University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

Inclusive gender practices in middle 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 Middle Schools: A Study on Supports and Practical Solutions
for California Administrators

Christa Dalene Glembocki

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 Christa Dalene Glembocki 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Christa Dalene Glembocki certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Gregory Franklin
Alison Muraszewski
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 middle school principals in
Orange 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 29 middle 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 middle school principals in effectively serving the needs of transgender and gender
non-conforming students.

v
Dedication
To my husband, Joe, my daughters, Paige and Emily, and my DS, Tuesday, I could not have
achieved this without your patience and love. I am so grateful for all your support during every
step of this journey.

vi
Acknowledgements
It is an honor to submit this dissertation to the University of Southern California in
completion of my EdD in K–12 Educational Leadership. This dissertation represents important
research in my current professional role as a middle school principal, as well as my contribution
in the crucial work for equity for all children. While there are many people who have contributed
to my success in this program, I would like to acknowledge and thank Dr. David Cash and my
dissertation committee, Dr. Tuesday Stoffers, and my family.
I was so fortunate to be chosen to be part of Dr. David Cash’s dissertation group for the
2023 cohort. Since I first had Dr. Cash in our inaugural semester, I have admired the work he
does and the leader that he is. I appreciated his no nonsense approach to this process, the tight
timelines he held us to, and his sense of humor (I needed that). I want to also acknowledge my
committee members, Dr. Greg Franklin and Dr. Alison Muraszewski. Dr. Muraszewski was a
phenomenal professor in Foundations in Learning. Her teaching style was rigorous and I learned
so much from her.
My Wednesday night cohort was such a support for me during the past three years as
well. I feel so blessed to have met Dr. Tuesday Stoffers on night one. She has become such a
wonderful friend, confidante, and dissertation spouse (DS). Our brunch writing days and
overnight writing marathons were a lot of work but we made it fun. I have no doubt that we will
be lifelong friends and I am so happy to have gone on this journey with her.
Lastly, I want to acknowledge my loving family. My husband, Joe, encouraged me to
start the program when I worried about taking too much time away from our young girls. He
took care of so much so that I could study and Paige and Emily were occupied. I am so grateful
that our girls witnessed their mom accomplish this feat while still going to their sports games and

vii
school functions. I also want to thank my parents for instilling the love and importance of
education in me at a young age. I appreciate the sacrifices they made to help get me where I am
today. I am forever grateful. I love you all! Fight On!

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Preface.......................................................................................................................................... xiii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 3
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 5
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 6
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 6
Limitation and Delimitations .............................................................................................. 7
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

ix
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................... 49
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 50
Selection of the Population ............................................................................................... 50
Design Summary ............................................................................................................... 52
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 53
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 54
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 55
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 57
Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 58
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 61
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 61
Findings............................................................................................................................. 64
Findings: Research Question 1 ......................................................................................... 65
Discussion Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 74
Findings: Research Question 2 ......................................................................................... 76
Discussion Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 86
Findings: Research Question 3 ......................................................................................... 87
Discussion Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 96
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 97
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 99
Findings........................................................................................................................... 100
Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 106
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 107
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 109

x
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 111
References ................................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix A: Survey Instrument ................................................................................................. 119
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 85
Table 6: For Each of the Following Terms, Please Indicate Whether You Are
Familiar With and/or Can Define These Terms. 89

Appendix C: Research Question Alignment to Protocols Matrix 133

xii
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? 78
Figure 6: How True Is This Statement? Bullying Is a Problem for Students in
My School 79

Figure 7: How True Is This Statement? Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming
Students, at My School, Are Bullied More Frequently Than Their Peers. 80

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? 82

Figure 9: Comparison of Collaborating With Colleagues within and Outside of
District to Get Ideas for Supporting Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Students 92

Figure 10: Please Answer the Following Based on Your Own Personal Beliefs. 94

xiii

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,
Tuesday Hancock-Stoffers. In our professional practice, we both saw an area of need to study
surrounding principals’ 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 middle
school principals in Orange County, California, while Tuesday Hancock-Stoffers studied high
school principals in Los Angeles County, California (see Hancock-Stoffers, 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 (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016). While
California has passed over a half dozen laws in the past decade intending to prevent bullying and
suicide, and to 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, such as Seth’s Law, California Assembly Bill 1266, the FAIR Act, and Title IX, have
been adopted by the state to protect students who identify with this community, 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 within the LGBTQ+
community, schools must consider supports and inclusive practices that ensure student safety and
success. Equal protection does not necessarily mean equal solutions and these students’ unique
needs, such as appropriate facilities, support networks, and inclusive curriculum, 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
2

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
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 should look
no different than any other group seeking equity and inclusion (Kurt & Chenault, 2017).
However, many schools have done little to include these students as part of the larger school
community (Agee-Aguayo et al., 2016; Martino et al., 2020). 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, 2017, p. 70). The political climate
in 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 (Beese & Martin, 2017). Inclusive practices should
not be dependent upon a student being required to declare their gender identity in order to
3

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 in so many directions that a school district’s focus or local
cultural and political climate may deter the implementation of these policies for students even
further.
Statement of the Problem
As attitudes in society toward the transgender and gender non-conforming 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. However, the data
shows the opposite. Demissie et al. (2018) suggested that cost is one of the many challenges to
schools implementing state policy. These costs may be attributed to updating facilities,
professional development of staff, and personnel. In this particular study, Demissie et al. (2018)
found that the one practice that had significantly increased was the creation of safe spaces (e.g., a
designated room, counselor’s office, or club meeting space that is known to be accepting and
welcoming of transgender and gender non-conforming students). This could be due to the low or
no cost of creating a room where students feel comfortable. Legislatively, there is no
professional development required to create a safe space. However, the adult facilitating the safe
space 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 the district in a
vulnerable position within state-level legislation. This lack of legislative implementation and
training by school districts potentially increases exclusionary school environments and increases
4

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 what is written on
paper. 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 administrators’ 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
sometimes unaware of laws and policies surrounding transgender and gender non-conforming
students and therefore, contact the school with complaints most often having to do with
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
5

