Safe schools policy for LGBTQ students

Full text

sharing child and youth development knowledge
volume 24, number 4
2010
Social Policy Report
Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Stephen T. Russell Joseph Kosciw
University of Arizona GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network)
Stacey Horn Elizabeth Saewyc
University of Illinois at Chicago University of British Columbia
Abstract
Two proposed U.S. federal laws would provide explicit protection for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) stu-
dents in public schools. These federal laws follow actions by many states
and school districts to dene and implement laws or policies to protect
the safety of LGBTQ students in schools. Research during the past decade
has shown that LGBTQ youth are a vulnerable population, and that the
negative school experiences of LGBTQ students often contribute to their vulnerability.
This Social Policy Report reviews research relevant to these federal, state, and local
laws and policies. Research on sexual orientation/identity development is reviewed,
with attention to the growing numbers of youth that “come out” or disclose their
LGBTQ identities to others during their school-age years. Schools are often hostile
environments for LGBTQ students; this evidence is considered along with research
on the consequences for compromised achievement and emotional and behavioral
health. We then review strategies in education policy and practice that are associ-
ated with well-being for LGBTQ (and all) students.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 2 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
From the Editors
In this issue of Social Policy Report, Stephen Russell, Joseph Kosciw, Stacey Horn
and Elizabeth Saewyc summarize the research on an important but sometimes
controversial topic—school policies to prevent or reduce bullying based on sexual
orientation. Reducing bullying would seem to be a goal that everyone could
support, but the enumeration of sexual orientation as a reason for bullying is
objectionable to some policymakers. Being a straight teenager is difcult enough,
but being a teenager struggling with sexual identity brings its own set of issues,
including the potential for harassment. As these researchers report, bullying and
victimization are at their peak in the adolescent years, and frequent insults,
harassment, and ostracizing are reported by students who identify as lesbian,
gay, or bisexual. In the best of circumstances, these LGB teenagers have strong
families, understanding teachers, and schools with policies that enable them to
ourish. Unfortunately, many do not. Fortunately, however, considerable research
in the last decade on the relation of school policies to student outcomes, summa-
rized in this issue, lends support to specic policies and procedures that seem to
make a difference.
Although not mentioned in this paper, one can imagine that those who
study this area face challenges in obtaining approvals to conduct student surveys
or interviews from school boards, school system human subjects committees,
administrators, and parents. In addition, concerns about sampling and condenti-
ality may be especially heightened. All the more reason, then, to appreciate the
fact that we do have this growing body of research in the past decade that can
guide policy. But, will policies change based on research knowledge?
The enacted laws of several states and two proposed federal policies
related to sexual minority students are noted in the paper, so obviously there is
policy movement related to anti-bullying; however, it is not clear to what extent
research ndings moved the policy needle or whether specic events (e.g., highly
publicized suicides of bullied youth who were gay or perceived to be gay) or the
winds of social change were the primary factors. Because studies in this area are
mainly descriptive and correlational, it is also not clear whether new policies
cause improved outcomes for students. Optimistically, we hope so.
To address policy, two legislators from the states of New York and Washing-
ton offer commentaries. We value the input of Assembly Member O’Donnell and
Representative Liias and are thankful for the years of work they have put into
promoting laws that require school policies to reduce bullying. Two researchers
also provide thoughtful comments on the paper. Ian Rivers addresses the one
aspect that puzzled me—the Q in LGBTQ—and helped my own understanding of
this acronym as well as the evolving nature of research with LGBTQ youth. Susan
Swearer notes the underlying need for tolerance and respect for differences that
we’d best inculcate in this generation of teenagers because policy change can
only take us so far. While the paper and commentaries in this issue present some
sobering stories and facts, you will also learn about specic policy changes that
are associated with the well-being of sexual minority (and all) students.
— Donna Bryant (Issue Editor)
Samuel L. Odom (Lead editor)
Kelly L. Maxwell (Editor)
Social Policy Report
Volume 24, Number 4 | 2010
ISSN 1075-7031
www.srcd.org/spr.html
Social Policy Report
is published four times a year by the
Society for Research in
Child Development.
