in Los Angeles County work with limited
support and varying protocols that are determined by the district that employs the principal.
Although this study focused on one county in California and the implementation of state laws,
the degree of implementation was incredibly diverse district to district. Findings further
suggested that the implementation of state laws in regard to transgender and gender non-
conforming students were done in a reactive manner rather than systemic school wide practice,
as suggested by Martino et al. (2020). There were 11 themes that emerged from the study’s three
research questions. This section presents a summary and discussion of the study’s findings in
relation to existing literature and contemporary practice.
101

Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: How do California high school principals
implement gender identity legislation to drive site-based decisions that support transgender and
gender non-conforming students? The data obtained from surveys and interviews that pertained
to this question highlighted a few observable patterns with principals at their sites. Existing
support structures for all students were also found to be used with transgender and gender non-
conforming students. For example, school-wide anti-bullying policies and multi-tiered systems
of support were already in existence at all of the interviewee’s sites. Each principal noted that the
mental health staff and programs on their campuses were not established to specifically target the
transgender population, but that they were always involved in any support processes. Agee-
Aguayo et al. (2016) stated that in many accounts, mental health specialists are not trained well
enough in specifically supporting LGBTQ+ students; however, their influence can come from
serving as an ally and advocate. Although these varying supports were found to be instrumental
in supporting this student group, they were designed to support all students regardless of their
gender identity and were not intentionally implemented to support transgender or gender non-
conforming students. This finding corroborated the research from Martino et al. (2020) which
stated that in order to have an integrated school model with specific transgender supports, the
school culture would need to completely transform its current gender system. The sites included
in this study did not exhibit this type of transformation.
Feedback from the interview questions demonstrated that principals were there to support
transgender and gender non-conforming students when necessary. For the most part, principals
reported that students had positive interactions with other students and staff, on campus. In some
instances, there were staff who were reluctant to use the correct pronouns for students or weren’t
102

supportive of the needs of this student group. When that occurred it was found, based on the
responses from the interviewees, that principals turned to the law to ensure that staff was
adhering to state and federal regulations and that students were receiving appropriate supports.
From the interviews it was found that four out of the five principals are, at a minimum, ensuring
that their staff was following the law, but were not going beyond that to provide additional
opportunities for this student group. One principal was found to go above and beyond the
baseline by meeting with their superintendent, while their school was under construction, to
ensure gender-neutral bathrooms were installed.
Although principals may desire to do more for this student population, a significant
finding was that surrounding community pushback limits their decision making to implement a
school wide approach. Fear of community backlash was a consistent response amongst interview
and survey participants. Interview responses from principals found that none of them were trying
to make systemic changes or disrupt the heteronormative system. They were, however, trying to
advocate for individual students who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming.
Although they were doing the minimum, based on state law, and not implementing the systemic
changes suggested by the literature (Meyer & Keenan, 2018), they were still constantly met with
backlash from parents of cisgender students. Kurt and Chenault (2017) suggested the best way to
lessen the barrier of misinformed parents was to educate the community early and proactively
about what it means to be transgender and how these students pose no harm to others. However,
in contrast to the literature, no districts or site administrators in this study mentioned any
community scale events to educate their school communities.

103

Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: How does the district and school culture
influence a high school principal’s implementation of policies for students who identify as
transgender or gender non-conforming? Findings from this research question suggested areas
that were significant based on school culture, district guidance and support, and district
professional development. Extant literature pointed to the most effective way a district and
school can support policy implementation for transgender and gender non-conforming students
was to foster and create a safe and supportive school environment (Stargell et al., 2020).
Principals who were surveyed and interviewed upheld this same notion in that they reported
many school site programs in place to support a positive environment for all students. Some
programs or supports that were reported were safe spaces, multi-tiered systems of support and
SEL programs, anti-bullying policies, and mental health personnel. Again, none of these
supportive school solutions were designed specifically for transgender and gender non-
conforming students, however principals found them to assist in identifying and supporting this
student population. Furthermore, in the high school principals who were surveyed, this student
group was found to be amongst the lowest in numbers when compared to other marginalized
groups and therefore may also contribute to the lack of programs specifically designed to address
their needs.
District guidance and support was found to widely vary from district to district within this
study. There were no findings that represented a county-wide system to support districts or
individual administrators when implementing supportive measures for transgender and gender
non-conforming students. Principals shared that any district guidance was either vague or only
intentionally dealt with the laws. Croteau and Lewis (2016) and Mason et al. (2017) shared that
104