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 many schools and districts.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to analyze the experiences of middle school principals in
Orange 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. Surveys and interviews were
conducted with middle school principals in Orange 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 social cognitive 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 how they perform. People tend to
6

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 Orange County, California middle 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 middle 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
7

implementation which surrounds gender identity and may be used by school administrators and
future researchers.
Limitation and Delimitations
During this study, I was professionally serving as an Orange County middle school
principal. 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 middle school principals, resulting in a peer-to-peer relationship between the interviewer
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 middle school principals have on the implementation of state
legislation surrounding transgender and gender non-conforming students, the boundaries of this
study was middle school principals and did not include students. The study limited participants
to Orange County for convenience of the location where I live and work, in addition to
familiarity and networks that I have in this 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
8

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).
FAIR Act: The Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful (FAIR) Education Act (also
known as Senate Bill 48) came into law in California in 2011. It is intended to end the exclusion
of LGBTQ+ history in schools and to promote school safety.
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, 2021).
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, 2017).
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 LGBTQ+ and allied youth to build
9

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 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 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 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 Middle 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 legislation and policies to protect transgender and
gender non-conforming students. Chapter 3 describes the methodology selected for this research
10

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.
In summary, Inclusive Gender Practices in Middle 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
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 become more accepting 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, some schools are
addressing 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 middle 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 occur 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.
Transformational 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 populations 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
No person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in,
25

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, “unscript 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 that 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 fewer 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 was 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 & 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 similar to those 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
30

riddled with 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 it 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 those who oppose 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 et al., 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 one 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
45

actually create their 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 non-conforming 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 a 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, which
47

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 Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of middle school principals
in Orange 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. Surveys and interviews were
conducted with middle school principals in Orange 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
50

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 middle 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 middle 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 middle school principals, serving a range of either Grades 6–8
or 7–8, in order to gain a better understanding of their beliefs, experiences, and values when
working with students who are transgender or gender non-conforming. This process gave me
insight into why some schools support students who identify with this community while others
do not.
51

Participants in this study were 29 middle school principals in Orange County, California,
currently serving in traditional public schools during the 2022-2023 school year. I did not
include any charter or private middle schools. Surveys were sent via email to the census of
middle school principals in the county, which was 87. Interviews were conducted from
participants whose survey responses indicated they were interested in further engagement on this
topic. There were 5 interviews that 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: Middle School level: Middle
Serving in public school district
with either Grades 6–8 or 7–8
Serving in public school district
with either Grades 6–8 or 7–8
Serving in Orange County,
California
Serving in Orange County,
California
Population from census 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 middle school principals within one county in California. Convenience sampling
supported the study since I live in Orange 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 middle school
principals selected to be interviewed from Orange 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
traditional support for students who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming (Maxwell,
2013).
53

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 was 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 19 close-ended questions and one open-ended question, in addition to data from open-
ended interview questions that were obtained from middle school principals in Orange County
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 were reactive in their support of this population of students
and were 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
54

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). Nineteen of the 20 questions were focused on
answering the research questions and were categorized by themes from the conceptual
framework of social cognitive theory. Sections A and B (three questions) asked about
demographics and knowledge of the leader, Section C (one question) asked about personal
beliefs, Section D (10 questions) focused on school and district environment, and Section E (five
questions) asked leaders about their actions and motivations. 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 question
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Other questions used item specific rating scales to more accurately
55

capture data. This survey instrument was accessible to all 87 middle school principals in Orange
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 to all of the items and
questions from the survey instrument and the interview protocol.
Data Collection
The qualitative survey for principals was sent to all 87 public, middle school principals in
Orange County. The initial survey collection was started by an email sent by me, including a
brief statement about the survey and a link to the survey. To combat survey fatigue (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019) and bring a personal connection, a brief video was created to introduce myself
and talk about the research topic. I felt that a video of me explaining the purpose helped build
familiarity to the researcher, thus compelling respondents to complete the survey (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019).
56

A second round of emails sent 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 middle school
principals, subsequent emails and phone calls were made to other administrators in Orange
County whom I know to ask for assistance in having their colleagues fill out the survey.
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 or email 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 or email 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 used a qualitative analysis that drew upon data collected using a survey and
interview protocol. The analysis steps broadly related 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. Qualtrics
software was used to create the survey, gather data from respondents, and create tables and
charts. NVivo software was used to transcribe and code the interviews. 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.

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. I chose to field test my survey and interview questions with high
school principals in close proximity to my workplace. They have common professional
59

knowledge but would not be part of my sample. Questions were altered as needed to increase
validity between research questions, surveys, and interviews. As Fowler (2008) posited, “Good
questions maximize the relationship between the answers recorded and what the researcher is
trying to measure” (p. 87).
Another important component of validity in this study was the worldview that I bring, as
well as my assumptions and biases. In reflecting on my worldviews, I recognized that my biases
and privileges as a researcher have caused me to make certain assumptions and altered
perspectives on the data. Calling out any preconceived ideas and not making early claims based
on subjectivity was very important (Maxwell, 2013). I acknowledged that my positionality as a
cisgender female who is in a leadership role could cause participants to view me in a certain way.
I currently serve as a middle school principal in Orange County, and thus I have insider
knowledge about the role that a principal has in policy implementation and the practices that
follow. I do feel as though there was a balance of power in the sense that my professional role
was equal to all of the respondents.
Having the title of 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. Knowing that I
am an ally of transgender and gender non-conforming youth, I had to remind myself to take a
neutral stance when conducting interviews and analyzing data. I also made extra efforts to
remind participants that my knowledge comes from being immersed in this process of research.
Summary
This study used a qualitative approach, with data from surveys and interviews. The data
collected from middle school principals in Orange County, California public schools were
analyzed to target the three research questions in the context of social cognitive theory: principal
60