Editorial Team
Samuel L. Odom, Ph.D. (Lead editor)
slodom@unc.edu
Donna Bryant, Ph.D. (Issue editor)
donna.bryant@unc.edu
Kelly L. Maxwell, Ph.D.
maxwell@unc.edu
Director of SRCD Office for
Policy and Communications
Martha J. Zaslow, Ph.D.
mzaslow@srcd.org
Managing Editor
Amy D. Glaspie
aglaspie@srcd.org
Governing Council
Greg Duncan Nancy Hill
Arnold Sameroff Melanie Killen
Ann Masten Richard Lerner
Susan Goldin-Meadow Kenneth Rubin
Oscar Barbarin Elizabeth Susman
Patricia Bauer Thomas Weisner
Marc H. Bornstein Susan Lenon,
ex ofcio
Jennie Grammer Lonnie Sherrod,
ex ofcio
Martha J. Zaslow,
ex ofcio
Policy and Communications Committee
Bonnie Leadbeater John Murray
Barbara Fiese Sam Odom
Oscar Barbarin John Ogawa
Brenda Jones Harden Cassandra Simmel
Anna Johnson Louisa Tarullo
Tama Leventhal Martha J. Zaslow
Joseph Mahoney Lonnie Sherrod,
ex ofcio
Publications Committee
Ann Easterbrooks Anne Pick
Patricia Bauer Jonathan Santo
Margaret Burchinal Lonnie Sherrod
Noel Card Fons van de Vijver
Greg Duncan Karen Brakke,
ex ofcio
Richard Lerner W. Andrew Collins,
ex ofcio
Susan Goldin-Meadow Nancy Eisenberg,
ex ofcio
Velma McBride Murry Jeffrey Lockman,
ex ofcio

Social Policy Report V24 #4 3 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Recent events have focused signicant
public attention and discussion on school
safety and well-being for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, queer, and question-
ing1 (LGBTQ) youth. The murder of
15-year-old Lawrence King in his middle
school in 2008 received media attention around the
world; King was murdered at school by
a boy to whom he had given a valen-
tine. A year later, in 2009, 11-year-old
Carl Walker-Hoover committed sui-
cide after years of bullying and daily
taunts at school about his sexuality.
These tragic events represent the most
extreme examples of unsafe school cli-
mates for young people who are LGBTQ
like Larry or perceived to be LGBTQ
like Carl. Yet homophobia and LGBTQ
prejudice are daily experiences for
many students (Kosciw, Diaz & Greytak,
2008). For example, a population-
based study of over 200,000 California
students found that 7.5% reported
being bullied because they were “gay
or lesbian or someone thought [they]
were” (O’Shaughnessy, Russell, Heck,
Calhoun, & Laub, 2004, p. 3).
In the context of this growing
attention to safe school environments,
there is also clear scientic consensus
that LGBTQ young people, particularly
those in unsafe and unsupportive con-
texts, are a vulnerable population in their schools. The
1 The single “Q” is used to refer to youth who identify as “queer” and to those
who identify as “questioning.” “Queer” is an umbrella term used to describe a
sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression that does not conform
to dominant societal norms. While it is used as a neutral, or even a positive
term among many LGBT people today, some consider it a derogatory, pejora-
tive term. “Questioning” is an identity label for a person who is uncertain of or
exploring sexual orientation/identity and/or gender orientation/identity.
last decades have seen notable attention to concerns for
LGBT students: Studies have demonstrated the elevated
rates of victimization and bullying that LGBT youth expe-
rience at school, and more recent attention has focused
on the contexts and characteristics of schools that may
support negative attitudes and behaviors toward LGBT
youth (Horn, Kosciw & Russell, 2009). The central chal-
lenge for education professionals is
how to identify and design supportive
school climates that promote the posi-
tive development of LGBTQ and all
students.
In this article, we use LGBTQ
to broadly describe this population
of students. In discussion of prior
research, however, we amend this
acronym to reect—as best we know—
the specic identity groups that were
included in the studies. For example,
some studies do not include transgen-
der students or queer or questioning
students; in such cases we refer to
ndings about LGB youth. Others stud-
ies are based on measures of same-sex
attraction and behavior rather than
identity; we use the term “sexual mi-
nority” to include those who identify
as LGBTQ as well as those who report
same-sex attraction or behavior but
may not identify as LGBTQ.