district level policies and procedures were helpful in setting a stage for site leaders to take action
for this student population. However, in this study, for example, one third of principals in the
survey shared that they were unaware of their district having anti-bullying policies and
procedures specific to transgender and gender non-conforming students and another third
answered that their district did not have any. In addition, support coming from the district level,
when it pertained to facilities and curriculum, was also found to not be consistent across those
interviewed in this study. Some principals reported that their district was responsive in their need
for gender-neutral restrooms and locker rooms, while others were making it work by using
existing facilities with modifications. Very few reported any sort of curriculum that was provided
by the district, and what was reported dealt most with the state mandated health standards.
Unfortunately, the lack of curriculum in this area comes at a cost which research stated is one of
the most successful ways to teach understanding and acceptance of the transgender and gender
non-conforming population (Sadowski, 2017; Stargell et al., 2020). Overall, it was found that
principals received varying degrees of support and guidance from their district office and were
mostly left to their own devices at their school site (aside from provided general policies and
laws).
Responses from the interview participants suggested that professional development
specifically focused on supporting this student group was limited or almost non-existent. When
professional development for supporting students was offered it was focused on the rights of the
general student population (i.e., Title IX training, sexual harassment, or diversity, inclusion and
equity trainings) and not meant for any one specific student group. Therefore, a significant
finding was the lack of professional development that specifically provides support for site
leaders and their dealings with these policies. An additional finding that emerged was that
105

principals desired more district support and professional development specific to the needs of
transgender and gender non-conforming students. Only one principal of the five interviewed
described their previous district as progressive because that particular district offered
professional development that was specific to transgender laws, supports, and the
implementation of curriculum. This desire for more professional development was in accordance
with social cognitive theory and the motivation to help students. In addition, principals
acknowledged that they would be more willing to go beyond what the law required if they had
greater backing from the district office. Principal A also shared this sentiment when they share
that “if PD for this student population was wrapped in the culture of the district and school sites
it would allow principals to go to greater lengths and make bigger changes.”
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 asked the following: To what extent does the motivation of the
principal play a factor in implementing these policies? While all participants in the survey and
interview reported some familiarity with the vocabulary and laws surrounding gender identity
themes, the majority stated a desire to learn additional information. Although the literature does
not support this strategy, principals who were interviewed shared that they use their gut instincts
and experiences to support this population. However well intended this practice may be, it could
potentially do more harm than good to this student group because it may be reinforcing
hegemonic structures of heteronormative culture that are already in existence at schools (Lustick,
2016).
Motivation is one of the triadic components of social cognitive theory and can be
influenced by environment, behavior, and self-efficacy. Despite the lack of formal training, many
leaders charge forward to support all students, with the leader’s individual core beliefs playing a
106

major role in these actions (Croteau & Lewis, 2016). In this study, findings suggested that
principals were motivated to help all students, in general, however principals were not motivated
to surpass the norm for transgender students. Although, intrinsically, they wanted to do more for
this population due to their moral code, there was not enough time, knowledge, training, or
support. In addition, due to the lack of support from district offices, I found that principals relied
heavily on colleagues within their district and county for guidance and suggestions to assist and
uphold the needs of this student population.
When participants were questioned about their beliefs and values surrounding this topic,
answers varied between the surveys and interviews. Some survey participants responded that
their beliefs and values differed from what the law required. In addition, this was the only area of
the survey where several respondents skipped questions. However, all interview participants
reported that their beliefs and values were in alignment with the law so they never had to put
aside their personal feelings to support transgender and gender non-conforming students at their
school site. All interviewees reported that they ultimately wanted their students to feel safe,
included, and supported by them, the staff, and the school culture. Existing literature showed that
principals who are committed to inclusion of all students develop caring and supportive schools,
however their actual thoughts and beliefs about LGBTQ+ issues must be recognized (Allen et al.,
2017; Stargell et al., 2020). During the interviews, participants were asked to construct the
perfect school. They all addressed the importance of inclusivity, which was defined by
parameters such as facilities, curriculum implementation, specific supports for this student group,
and strong, purposeful guidance from the district office. In the end, this study found that leaders
did what they felt was morally right by all students and there was no need to compromise their
personal beliefs. However, this finding may not be applicable to the larger administrative
107

population due to the fact that not all survey respondents demonstrated the same values and
beliefs as the interviewees.
Limitations
Limitations for this study can be found in two specific domains. First, the study was done
using a small sample size in one county in California, therefore the data obtained may not be
generalizable across all educational environments. The purpose of this research was not to
generalize but to provide administrators with insight into providing strategies and supports for
transgender and gender non-conforming students. The second limitation was that the data was
obtained through self-reporting and the personal beliefs of the participants may have served as a
limitation due to the potential controversial nature of the topic. In addition, the collegial
relationship between the researcher and interview participants may have influenced the
interviewee to give answers that they felt would placate the interviewer or the purpose of the
study. To reduce threats to validity the data from the surveys, interviews, and extant literature
was triangulated to determine any convergence, divergence, or combination of both in the
findings (Creswell, 2009).
Implications for Practice
This study examined the implications for high school principals supporting transgender
and gender non-conforming students in Los Angeles County. Study findings delineated themes
that may help direct administrators at the site and district levels and offer essential feedback
regarding the current status of how school principals were supporting transgender and gender
non-conforming students. Specifically, in terms of the parameters of the study and resulting
thematic topics that emerged from the data, results for principals supporting this student group
were ascertained.
108