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 middle school principals
in Orange 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 middle
school in Orange County, California. The census of middle school principals (n = 87) was
invited to participate in the survey portion of the study, of which 29 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 in the office of the principal being interviewed.
In the survey, participants were asked about their race/ethnicity and which gender they
identified with. Of the 29 participants, 62% were White, 24% were Hispanic/Latino, and each of
the following represented 3.5%: American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black/African
American, and Prefer not to respond. From this group, there were 54% who identified as women,
43% who identified as men, and 3.5% who preferred not to state their gender. For the five
62

interview participants, four were White and one was American Indian/Alaskan Native. Four of
the principals identified as women and one 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 3.45
1 3.45
1 3.45
7 24.14
0
18
1
0.00
62.07
3.45

63

Table 3
Survey Participant Gender
Gender Raw number Percentage
Woman
Man
Transgender
Non-binary/non-conforming
Prefer not to respond
Other
15 53.57
12 42.86
0 0.00
0 0.00
1
0
3.57
0.00

Table 4
Interview Participants
Interview respondent Race/ethnicity Gender
Principal A
Principal B
Principal C
Principal D
Principal E
American Indian Woman
White Man
White Woman
White Woman
White Woman

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 the study’s research questions. Maxwell’s (2013) strategies for qualitative data analysis
were employed in identifying the relevant quotes or information from the interviews 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 middle 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 middle 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 declined in the 2022–2023 school year. Each interviewee spoke to
the notion that the numbers of students in this group was higher the year following the COVID
shutdown (2021–2022). The 2020–2021 and 2021–2022 school years saw an uptick in the
number of middle school students identifying as transgender, according to the interviewees.
Findings: Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: How do California middle 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. 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.,
66

2020). Some of the resources that made the biggest impact for students were in-school specific
structures that directly impacted 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 on their respective 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 implementation of 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 school sites. Figure 2 illustrates that the majority of
school sites in this study have anti-bullying policies and procedures, anti-bullying training,
positive behavior and intervention support (PBIS) programs, safe spaces, and student clubs that
support individuals who identify with the LGBTQ+ community. Few respondents noted specific
procedures and policies that were written explicitly for the LGBTQ+ population (and many
seemed to be unsure). Only about half of participants have gender support plans available to
students on their campuses.

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 spoke of the
practices that are currently being implemented on campus to support transgender and gender
non-conforming students. Three out of five principals discussed GSA clubs and safe spaces that
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Written bullying policies
Written bullying procedures
Written bullying policies specific to LGBTQ+ students
Written bullying procedures specific to LGBTQ+
students
Gender support plans
Positive Behavior and Intervention Supports (PBIS)
School-level training regarding bullying prevention
School-site specific procedures for dealing with
LGBTQ+ bullying issues
Gay Straight Alliance (or similar student club)
A designated safe space.
Number of Respondents
Present School Site Practices
Yes No Unsure
68

students may find to be helpful and reassuring. The two principals who did not yet have a GSA
noted that they were interested in starting one but had not done so yet. Principal A felt that
students at their school learned about safe spaces through a practice that is being piloted called
classroom circles. In these circles, the teacher ties in inclusive language through history and thus
far, these circles are having a positive effect on students. Principal A stated that, “It’s been very
effective and we’re hoping to expand it to a few more teachers because they were pretty
receptive when they heard how it was going.”
The biggest topic that emerged in this theme was around school counselors and mental
health specialists. All five interviewees spoke at length about how important these staff members
were in supporting students who are struggling with gender identity. Principal C talked about
how her counselor was, “setting up a wellness room without basically targeting specific students,
but open to all students.” Principal D noted that, “Our counselor does minute meetings. She
doesn’t ever lead in questions, but she meets with every single student on campus in October.”
Each principal also noted that the mental health staff on their campuses were not there
specifically for the transgender population, but that they were always involved in the support
process. For example, Principal E shared, “Through our full-time counselor and full-time
psychologist, we can get them the mental health support that they need.” 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 being there
as an ally and advocate. Counselors were found to take on this role as well. Principal C shared
that their school counselor runs the GSA club and is there to support students, however the
counselor has such high caseloads that she cannot run small groups specifically for students in
this area.
69

Principal D reported a strong system that her counselor has implemented. Principal D
stated that, “Our counselor does a minute meeting. She doesn’t ever lead in the questions, but she
meets with every single kid on the campus in the month of October.” Through these brief
meetings, the counselor found out that several students were struggling with their gender identity
and could then begin to support them. The principal felt that many of these students may have
gone unseen if not for these meetings. Principal E also felt that the counselor makes a huge
impact on this group of students. She stated that
Our counselor is really like our go to. She does the gender support plans when we meet
with students, because that really gives us an opportunity to hear what the student feels
comfortable with. Some are in the unique situation where they haven’t come out to their
parents yet or they don’t feel comfortable sharing with certain teachers. So, I love the fact
that the gender support plan helps during that conversation and they say, who’s your safe
person? Who do you feel like you can go and talk to? Where can you get resources?
After these conversations with a counselor, the pertinent information gets shared with the safe
teachers and staff.
Overall, school site practices were found to be a significant theme in how principals and
their staff are implementing policies for gender identity. Counselors seem to be the crux in many
schools for making sure clubs and safe spaces are available, as well as needed mental health
support. Principals noted that much of this work is an overlap of their school focus on social
emotional learning for all students as the schools come out of the COVID pandemic and school
shutdown. The data also pointed to the lack of student supports that are targeted for the
transgender and gender non-conforming population specifically.
70

Student Interactions
The interview questions brought out a lot of information from participants that was very
heartfelt and student-centered. When asked if principals had ever had a conversation with a
transgender or gender non-conforming student regarding inclusion, all five responded with
positive interactions. The motivation of the principals to seek out these interactions ties back to
social cognitive theory and standards of self-efficacy and internal self-standards (Wood &
Bandura, 1989). For example, Principal B stated that, “It’s really just being a listening ear, being
curious, and seeking to understand. Also, being aware if anyone is harassing them or giving them
issues.” The sentiments of their conversations revolved around seeking to understand what the
student was going through and to be a listener and ally. As mentioned above, Principal B shared
that he tries not to act surprised or shocked when students share their preferred gender and to ask
questions that help with safety and belonging. The main focus of the conversations was to make
the students feel comfortable and supported by the leader of the school. Principal E felt that she
is making a difference at her site and shared an instance where a student had something occur
outside of school but the student sought the principal out for help because they felt safe and
heard by her.
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, 10 out of 25 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 that they had were based on the law and making sure teachers understood the
71

policies that surround LBGTQ+ youth. For example, Principal E shared an instance with a
teacher in which it was stated, “This person felt uncomfortable with the fact that the child was
identifying as a certain way in a certain name at school, but then wasn’t able to share that with
the parent at home.” The FAIR Act and Title IX were mentioned by two of the interviewees as
things that they had reviewed in staff meetings this school year, but all mentioned that they
needed to provide more training in general.

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

72

Figure 4 reflects a similar pattern, with the principal interviewees stating that they needed
more site level professional development for their teachers and support staff. All 25 survey
respondents found more training to be at least a little true, with 10 out of those 25 responding
that it was completely true. One of the principals who was interviewed stated that they had never
had a specific staff interaction to do with gender identity and that their staff had not had any
training. On the other spectrum, Principal D stated that she starts her very first faculty meeting
each year with specific policies and laws about transgender students and that they, “Put a step in
place where if a student reaches out, then we expect the teachers to work with the counselor so
that they’re not navigating it by themselves and getting themselves into difficult situations.”

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.

73

Based on both the survey and interview answers in this theme, middle schools in Orange
County are experiencing vast differences in how staff are being exposed and trained to laws
pertaining to transgender and gender non-conforming youth. The data also showed that the
majority of principals in this study are dealing with issues pertaining to this group of students on
an individual basis rather than a systemic one. Martino et al. (2020) and Meyer and Keenan
(2018) both posited that in order to invoke broad change on a school campus for this group of
students, leaders must look at the larger heteronormative structures and work to disrupt them
from a systemic level. Overall, principals in this study did not show that they were working at
this level of systemic change.
Community Resistance
Community pushback was not something that was asked about in any of our survey or
interview questions outright, however it came up as a significant theme. Each one of the five
respondents in interviews mentioned something about how the surrounding community or county
played a factor in some of the decisions that were made at their school and districts. Three out of
five principals cited their specific community or Orange County as being conservative, which led
to pushback that they had experienced. Each principal had a different example of a time that they
were following the law regarding transgender student privacy and rights and were questioned by
a parent or someone in the surrounding community. From Principal A’s perspective, “To be
honest, it’s not really an issue for the kids. It’s an issue for the adults.”
Principal A noted several parent complaints that include LGBTQ+ representation in
books in the school library, gender options being added to the seventh Grade California Healthy
Kids Survey, and changing in the locker rooms. Two other principals mentioned parental
concerns about bathroom and locker room usage. Principal C stated that students do not even
74

think twice about their transgender classmates in changing and bathroom situations, but that the
concern in her case always comes from the adults in the community. Principal E also added to
this idea when sharing that
The most important thing is protecting the safety and the anonymity of that child, but also
wanting to support them and provide them with resources. Sometimes if you try to move
things forward in the direction where it probably needs to go, you’re going to end up
taking 20 steps back because parents are going to misconstrue the intention.
Principal D concurred when pointing out that when her school started up the GSA club again last
year, she had approximately 20 parents schedule meetings to question the intent. This principal
said she did not buckle to these parents, but instead shared, “This has nothing to do with personal
beliefs, it has to do with human beings,” which tended to quiet the concerns. Principals acted in a
manner in line with social cognitive theory, which allows managers to move back and forth
between alternate decisional activities and it accounts for reciprocal influences between personal
factors, actions, and environmental effects, thus highlighting how leaders learn to cope with
various demands (Wood & Bandura, 1989).
Discussion Research Question 1
Overall, it was found that site-based decisions to implement legislation for transgender
and gender non-conforming students were led by principals on their school sites to varying
degrees. While most principals stated that they had several student supports at their school, most
of these supports were not specifically aimed at helping the targeted population of students.
There was also strong evidence that principals use counselors as an essential part of the plan to
support these 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
75

implementation of the law as well as the repercussions they might face. Student and staff
interactions were also found to differ amongst sites. All respondents had positive examples and
outcomes when interacting with students who were struggling with gender identity however,
more of the concerns came from implementing the laws with the adults on campus. The data also
pointed to principals navigating these issues on individual bases rather than thinking about larger
system-wide changes to disrupt the heteronormative practices. O’Malley and Capper (2015)
shared the opposite of this practice, in that 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
Not only do teachers and staff struggle with some of the laws and how to navigate those
on campus, the surrounding school community also played a factor in how the principals
implement the laws. Through the interviews, several principals felt they would do more for
students in an overt way if it were not for the conservative area in which they serve and the
constant pushback they received from parents. Principal E shared, “If it were up to me and I was
in a different area, I think we would be doing more school-wide types of programs, programs
involving the parent community, and maybe books.” Kurt and Chenault (2017) found that the
majority of pushback about transgender students in schools came from parents of cisgender
students and that the best way to combat this resistance is to educate the community early and
proactively. Principal D found that she tells complaining parents, “I can’t name a single
cisgender student who has been attacked in the bathroom by someone who is going through
this,”
Not one of the principals that was interviewed in this study mentioned any sort of
proactive community education programs that were done by them or their districts. Based on the
76

survey and interviews conducted, it appears that although principals are seeking ways to better
support transgender and gender non-conforming students, they may be challenged in providing
professional development for their own staff. This may be due to their perceived lack of
knowledge surrounding the subject matter or their fear of how the staff might react to training.
Principal E corroborated this in saying, “I think one of the saddest things for me is that I feel we
could use more education in this particular realm in order to build capacity. But it’s the
population that is least tolerant of receiving it.”
In relating the principal’s actions and motivations to social cognitive theory, individuals
must experience some form of success when they support new areas in order to trust in
themselves and value the approach (Wood & Bandura, 1989). As people acquire skill and believe
their efforts are making a difference, they slowly engage in more situations (Schunk, 2006). The
principals in this study were more confident in their interactions with students and most staff
members, yet had more trepidation with the outside community due to fear of pushback. This
community resistance may also be a factor that hinders principals to make more systemic,
school-wide changes that would support transgender and gender non-conforming students.
Findings: Research Question 2
Research Question 2 asked the following: How does the district and school culture
influence a middle 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, which directly affects the daily environment of their campus. Schools should
be ideal places for school leaders and teachers to create a safe environment by preaching
acceptance and courage in students (Kurt & Chenault, 2017). This, in turn, can heighten learning
77