The first implication of practice for site administrators was to take an in-depth look at
their school culture and find ways to intentionally support transgender and gender non-
conforming students. Study findings appeared to show that schools have many programs to
address the needs of all students, yet administrators do not seek additional support for
transgender and gender non-conforming students in any consistent or organized manner. School
counselors appeared to be the greatest ally for both students and staff, therefore administrators
should work closely with their site counselors to plan for intended practices. Administrators and
counselors will need to work together to create spaces for more targeted mental health supports,
inclusive curriculum, and a broader culture that accepts gender diversity. In order for transgender
and gender non-conforming students to be fully supported on a school campus, administrators
will need to put structures in place to disrupt the current heteronormative gender practices. This
will take a lot of time, staff buy-in, funding, and community support, which was found in this
study to be a difficult task overall.
The second implication for practice by site administrators was to lobby for more
professional development that is aimed at school leaders. As was found in the literature and this
study, any professional development surrounding this topic catered to counselors and mental
health specialists. There was very little district and school administrative professional
development offered, as noted by participants in this study. Current practice by many leaders was
to use their instincts and experiences when issues arose with transgender and gender non-
conforming students, however as mentioned above, this can sometimes do more harm than good.
Principals also reported seeking colleagues’ advice and networking with others in their district
and county. School administrators should continue this practice of collaboration with others, in
addition to seeking professional development. Principals may want to reach out to their county
109

office of education to inquire about upcoming professional development. They may also use
associations, such as ACSA, to build their knowledge base. County offices of education and
professional associations are also important places for administrators to campaign for more
training, thus showing those in positions of power that this topic is relevant and important.
The third implication was that principals felt a moral imperative to support this student
group but were hesitant to do more than the law required due to community backlash.
Throughout the study, principals shared that more could be done for this student group. They
also shared that time, lack of knowledge or training regarding this student group, and limited
resources served as deterrents for addressing the additional needs this group may have. Principal
A shared that “stronger support from the Superintendent’s office could potentially minimize push
back from the community.” In addition, school districts should seek resources and methodologies
to educate key community stakeholders, which may lead to more community support, so
principals feel empowered to provide more than the minimum to this marginalized group of
students.
Future Research
This study’s review of literature indicated the need for more practical research of how
principals can implement policies for transgender and gender non-conforming students. Much of
the current literature gave many theoretical ideas but did little to assist with day-to-day dealings
that occur on school campuses. While this study did assist with giving some richly detailed
accounts of principals implementing policies at high school sites, more research is needed in a
few areas. I recommend additional research to be conducted with regard to systemic school
culture changes made by principals, school supports implemented by principals who have had
professional development, and district level support and guidance.
110

The first recommendation for future research is to study what a full systemic change
would look like on a high school campus and how the principal leads that change. Current
research shows a juxtaposition between leading a culture that is inclusive of all students versus
emphasizing a culture with trans pedagogy at the forefront, which would necessitate an
overhauling of the current heteronormative school culture (Boyland et al., 2016). In addition, it
should be known that to change current gendering practices, requires taking small steps of action
and understanding that it is a huge undertaking. For example, eliminating the common practice
of using pink and blue to delineate the gender of the child. Principals in this study led their sites
to be inclusive of all students, however none of the principals mentioned being ready or knowing
how to lead for an entire system overhaul. Future research that spelled out how to lead for this
type of change would serve to assist current and future leaders in this challenging work.
The second recommendation for future research is in the area of professional
development for school leaders in the topics of transgender and gender non-conforming student
policies on school campuses. There was some research on how counselors and mental health
specialists have some opportunities through their preparation programs and in their current roles
(although more is needed), however the literature was scant when it comes to professional
development for school leaders (Payne & Smith, 2018; Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016). When
professional development dealing with diversity was offered to leaders, the topics of LGBTQ+
students were often just a small sliver of the training, if present at all (Kurt & Chenault, 2017).
All interview participants noted that they wanted more information and guidance on the laws and
implementation of policies in this realm. It is recommended that districts provide professional
development to their site leaders so, in turn, they may provide training for their staff. This
professional learning should include not only laws and policies for transgender and gender non-
111

conforming youth, but also strategies for reducing heteronormative practices, specific strategies
for increasing the inclusion of this student group, and communication and education within the
community. More research on how school leaders receive professional development in this area
is an important component for the future success of transgender and gender non-conforming
students in schools.
The final recommendation for future research is to look at the relationship between
district level guidance and support and the actions of the individual leaders at school sites. In this
study, district supports, resources, and guidance varied significantly from district to district.
While there is some literature regarding implementation of state laws and policies from a district
lens, there is little to no research explaining why districts lack consistency in practice. Schools
and their district office leaders should collaborate to conduct a needs-based assessment in this
area so principals have the opportunity to express challenges and where they require support.
Based on input, a cohesive plan can then be designed to support leaders and their students. Even
when assessing one county and using a small sample size, there was no cohesion in how
principals were feeling supported from their district offices.
Conclusions
This study confirmed that in order for principals to truly support transgender and gender
non-conforming students to the full extent of the law, they need support from their staff, district,
and community members. The scope of this study suggested that principals exhibit a moral
imperative to ensure students feel included and safe, no matter their gender identity, while they
were attending school. Further findings suggested that while principals wanted to do what is best
for their students, many lack the knowledge of which exact supports transgender and gender non-
conforming students truly need to be highly successful in school. Meyer and Keenan (2018)
112

suggested this may be a result of schools being ill-equipped to support the needs of transgender
students, lack of experience in creating schools that have trans-inclusive environments, or school
environments that are actively hostile toward students who are transgender or gender non-
conforming. Principals in this study relied heavily on their mental health team to address
concerns surrounding this student population. In addition, many of the principal participants
lacked full knowledge of the laws pertaining to this particular student group. Findings also
suggested that while principals needed and wanted their district to provide professional
development that was specific to this student group, it was not afforded to them and they often
had to seek out ideas and guidance from peers in their district or in surrounding areas. This study
offered principals suggestions for supporting this group of students in a time when there are
limited resources and the potential for strong community resistance.