outcomes when students feel supported and accepted by staff and peers (Croteau & Lewis,
2016).
Survey and interview questions were asked to see if there were differences or similarities
between what was being implemented at their school site and what was being practiced at the
district level. The impact of the site culture was found to be a theme throughout the survey and
interviews. Site culture refers to the relationships of staff members and students, as well as
supportive programs that are offered. Themes also emerged around the school district’s guidance
and support, as well as the lack of professional development offered by respective districts.
Influence of School Culture
Existing 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). Stargell et al. (2020) also
stated that a positive and inclusive school setting is an important component for addressing
marginalization and oppression because youth encounter so many developmental milestones
while in this setting. The principals that were interviewed shared the importance a positive, safe
campus has for the success of all students, particularly those that are transgender and gender non-
conforming. Principal A corroborated this view by saying
I do try to be a role model to the staff and get them to go along with the goal of my
beliefs; to lead them in a more accepting, tolerant viewpoint and embrace the different
kids that we have.
Each of the principals also touched on specific programs or practices that they have to create this
culture, such as PBIS, SEL, and the creation of safe spaces/wellness centers (as noted in Figure
2).
78

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 20 out of 25 leaders saying there was no diversity at all or little diversity (see
Figure 5). As I 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 middle school level.

Figure 5
How Diverse Would You Say Your School Is?

79

When asked about how bullying impacted school culture, principals reported that it was
an overall issue in middle school. Ninety-six percent of respondents shared that there was some
level of bullying occurring on their campus (Figure 6). I expected to see a lower number due to
possible principal bias about their own site not wanting to look poorly, but it seemed that
respondents were fairly transparent. When asked about the percentages of comparing all students
to those who identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, there were no significant
differences for the targeted group. There were 12% that rated mostly or moderately true when
asked if transgender students were bullied more frequently than their peers, as contrasted by 40%
that said that was not true at all (Figure 7). Principal D shared in the interview that, “Actually,
middle school kids are little nasty bugs at this age with being mean, so it doesn’t even matter
what it is. It is an issue in general for all kids to behave and they don’t really target groups.”

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

80

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

District Guidance
The culture and practices of a district also had an impact on how principals were
implementing policies for transgender and gender non-conforming students. Many studies have
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). When asked about district-level specific procedures for dealing with LGBTQ+ student
bullying, approximately one third of principals were unsure if their district even had policies in
this area and one third said their district did not have policies in place. Principals who were
interviewed shared that most district guidance was vague and came in the form of talking about
the laws or instances of how to support all students with social emotional needs. Principal A
81

shared that, “A couple questions have come up from principals using the term transgender, but
it’s not like there was a presentation or anything.” However, Principal D noted that her district is
intentionally asking sites not to call out pronouns or ask students for them because it will bring
more attention to the student and might make them feel uncomfortable. Specifically, she stated,
“Because you might intentionally out a student who is not ready to be outed.”
Two interviewees shared that they feel the change in superintendent of their district in the
past year has started to show an increase in their district’s openness to discuss the issues of
gender identity. Principal C shared that she felt her district administration is now less worried
about the community’s reaction and more concerned with students’ well-being. This principal
felt optimistic that her district would be sharing more guidance surrounding this topic in the
coming years. Principal E stated that the topic doesn’t come up often, but that the district has
provided links and Google Drive folders with information as a resource if a school needs it.
Overall, it was found that district guidance surrounding gender identity is not consistent in the
districts in Orange County who had participants in this study. Principals who felt they had
adequate district guidance were in the minority. Others shared that what minimal assistance they
had was still helpful when navigating parent complaints and complex issues.
District Support
District supports provided school campuses with comprehensive services to address and
eliminate disparities in well-being, provide school stability, and ensure student achievement.
Based on the survey and interview data, district support varied 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 a diverse and inclusive curriculum. Although supports vary depending upon the district, the
82

data showed that the majority of principals surveyed (75%) report having one to 10 transgender
and gender non-conforming students on campus. In addition, the majority of principals (44%)
reported having one gender-neutral bathroom on campus, and 24% claimed to have no gender-
neutral facilities for students. See Figure 8.

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?

83

Based on the data in Figure 8, it would seem that one gender-neutral bathroom would be
enough at each middle school however, all five interviewees shared that the one gender-neutral
bathroom on campus is in the nurse’s office. Although the nurse’s office bathroom is a solution,
transgender and gender non-conforming students are being asked to use a restroom without a lot
of privacy and many times in the main office of the school. Two of the five spoke about their
district adding privacy stalls for changing in the locker rooms as well. Principal E has spoken
with the district about new facilities in that
I think one of the biggest things that we’re hopefully going to address in reconstruction
at the middle school level has to do with gender-neutral bathrooms. We’re trying to
address that because we’re in the process of designing a new school and that will be
something that really fosters and promotes safety and inclusivity.
A school district can also support school sites by adopting curricula that are inclusive and
diverse. Of the 24 responses to the survey question regarding district adopted curriculum that
depicts transgender or gender non-conforming students, nine respondents said their district had
none and 10 respondents were unsure if any existed. Only five principals answered that there was
any specific curriculum inclusive of this subgroup of students. During the interviews, Principals
C and E mentioned that the only place where they knew gender to be talked about within the
curriculum was the 7th Grade growth and development materials. Principal C stated that, “my
district does what the minimum requirements are for federal law and nothing additional.”
District Professional Development
When survey participants were asked about any district level training regarding bullying
prevention, 68% said that their district had provided some training at some point. However,
when asked if their district had provided a sufficient amount of training specific to transgender
84

and gender non-conforming policy and law, only 16% found that to be mostly or completely
true. Twenty-four percent felt this was not true at all, inferring that their district had provided
little to no training in this area (Table 5). Not one of the principals who were interviewed said
that their district had provided a training for leadership or all staff that pertained to supporting
transgender and gender non-conforming students. Principal E said that she was aware of some
district-level training in this area but it was only offered to the school counselors and mental
health specialists.