113

References
Agee-Aguayo, J., Bloomquist, E., Savage, T. A., & Woitaszewski, S. A. (2016). School
psychologists in support of transgender and gender diverse students in light of
California’s AB 1266 (School success and opportunity act): Implications and
opportunities. Contemporary School Psychology, 1(2), 152–65.
Allen, J. G., Harper, R. E., & Koschoreck, J. W. (2017). Social justice and school leadership: can
we shift beliefs, values, and commitments? International Journal of Educational
Leadership Preparation, 12(1), 1–20.
American Civil Liberties Union. (2012). ACLU history: Advocacy on behalf of transgender
people. https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-advocacy-behalf-transgender-people
Barnard, J., Goodrich, K. M., & Borden, A. M. (2018). A New Civil Rights Campaign? Policies
and Practices to Support Students’ Gender Diversity. Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership, 21(3), 48–60.
Beese, J. A., & Martin, J. L. (2017). The bathroom case: Creating a supportive school
environment for transgender and gender nonconforming students. Journal of Cases in
Educational Leadership, 21(2), 65–76.
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.
Boyland, L., Swensson, J., Ellis, J., Coleman, L., & Boyland, M. (2016). Principals can and
should make a positive difference for LGBTQ students. The Journal of Leadership
Education, 15(4), 117–131.
Cano, R. (2019). California Schools Haven’t Fully Embraced Laws Protecting LGBTQ Kids,
114

Study Shows. Cal Matters. https://calmatters.org/education/2019/05/ california-
transgender-schools-lgbtq-laws-education-civil-rights/
Coolhart, D., & MacKnight, V. (2015). Working with transgender youths and their families:
Counselors and therapists as advocates for trans-affirmative school environments.
Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 2(1), 51–64.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. SAGE Publications.
Creswell. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Croteau, S. M., & Lewis, K. (2016). “Just like the other boys”. Journal of Cases in Educational
Leadership, 19(4), 102–113.
Da’as. (2020). Between principals’ and a teacher’s perspective taking: the role of
transformational and transactional leadership styles. International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 1–23.
Demissie, Z., Rasberry, C. N., Steiner, R. J., Brener, N., & McManus, T. (2018). Trends in
secondary schools’ practices to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and
questioning students, 2008–2014. American Journal of Public Health, 108(4), 557–564.
Enke. (2016). One-Eyed Dog. Transgender Studies Quarterly, 3(1–2), 81–83.
FAIR Education Act, CA Senate Bill 48. (2012).
https://www.lgbtqhistory.org/about-fair-education-act/
Fowler, F. J. (2013). Survey research methods. SAGE Publications.
Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Boesen, M. J. (2013). Putting the “T” in “Resource”: The
benefits of LGBT-related school resources for transgender youth. Journal of LGBT
Youth, 10(1–2), 45–63.
115

Gulmez, & Negis Isik, A. (2020). The Correlation between School Principals’ Self-Efficacy
Beliefs and. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(1).
Jensen, Andersen, L. B., Bro, L. L., Bøllingtoft, A., Eriksen, T. L. M., Holten, A.-L., Jacobsen,
C. B., Ladenburg, J., Nielsen, P. A., Salomonsen, H. H., Westergård-Nielsen, N., &
Würtz, A. (2019). Conceptualizing and Measuring Transformational and Transactional
Leadership. Administration & Society, 51(1), 3–33.
Kurt, L. J., & Chenault, K. H. (2017). School policy and transgender identity expression: A study
of school administrators’ experiences. International Journal of Education Policy and
Leadership, 12(3).
Leonardi, B., & Staley, S. (2018). What’s involved in ‘the work’? Understanding administrators’
roles in bringing trans-affirming policies into practice. Gender and Education, 30(6),
754–773.
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Louérs-Phillips. (2019). Leadership Style, Leader–Follower Congruence, & the Implementation
of a Cultural Proficiency Initiative. [Doctoral dissertation, Hood College ⦎. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing.
Lugg, C.A. & Murphy, J.P. (2017). The shifting political winds: LGBTQ students, educational
policy and politics, and the dilemmas confronting street level bureaucrats. In S. Russell &
S. Horn (Eds.). Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The nexus of research,
practice, and policy (pp.238–254). Oxford University Press.
Lustick, H. (2016). “Accountability” or hyper-surveillance?: Possibilities and limitations of a
116

restorative school discipline model to address Anti-LGBTQ bullying. Education and
Youth Today, 145–165.
Mangin, M. M. (2019). Transgender students in elementary schools: How supportive principals
lead. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(2), 255–288.
Martino, W., Kassen, J., & Omercajic, K. (2020). Supporting transgender students in schools:
Beyond an individualist approach to trans inclusion in the education system. Educational
Review, 1–20.
Marx, R. A., Roberts, L. M., & Nixon, C. T. (2017). When care and concern are not enough:
School personnel’s development as allies for trans and gender non-conforming students.
Social Sciences, 6(1), 11.
Marzano, Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Mason, E. C., Springer, S. I., & Pugliese, A. (2017). Staff development as a school climate
intervention to support transgender and gender nonconforming students: An integrated
research partnership model for school counselors and counselor educators. Journal of
LGBT Issues in Counseling, 11(4), 301–318.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE
Publications.
McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for
transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experiences and school
responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(10), 1175–1188.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
117

Meyer, E. J., & Keenan, H. (2018). Can policies help schools affirm gender diversity? A policy
archaeology of transgender-inclusive policies in California schools. Gender and
Education, 30(6), 736–753.
Meyer, E. J., Tilland-Stafford, A., & Airton, L. (2016). Transgender and gender-creative students
in PK–12 schools: What we can learn from their teachers. Teachers College Record: The
Voice of Scholarship in Education, 118(8), 1–50.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher Positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
O’Malley, M. P., & Capper, C. A. (2015). A measure of the quality of educational leadership
programs for social justice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 290–330.
O’Malley, M. P., Asher, N., Beck, B. L., Capper, C. A., Lugg, C. A., Murphy, J. P., & Whitlock,
R. U. (2018). Asking queer (er) questions: epistemological and methodological
implications for qualitative inquirers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 31(7), 572–594.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE.
Payne, E. C., & Smith, M. J. (2018). Refusing relevance: School administrator resistance to
offering professional development addressing LGBTQ issues in schools. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 183–215.
Persinger, L. L., Persinger, J. D., & Abercrombie, S. (2020). The association between school
policies, practices, and public perception of trans youth in the US. Journal of LGBT
Youth, 17(1), 24–52.
Robinson, S. B. & Leonard, K.F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
118

Schunk, D. (2020). Learning theories: An educational perspective (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Shields, C. M. (2010). Transformative leadership: Working for equity in diverse contexts.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(4), 558–589.
Stargell, N. A., Jones, S. J., Akers, W. P., & Parker, M. M. (2020). Training school teachers and
administrators to support LGBTQ+ students: A quantitative analysis of change in beliefs
and behaviors. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 14(2), 118–133.
United States Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2021). Resources for LGBTQI+
students. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/lgbt.html
Watkins, P. J., & Moreno, E. (2017). Bathrooms without borders: Transgender students Argue
separate is not equal. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 90(5–6), 166–171.
Weiss, J. (2013). Protecting transgender students: application of Title IX to gender identity or
expression and the constitutional right to gender autonomy. Wisconsin Journal of Law,
Gender & Society, 28(3), 331–345.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361.
World Health Organization. (2008). Multi-sectoral approach for gender, women and health (No.
SEA-WHD-19). WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia.

119

Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey for my study. I truly appreciate the time
you are giving me to ask questions that will assist in my research. As I stated when we last
spoke, the survey should take approximately 15 minutes to complete.
Before we start with the questions, I want to remind you of the purpose and topic of the
study. I am a doctoral student at USC and am conducting a study on high school principal’s
leadership and implementation of policy in regards to students who identify as transgender or
gender non-conforming. I am interested in finding out about your, and other principal’s, actions,
motivations, and environments, as they relate to this population of students. I will be surveying
multiple high school principals in LA county.
I want to remind you that today this survey is strictly for research and everything shared
with me will be confidential. What that means is that I will not share your name with anyone
outside of my research team. I will not name you or your district in my study. The research will
be compiled into a report and your responses will be used, as needed. All reports and data will be
kept in a password protected computer and will be destroyed after three years. I am happy to
review any of the responses with you at any time.
Some of these questions may be sensitive and you have the right to skip any that make
you feel uncomfortable.
I will be using a survey instrument today to help me with the data collection process. I
ask that you stay engaged while completing the survey. Again, the information received today
will not be shared with anyone outside of the research team. If you have any questions prior to
completing the survey, please feel free to contact me at this email address. Thank you.
120

Survey Items
Section A: Demographics
1. To which gender do you most identify?
a. Woman
b. Man
c. Transgender
d. Non-binary/non-conforming
e. Prefer not to respond
f. Other
2. What race/ethnicity do you identify with?
a. American Indian/Alaskan Native
b. Asian
c. Black/African American
d. Hispanic/Latino
e. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
f. White
g. Prefer not to respond
Section B: Knowledge
The following questions seek to understand your working knowledge of terminology.
3. For each of the following terms, please indicate whether you are familiar with and/or
can define these terms using the following choices (I can easily define these terms, I
cannot easily define this term, but I am familiar with it or, I am not familiar with this
term and I cannot define it):
121