85

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
0 0 6 24
5 20 9 36
7 28 6 24
3 12 2 8
10 40 2 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, whereas 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 is offered and embraced.
Principal D took it upon herself to choose professional development for her staff, even though
her district has not formally rolled out any direction for this topic. She said, “So even though our
86

district hasn’t formally rolled out training for staff, my counselor and I are very passionate about
supporting all students so we actually train our staff on what you can and can’t do.”
Discussion Research Question 2
The four themes in Research Question 2 really highlighted that school site leaders feel
mostly alone in their endeavors to support transgender and gender non-conforming students. The
data also pointed to the fact that district support and guidance is not consistent and much more
professional development is needed for school staff, as well as for the site principal, to be
properly equipped to lead training on 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 need fluid goals that promote safety, equity, and education so that they can make
decisions that are 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 inclusive facilities at the district level, principals were overall positive about their own
school culture and the steps they were taking to be more inclusive of transgender and gender
non-conforming students. This seems to be the area where principals can make the most
difference, whether they specifically work toward inclusion of transgender students or they
broaden systems for all students on campus, thus making their site a safer and more welcoming
space. 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
87

disruption are much more difficult when the leader is acting alone and not in alignment with their
district guidance or lack thereof. All in all, school and district culture were found to play a factor
in the daily decisions that are made by site administrators surrounding this topic.
Findings: 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? Motivation is one of the triadic
components of social cognitive theory, the theoretical framework for this study. The motivation
to behave or perform in certain ways is led by several factors and possession of skills does not
always mean having the ability to use it well or consistently under diverse situations (Wood &
Bandura, 1989). Policies for supporting transgender and gender non-conforming students are not
new however, in the past few years more students have begun to grapple with gender identity at
younger ages. Middle school principals are now seeing multiple students each year (although as
noted earlier, the numbers declined this school year) that need support and this research question
sought to determine if an individual leader’s motivation and beliefs around this topic affected
their actions for students at their school site. Three themes emerged from the data within this
research question: principal’s personal knowledge of the topic and laws, personal motivation to
support transgender and gender non-conforming students, and the leader’s beliefs and values.
Personal Knowledge of Topic and Laws
There are multiple laws, including Title IX, the FAIR Act, Seth’s Law, and AB 1266 in
California, that protect the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming students. Through
the survey and interview process, participants were asked several questions about their
knowledge of laws and vocabulary that pertained to this population of students. Table 6 shows
88

survey participants’ answers to a question about terms surrounding the transgender and LGBTQ+
population.
All respondents of the survey answered that they were at least familiar with the following
terms: transgender, gender non-conforming, gender identity, and non-binary. Most principals
were also at least familiar with safe zones and GSA, with the majority of them being able to
define the two terms. Where people were not as comfortable with their knowledge of terms was
in the areas of genderqueer, gender dysphoria, and binary gender. It is of note that of the 26
participants in this question, a few people were not even familiar at all with safe zones, GSAs, or
gender expression.

89

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
21 5 0
13 13 0
15 10 1
24 2 0
16 10 0
Genderqueer 7 13 6
Gender dysphoria 7 11 8
Binary gender 11 7 8
Safe zone 18 6 2
GSA 21 4 1
Gender expression 16 8 2

When knowledge of the laws and topics surrounding transgender and gender non-
conforming youth was brought up in interviews, participants had a lot to say. All five principals
stated that they had some knowledge of the laws and policies but they all wanted to learn more
and get more information. Principal A said that she felt she only knew about a third of what was
out there and did not even know all the terms on the survey. A desire to learn more may relate to
intrinsic motivational factors such as perceived confidence and internal control of a topic or
90

situation (Schunk, 2020). Others stated that they always talk about the law and follow the law
exactly when they are dealing with student issues or parent concerns. For example, Principal E
shared that, “I think you have to explain what the law is and the law is what drives policy and
what drives decisions. Unfortunately, certain people aren’t always going to be comfortable with
laws and policies.”
While some principals used the law, others pointed to the fact that they mostly use
experience and their instincts when it comes to students and gender identity issues. Principal C
stated that, “I feel like for a lot of it I’m just going by instinct. It’s not necessarily my training or
actual facts. It feels more like I just go with my gut and that’s probably not the best thing ever.”
Principal B shared that while he goes with instinct, he feels more information and training is
necessary because, “I would love to know more because I would hate to inadvertently plant a
seed that grows into something that I didn’t mean it to.” Principal C also concurred with the
sentiment by adding
I have presumptions about what I think kids would want me to do or what I think I should
do, but I’m a white, middle-aged woman. Like, I don’t know anything about what their
experience is or what they need or what they want. So, I want to stop making
assumptions and actually hear from our kids, which we’ve done several times. We have
met with them and to just chat about, like, what could we do better? What do you need
from us?
These principals seemed to be intrinsically motivated to learn more and mentioned factors of
self-determination, that Schunk (2020) stated would excite people’s will to satisfy needs and
resolve conflicts.
91