• transgender
• gender non-conforming
• gender fluidity
• gender identity
• non-binary
• genderqueer
• gender dysphoria
• binary gender
• safe zone
• GSA (Gay Straight Alliance)
• gender expression
Section C: Personal Beliefs
The following questions address personal beliefs. Please answer the following based on
your own personal beliefs.
4. The following questions address personal beliefs. Please answer the following based
on your own personal beliefs. This question asked participants to rate their beliefs on
the following scale: Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree, or I don’t
know.
• There are only two genders (male and female).
• A person’s gender identity may differ from their assigned birth sex.
• Transgender identity is a choice.
• Transgender individuals are just seeking attention.
• A person’s gender identity can change over time.
122

• Transgender people can be any sexual orientation: straight, lesbian, gay, or
bisexual.
• Transgender and gender non-conforming students should be allowed to use
the facilities of their identified gender.
Section D: School and District Environment
The following questions will ask about factors related to your school district and
school site.
5. How diverse would you say your school site is? This question was asked with the
following options: Not very diverse at all, a little diverse, quite diverse, or extremely
diverse.
• Race/ethnicity
• LGBTQ+
• Socio-economic status
• Language
6. How true is this statement: Bullying is a problem for students in my school.
• Not true at all
• A little true
• Moderately true
• Mostly true
• Completely true
7. How true is this statement: Transgender and gender non-conforming students, at my
school, are bullied more frequently than their peers.
• Not true at all
123

• A little true
• Moderately true
• Mostly true
• Completely true
8. Identify which of the following practices are present at your school site with the
following (yes, no, unsure):
• written bullying policies

• written bullying procedures
• written bullying polices specific to LGBT
• written bullying procedures specific to LGBT
• gender support plans
• positive behavior intervention and support
• School-level training regarding bullying prevention
• district-level training regarding bullying prevention
• school-site specific procedures when dealing with LGBT student bullying
issues
• district-specific procedures when dealing with LGBT student bullying issues
• gay straight alliance (or similar student club focused on supporting LGBTQ
students focused on supporting LGBTQ students)
• a designated safe space. A safe space is defined as a place or environment in
which a person or category of people can feel assured that they will not be
exposed to discrimination, bullying, harassment, or any other emotional or
physical harm.
124

• district-adopted curriculum that depicts transgender or gender non-conforming
people in society.
9. How true is this statement: My staff would benefit from training to develop skills in
how to support transgender or gender non-conforming students.
• not true at all
• a little true
• moderately true
• mostly true
• completely true
10. Approximately how many transgender or gender non-conforming students do you
currently have on your campus?
• none that I know of
• 1–10
• 11–20
• 21–30
• 31+
11. How many gender-neutral restrooms do you have on your campus for student use?
• none
• 1
• 2
• 3+
125

12. How true is this statement: In the last academic year, my school district has provided
sufficient training/professional development for me to support policy and law for
transgender and gender non-conforming students.
• not true at all
• a little true
• moderately true
• mostly true
• completely true
13. How true is this statement: In the last academic year, I have provided sufficient
training/professional development for my site staff to support transgender and gender
non-conforming students on my campus.
• not true at all
• a little true
• moderately true
• mostly true
• completely true
14. In the past academic year, how many times have topics about transgender and gender
non-conforming students been discussed at your staff meetings?
• none
• once
• twice
• three of more times
126

Section E: Motivation and Action
The following questions are based on your professional actions and motivations.
15. How true is this statement: I speak with the teachers on my campus to gain an
understanding of their feelings and beliefs about transgender and gender non-
conforming students.
• not true at all
• a little true
• moderately true
• mostly true
• completely true
16. How true is this statement: I talk to colleagues within my school district to get ideas
for supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students.
• not true at all
• a little true
• moderately true
• mostly true
• completely true
17. How true is this statement: I talk to colleagues outside of my school district to get
ideas for supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students.
• not true at all
• a little true
• moderately true
• mostly true
127

• completely true
18. How true is this statement: I need additional support in how to deal with issues faced
by students who are transgender or gender non-conforming.
• not true at all
• a little true
• moderately true
• mostly true
• completely true
19. I spend time on my own researching and studying transgender and gender non-
conforming policy, state law, and federal law.
• never
• rarely
• sometimes
• often
• always
20. If you are willing to participate in an interview with me covering some of these topics
in more detail, please write your name and email here.
Closing
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your answers will be used to
complete my study on implementation of policy in regards to students who identify as
transgender or gender non-conforming. As previously mentioned, your identity will be kept
confidential and your responses will be kept secured on a drive for three years, then destroyed. If
you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.
128

Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed today for my study. I truly appreciate the time
you are giving me to ask you some questions to assist in my research. As I stated when we last
spoke, the interview should take approximately one hour to complete. Does that still work for
you?
Before we start with the questions, I want to remind you of the purpose and topic of the
study. I am a doctoral student at USC and am conducting a study on high school principal’s
leadership and implementation of policy in regards to students who identify as transgender or
gender non-conforming. I will be talking to multiple high school principals in LA county.
I want to remind you that today I am strictly a researcher and everything shared with me
will be confidential. What that means is that I will not share your name with anyone outside of
my research team. I will not name you or your district in my study. The research will be
compiled into a report and you may be quoted using a pseudonym. All reports and data will be
kept in a password protected computer and will be destroyed after three years. I am happy to
review any of the notes with you at any time.
In addition, I want to assure you that I will not be making any judgments on how you
answer any questions. Some of these questions may be sensitive and you have the right to skip
any that make you feel uncomfortable.
I brought a recording device today to help me with the interview process. I want to stay
engaged with you, while also accurately capturing what you are saying. The recording will not
be shared with anyone outside of the research team. May I have your permission to record
today’s interview? Let’s test my device to make sure it is working. Before we begin, do you have
any questions?
129

Opening
Let’s get started with some background information about you.
1. Tell me about your background in education.
2. What inspired you to serve as a principal?
3. Tell me about your leadership style. How would you describe yourself as a leader?
Environment
So now you’ve told me about your style as a leader and now I’d like to ask you about the
school and district settings in which you work, as they both relate to transgender and gender non-
conforming students.
4. Approximately how many students do you have on campus that identify as
transgender or gender non-conforming?
5. Tell me about student supports, if any, that your school site has for transgender and/or
gender non-conforming students.
6. Describe mental health practices, if any, that are intentionally implemented to support
transgender and/or gender non-conforming students at your site.
7. Have you ever had a meeting with one or more teachers to discuss their instructional
practices to support transgender or gender non-conforming students?
• (If they answer yes) Tell me a bit about that meeting.
• How did teacher’s/faculty respond to the questions, if at all?
• What were the main topics, if any, that were addressed at this meeting?
Now I want to shift to asking you about district influence on this topic.

130

8. Describe a recent district leadership meeting, if any, where transgender and gender
non-conforming student policies were discussed.
• (Probing) Tell me more about any specific policies or practices that may have
been discussed at the district level to support principals at their sites.
• (Probing) How did you/colleagues respond to the information, if at all, shared
in this meeting?
9. What resources, if any, are provided by the district to support transgender and/or
gender non-conforming students?
• (Probing) Are there examples of curriculum?
• (Probing) Tell me about staffing. Are there individuals assigned to specifically
support transgender and/or gender non-conforming students?
• (Probing) Professional development for teachers and/or leaders?
• (Probing) Non-binary/gender-neutral facilities?
10. How can the district help you serve/support transgender and/or gender non-
conforming students?
11. What are the barriers, if any, to implementing curriculum that supports transgender
and/or gender non-conforming students?
12. What are the barriers, if any, to establishing non-binary facilities that support
transgender and/or gender non-conforming students?
Behavior
Thank you for sharing so much about your school site and district. I’d now like to talk
about some of your leadership actions with transgender and gender non-conforming students.

131

13. Please describe an interaction, if any, you had regarding inclusion of a student who
identifies as transgender or gender non-conforming.
14. How comfortable are you with the amount of information you know about supporting
transgender and gender non-conforming students?
• (Probing) Tell me about professional development, if any, you have attended
on this topic.
• What else would you like to know about this topic, if anything?
15. Describe how you prioritize various initiatives or practices at your school site,
including those that directly impact the transgender and/or gender non-conforming
students.
16. Suppose a parent called asking about the rights of their cisgender student, saying they
aren't comfortable with a transgender student in the locker room. How would you
respond?
Beliefs/Motivation
The responses of leaders are so important for all students. Let’s transition to some
questions about your responses and motivations.
17. Some people would say that transgender students should not be allowed in the
bathroom of the gender they identify with. What are your thoughts?
18. To what extent have you had to compromise your personal beliefs for your
professional duties specifically on this issue?
19. Imagine you have a magic wand, what would the ideal middle/high school look like
to support transgender and gender non-conforming students.
132

Closing
20. Is there anything that we should have covered, but didn’t regarding supports
surrounding transgender students or gender non-conforming students?
Thank you so much for your time and all the things you shared today. All of this insight
is so helpful for my study. If I find myself with any follow-up questions, would it be okay to
email you? You can certainly email me if you think of anything else, as well (hand business
card). Again, thank you so much and I hope you have a great rest of your day.

133

Appendix C: Research Question Alignment to Protocols Matrix

RQ1
(behavior/
action)
RQ2
(environment)
RQ3
(motivation/
beliefs)
Demographics
and knowledge
Survey items
To which gender do you most
identify?
X
What race/ethnicity do you identify
with?
X
For each of the following terms,
please indicate whether you are
familiar with and/or can define
these terms.
X
The following questions address
personal beliefs. Please answer
the following based on your own
personal beliefs.
X
How diverse would you say your
school site is?
X
How true is this statement? Bullying
is a problem for all students in my
school.
X
How true is this statement?
Transgender/gender non-
conforming students are bullied
more frequently than their peers.
X
Identify which of the following
practices are present at your
school site:
X X
How true is this statement? My staff
would benefit from training to
develop skills in how to support
transgender or gender non-
conforming students.
X
Approximately how many
transgender or gender non-
conforming students do you
currently have on your campus?
X
134

RQ1
(behavior/
action)
RQ2
(environment)
RQ3
(motivation/
beliefs)
Demographics
and knowledge
How many gender-neutral restrooms
do you have on your campus for
student use?