All in all, principals reported that they had some information about the laws and policies
pertaining to transgender and gender non-conforming students but much more is needed.
Principal E felt that, “I feel like I can always use more information. It’s a developing topic and I
can always use more training for operational support.” Survey respondents corroborated what
interviewees said in that 96% of them felt they needed at least a little more support, with 21% of
those needing a lot of support. Although so many felt they needed more information, only 16%
answered that they often spent time researching or studying transgender laws. The majority of
survey respondents answered that they sometimes (40%) do research and rarely or never (42%)
do any research about policy, state law, or federal law. Some administrators feel intrinsically
motivated to learn more about this student population, while it seems others are waiting for more
guidance.
Personal Motivation to Support Transgender and Gender Non-conforming Students
Motivation to support transgender and gender non-conforming students was indicated
through questions on both the survey and interviews. The overall data pointed to more of a
leader’s motivation and actions that support all students because that is the moral and right thing
to do. While Principal D shared, “I always try to think first about our protected classes because
they’re the ones who are often targeted the most.” The other four principals did not have any
examples of how they prioritized transgender students over others. When asked about
prioritizing practices on campus, Principal A shared her constant struggle of
I try to pick the things that will impact most kids first, but doing that is definitely
insufficient because there are, you know, several examples of like, yeah, this only
impacts my two kids. But for those two kids, it could be life or death, right? This impacts
400 kids, and it’s just, you know, superfluous.
92

Principal C had a similar motivation and struggled when it came to priorities on campus. She
shared that, “I don’t know that I would prioritize an initiative for transgender over an initiative
for anything else. In the end if it’s for students, then it is of the highest priority, period.”
When looking at how principals answered similar questions on the survey, most felt that
they were not doing enough specifically for transgender students. 60% felt that they had not
provided sufficient training for their own staff and 84% reported that the topic had only come up
twice or less in the last academic year. All but one respondent said that they needed at least a
little more training for themselves in how to deal with issues that transgender and gender non-
conforming students face. Figure 9 shows whether or not principals had motivation and acted on
it to gain more information through networking with colleagues.

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

93

Collaborating and networking with colleagues seemed to be the area where many leaders
found assistance and information about how to deal with issues surrounding transgender and
gender non-conforming youth. All but two respondents on the survey talked to other leaders in
their district and 20 out of 25 stated that they had spoken with others outside of their district. For
approximately 35% of principals, they indicated collaboration with colleagues being mostly or
completely true for them. Principal A shared that, “I think I’ll work through ACSA (Association
of California School Administrators) for that because I do know at the state level there are some
good resources. Orange County itself is just a black hole of information about diversity.”
Leader’s Beliefs and Values
A leader’s beliefs and personal values can influence their actions and leadership style.
The five principals who were interviewed all described themselves as collaborative, servant type
leaders who were doers. For example, Principal C stated, “I would say I am more of a
collaborative leader. I’m not going to tell you what to do. I am going to work with you and
collaboratively come to an idea, versus like telling.” Principal D had a similar answer, in that, “I
would call myself a lattice leader. I really believe in leading from the middle and involving
people in my decisions.” When it comes to a topic like transgender students and the policies that
support them, leaders may lean on their values or have to put their beliefs aside in their job. As
noted in earlier themes, each of these principals work in Orange County, which is known to be
politically conservative. Figure 10 shows the personal beliefs of the respondents. This is the only
question where several people skipped certain components and the figure reflects that the beliefs
of leaders are very mixed. For example, one person believes there are only two genders and six
people felt that transgender identity is a choice. Six respondents also disagreed that transgender
94

and gender non-conforming students should be allowed to use the facilities of their identified
gender.

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

95

Interviewees were asked a specific question about whether students should be allowed to
use the bathroom and locker room of their identified gender. All five responded that the student
should be allowed in the facility of their identified gender. The overall attitude was that students
should be kept safe and feel supported by their school and principal, however that may look.
Principal C said, “They need to be able to go where they feel safe and where they belong.
Period.” In this regard, none of the leaders’ beliefs stood in the way of the law and all were
abiding by the laws, even when they had to battle concerned community members or staff.
Principal interviewees were also asked about their personal beliefs and if they had ever
had to compromise those beliefs on the job. For the most part, respondents felt that they had not
needed to compromise their beliefs, as their beliefs are in line with the law. The two examples
given by Principals A and B revolved around LGBTQ+ pride flags. Principal A stated that she
felt she had to compromise a “small bit” because she, along with a few staff members, were
asked by their district office to take down gay pride flags. Principal A did take the flags down,
but replaced them with more general safe space flags to still show that she was an ally. Principal
B had a situation where parents were challenging a substitute teacher who had pride memorabilia
displayed on their belongings in the classroom. In the end, he did not have to compromise his
beliefs, but the situation posed a challenge for his knowledge and decision making.
The principal interviewees’ values really came through when they were asked about what
the ideal middle school would look like for transgender and gender non-conforming students.
Principal C shared that historically her district has not done enough and that an ideal school
would, “In a perfect world, it’s almost like it wouldn’t be a topic of discussion at all because we
would have everything in place, right? Just like women in leadership, like can we just be leaders
without being called out.”
96

Several of the leaders also mentioned their religion and how that may or may not play
into how they lead within this topic. Principal D said, “I identify as a conservative Christian, but
I also don’t agree with how we treat human beings because I don’t think that’s how God intends
people to be treated.” This principal was referring to how some Christians do not believe in
gender fluidity; however, this principal believes in human kindness.
Overall, the principals interviewed did not seem to change their personal beliefs for the
work they do with transgender students. There may be some belief bias due to the fact that
interviewees were volunteers in this process after taking the survey. The survey question about
beliefs showed that middle school leaders in Orange County had beliefs that varied in relation to
this topic. Therefore, if all survey respondents had also been interviewed, the results may not
have shown that principals’ beliefs did not change or hinder their actions.
Discussion Research Question 3
Research Question 3 delved into many personal areas of the leaders’ styles and beliefs.
Although the literature states that many leaders have fear and anxiety, which leads 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 children in
their schools. There was little evidence through the survey and interviews that leaders prioritized
initiatives for transgender youth. However, principals said that they prioritize what is good for
students in general, which includes those with gender identity needs. For the most part, those in
this study also felt little need to compromise their personal beliefs to do what was right for
students. Educators tend to fight for their students’ rights, and this was verified in this study as
97