How true is this statement? In the
last academic year, my school
district has provided sufficient
training/professional development
for me to support policy and law
for transgender and gender non-
conforming students.
X
X
How true is this statement? In the
last academic year, I have
provided sufficient
training/professional development
for my site staff to support
transgender and gender non-
conforming students on my
campus.
X X
In the past academic year, how
many times have topics about
transgender and gender non-
conforming students been
discussed at your staff meetings?
X X
How true is this statement? I speak
with the teachers on my campus
to gain an understanding of their
feelings and beliefs about
transgender and gender non-
conforming students.
X
How true is this statement: I talk to
colleagues within my school
district to get ideas for supporting
transgender and gender non-
conforming students?
X
How true is this statement: I talk to
colleagues outside of my school
district to get ideas for supporting
transgender and gender non-
conforming students.

X
X
135

RQ1
(behavior/
action)
RQ2
(environment)
RQ3
(motivation/
beliefs)
Demographics
and knowledge
How true is this statement: I need
additional support in how to deal
with issues faced by students who
are transgender or gender non-
conforming.
I spend time on my own researching
and studying transgender and
non-conforming policy, state law,
and federal law.

X

Interview items

Tell me about your background in
education.

X
What inspired you to serve as a
principal?

X
Tell me about your leadership style.
How would you describe yourself
as a leader?

X
Approximately how many students
do you have on campus that
identify as transgender or gender
non-conforming?
X

Tell me about student supports, if
any, that your school site has for
transgender and/or gender non-
conforming students.
X X

Describe mental health practices, if
any, that are intentionally
implemented to support
transgender and/or gender non-
conforming students at your site.
X X

Have you ever had a meeting with
one or more teachers to discuss
their instructional practices to
support transgender or gender
non-conforming students?
X

Describe a recent district leadership
meeting, if any, where
transgender and gender non-
conforming student policies were
X
136

RQ1
(behavior/
action)
RQ2
(environment)
RQ3
(motivation/
beliefs)
Demographics
and knowledge
discussed.
What resources, if any, are provided
by the district to support
transgender and/or gender non-
conforming students?
X
How can the district help you
serve/support transgender and/or
gender non-conforming students?
X X
What are the barriers, if any, to
implementing curriculum that
supports transgender and/or
gender non-conforming students?
X X X
What are the barriers, if any, to
establishing non-binary facilities
that support transgender and/or
gender non-conforming students?
X X X
Please describe an interaction, if
any, you had regarding inclusion
of a student who identifies as
transgender or gender non-
conforming.
X
How comfortable are you with the
amount of information you know
about supporting transgender and
gender non-conforming students?
X
Describe how you prioritize various
initiatives or practices at your
school site, including those that
directly impact the transgender
and/or gender non-conforming
students.
X
Suppose a parent called asking
about the rights of their cisgender
student, saying they aren't
comfortable with a transgender
student in the locker room. How
would you respond?
X X
137

RQ1
(behavior/
action)
RQ2
(environment)
RQ3
(motivation/
beliefs)
Demographics
and knowledge
Some people would say that
transgender students should not
be allowed in the bathroom of the
gender they identify with. What
are your thoughts?
X
To what extent have you had to
compromise your personal beliefs
for your professional duties
specifically on this issue?
X
Imagine you have a magic wand,
what would the ideal middle/ high
school look like to support
transgender and gender non-
conforming students.
X
Is there anything that we should
have covered, but didn’t
regarding supports surrounding
transgender students or gender
non-conforming students?
X

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievement: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Transgender patients’ perceptions of healthcare: A study of gender minority stress and resilience factors in predicting healthcare behavioral intentions

PDF

Qatari elementary school principals' attitudes toward inclusion programs: implementation challenges, solution and resources

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

A phenomenological study of secondary women athletic directors: an exploration of systemic bias

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K-12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school

PDF

Gender-inclusive housing in northeastern boarding schools: a comparative case study of how housing policies impact gender expansive students’ sense of belonging

PDF

A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development

PDF

A case study of how principals, teachers and parents contribute to a quality comprehensive K–12 system of support for ELL student academic success

PDF

K-12 dress codes and gender equity: an examination of policy and practice of dress code implementation

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

Elementary principals attitudes, perceptions, and their ability to support students with autism and emotional behavioral disturbances in inclusive settings

PDF

Equitable hiring practices: “Why can’t I see myself in my school?”: Hiring and retaining ethically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

Culturally responsive principal leadership and its influence on teachers in urban settings.

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

Why can’t I see myself in my school? Hiring and retaining ethnically diverse leadership in public schools

PDF

Transgender experience in the U.S. military: opportunities for effective inclusion

PDF

Role of a principal supervisor in fostering principal development to support instructional improvement and a positive school climate

Asset Metadata

Creator Hancock-Stoffers, Tuesday (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-05

Publication Date 03/22/2023

Defense Date 02/22/2023

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

Tag AB 1266,FAIR Act,gender,gender identity legislation,gender non-conforming,high school principals,inclusion,K-12,OAI-PMH Harvest,Title IX,transgender

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Cash, David (committee chair), Franklin, Gregory (committee member), Murazsewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email stoffers@usc.edu,tuesdayh_s@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112847703

Unique identifier UC112847703

Identifier etd-HancockSto-11512.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HancockSto-11512

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Hancock-Stoffers, Tuesday

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230324-usctheses-batch-1011 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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