well. Principals shared that they believe more could be done to help support this group of
students and that most of the support they received as leaders was from networking with
colleagues who had similar experiences. All in all, as Schunk (2006) and Wood and Bandura
(1989) found, people’s self-motivation, beliefs, and actions play a factor in what and how they
accomplish goals. In this study, the principals supported transgender students in ways that were
in line with their beliefs and when needed, they sought out assistance from peers and models
around them.
Summary
Research Question 1 focused on the school site-based decisions that principals make to
implement the policies and procedures of the law as it pertains to transgender and gender non-
conforming students. Four themes emerged to show that the principal’s modeling of staff and
student interactions played a key role in the positive culture on campus. Principals had many
student supports that led to safer, inclusive campuses however, most of these supports did not
specifically target helping 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. One theme of community resistance came out in the interview process, although
it was not specifically asked in any direct questions.
Research Question 2 sought to understand how the school and district culture affects the
site leader’s implementation of the laws and policies for transgender youth. The findings indicate
that district guidance and support vary so widely that principals must tackle many issues on their
own. Few districts had offered any formal training to staff or leaders and about half of the survey
respondents were unsure of actual policies meant to support transgender and gender non-
98

conforming students. Again, within these themes, school culture was found to be the biggest
influence.
Research Question 3 looked at the site leader’s motivation and personal beliefs and
whether those factors played a role in their implementation of policies. Leaders shared personal
beliefs and values that mainly revolved around caring for all students as human beings first and
foremost. Personal motivation was found to be a factor for some of the interviewees, however all
pointed to the fact of following the law regardless of their personal beliefs or motivations. One
theme that emerged was that not one principal said they felt they knew enough about transgender
students, the laws surrounding them, or how to best support them. Some principals seemed to
have intrinsic motivation to learn more, possibly due to perceived competence and their moral
calling to do the right thing by all students in their care. Each interview participant hoped to learn
more in the coming years and survey responses showed that many will continue to use
colleagues and outside resources to continue learning on 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). Their beliefs come into play
when determining their commitment to transgender and gender non-conforming students even
despite the obstacles that may be coming from varying avenues.
In Chapter 5, these findings will be discussed, by research question, in connection with
the supporting literature. Implications for practical application for site principals will also be
noted. In addition, Chapter 5 will reveal any limitations of the findings, as well as
recommendations for future research.

99

Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter 5 summarizes findings which are related to implications for practice within the
realm of middle 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 middle school principals 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 reduce 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 other 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 proactive policies that were set up school wide (Coolhart &
MacKnight, 2015; Martino et al., 2020; Meyer & Keenan, 2018)
The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of middle school principals
in Orange County, California and 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 supports this
particular student group. The following research questions were used to guide this study:
100

1. How do California middle 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 middle 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 middle school principals in Orange County, California. This
allowed for surveys to be conducted first and principals to volunteer to be interviewed after the
surveys were all 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 Orange 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 relationship to existing
literature and contemporary practice.
101

Research Question 1
Research Question 1 asked the following: How do California middle 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 put in place 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 interviewees’ 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. I did not find this to be happening in any of the schools in this study.
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 were
102

not supportive of the needs of this student group. When that occurred it was found, based on the
responses from the interviewees, that principals used the basis of 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 the staff is following the law, but are not going beyond that to provide additional
opportunities for this student group. One principal was found to go above and beyond the
baseline by developing clubs, implementing curriculum, and requiring all school ‘minute
meeting’ sessions with the counselor which helped to identify students who may need additional
support.
Although principals may desire to do more for this student population, a significant
finding was that surrounding community pushback often 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 identify 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 middle 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, PBIS 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
middle 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 designed specifically to address their needs.
District guidance and support was found to vary widely 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
district level policies and procedures were helpful in setting a stage for site leaders to take action
104

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 not found to 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 from what 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 general policies and laws
that were provided).
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 addresses leaders and their
dealings with these policies. Another finding that emerged was that principal’s desired more
district support and professional development specific to the needs of transgender and gender
105

non-conforming students. This desire for more professional development was in line 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.
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 in many situations 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
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
106

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 not a need to compromise their
personal beliefs. However, this finding may not be applicable to the larger administrative
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
107

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. A 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 potentially 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 from the surveys, interviews, and extant literature, the data
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 middle school principals supporting transgender
and gender non-conforming students in Orange 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.
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
108

counselors seemed 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,
more 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
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.
109

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. In order
to potentially minimize push back from the community, school districts should seek resources
and methodologies to educate key community stakeholders 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 on middle 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.
The first recommendation for future research is to study what a full systemic change
would look like on a middle 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). Here, it is
recommended to take small steps in schools that seek to change many gendering practices that
110

have been occurring for generations, knowing that this is a huge undertaking. For example, “pink
and blue cards” are commonly used to place students in many elementary schools, where the
pink and blue signifies the perceived 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 to provide professional development
to leaders so, in turn, they may train their staff. This professional learning should include not
only laws and policies for transgender and gender non-conforming youth, but also strategies for
reducing heteronormativity, specific strategies for 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.
111

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. I
recommend that schools and their district office leaders partner together to conduct a needs-
assessment in this area so that principals are able to voice their needs and a cohesive plan can be
formed 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
are attending school. Further findings suggested that while principals wanted to do what is best
for their students, many lack the knowledge of which exact supportive strategies and programs
transgender and gender non-conforming students truly need to be highly successful in school.
Meyer and Keenan (2018) 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
112

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 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, 21(2), 152–165.
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 middle 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 middle school principals in Orange 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 middle 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 middle school principals in Orange 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 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
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 high schools: a study on supports and practical solutions for California administrators

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

STEM education in middle school: a promising practices study

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 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

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

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

Principal implementation of Education Code 215: pupil and student suicide prevention policies in southern California public middle schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

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

Implementation of restorative justice in schools from a teacher's perspective

PDF

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

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

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

PDF

(Trans)itioning voices: gender expansive vocal pedagogy and inclusive methodologies for choral directors and teachers of singing

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Glembocki, Christa Dalene (author)

Core Title Inclusive gender practices in middle 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 AB1266,FAIR Act,gender,gender identity legislation,gender non-conforming,inclusion,K-12,middle school principals,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), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email cglembocki@gmail.com,lapworth@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112847824

Unique identifier UC112847824

Identifier etd-GlembockiC-11511.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-GlembockiC-11511

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Glembocki, Christa Dalene

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