Until recently, the nearly ex-
clusive emphasis in studies of LGBTQ
or sexual minority youth had been on
behavioral risks such as sexual risk behaviors (Saewyc,
Richens, Skay, Reis, Poon, & Murphy, 2006), substance
use and abuse (Marshal et al., 2008), and mental health,
including depression and suicide risk (Russell, 2005;
Saewyc, Skay, et al., 2007). During the last decade a
shift has occurred as scholars have turned from a focus
Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
In the context of this
growing attention
to safe school
environments,
there is also clear
scientific consensus
that LGBTQ young
people, particularly
those in unsafe and
unsupportive contexts,
are a vulnerable
population
in their schools.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 4 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
on problems to an attempt to understand the contexts
in which sexual minority youth grow and develop (Horn,
Kosciw, & Russell, 2009) and the protective factors or
assets in their lives that promote healthy youth develop-
ment (Russell, 2005; Saewyc, Homma, Skay, Bearinger,
Reznick, & Reis, 2009). Scholars have begun to trace the
health risks of LGBTQ youth exposed to sexual prejudice
or homophobia in the key environments that guide their
development: their families, peers, schools, and com-
munities. This growing body of research emphasizes the
social context of LGBT youths’ lives and demonstrates
how youth risk behavior in this population can be attrib-
uted to family dynamics (e.g., Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, &
Sanchez, 2009), peer relationships (e.g., Poteat, 2008;
Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009), the school environ-
ment (e.g., Chesir-Teran, 2003) and
community environments (Saewyc,
Poon, Homma & Skay, 2008). Thus,
prejudice and discrimination not
only make a difference for individual
students; they shape the culture of
schools and threaten the effectiveness
of education institutions. For example,
there have been hundreds of legal cas-
es related to LGBTQ issues in schools
in the United States and Canada in re-
cent years (e.g., Valentine, 2008), and
there are recent examples of efforts
to document the economic and aca-
demic costs to school districts when
students feel unsafe (e.g., Russell,
Talmage, Laub, & Manke, 2009). Yet
in the past decade several states and
school districts have fought to keep
gay-straight alliance clubs (GSAs)
or LGBT-inclusive curriculum out of
high schools. Such attention has brought issues of LGBT
student identity into a topic of major debate in public
education for contemporary communities.
Two federal laws are currently under consideration
in the United States that would provide explicit protec-
tions to LGBT students in public schools: HR2262, the
Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA), and HR4530, the
Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) (see sidebar).
These laws build on years of state and local efforts to
establish non-discrimination and anti-bullying laws and
policies in order to assure access to a quality education
free from discrimination. The anti-bullying policy ap-
proach (such as proposed in SSIA) includes requiring that
schools and school districts institute and implement poli-
cies that include prevention and intervention strategies,
professional development for school personnel, student
and parent notication regarding rights and complaint
procedures, and responsibility for reporting incidences of
bullying and harassment to parents and to state and local
authorities. Nondiscrimination laws (such as proposed in
SNDA) provide protection as well as provisions for legal
recourse to students who are victims of violence based on
personal characteristics. A critical distinguishing feature
of these laws and policies is whether they include enu-
meration of personal characteristics (real or perceived)
known to be the basis for prejudice and discrimination:
real or perceived race, ethnicity, religion, physical abil-
ity, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
Canada, in contrast, provides federal recognition
for sexual orientation as a “prohibited ground of discrimi-
nation” (Hurley, 2005): the Canadian Supreme Court has
ruled that sexual orientation should be “read into” the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ Section 15 (the equal-
ity rights section as it pertains to federal and provincial
laws), and in 1996, the Canadian Human Rights Act was
amended to include sexual orientation. Thus, unlike
in the United States, there is constitutional protection
in Canada against discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation. However, education policy is generally not
considered a federal mandate in Canada, but devolves to
the provinces and territories; education policies regard-
Proposed U.S. Federal Education Laws
Relevant for LGBTQ Students
H.R. 2262 & S. 3739, the Safe Schools Improvement Act
The Safe Schools Improvement Act (SSIA) requires each school and district that receives Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act funding to implement a comprehensive anti-
bullying and anti-harassment policy that enumerates categories of protection; including “a
student’s actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation,
gender identity or religion.” The SSIA also encourages schools and districts to implement
effective prevention strategies and professional development for school personnel regarding
effectively addressing bullying and harassment in their schools. This law would also require
states and districts to include bullying and harassment data in their statewide reporting
(GLSEN, 2010a).
H.R. 4530 & S. 3390, the Student Non-Discrimination Act
The Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA) was modeled after Title IX, and would provide
protections and recourse to students targeted for discrimination based on their actual or
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity (GLSEN, 2010b). SNDA would provide federal
protections similar to those designed to prevent discrimination based on race, color, national
origin, sex, disability, or age, helping to ensure that students who are or who are perceived
to be LGBT would have access to a quality education free from discrimination.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 5 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
ing LGBTQ youth have emerged slowly, often in response
to legal challenges.2
In this issue of the Social Policy Report we review
research on LGBTQ youth and schools in order to provide
a context for understanding the rationale for these laws
and policies. First we briey consider trends in sexual
identity development and “coming out” among LGBTQ
young people. This work suggests that LGBTQ youth are
coming out at younger ages, and that the younger age
at coming out appears to be in conict with emerging
evidence about young adolescents’ attitudes regarding
homosexuality. We then review what is known about
hostile school climates for LGBTQ youth and the implica-
tions for their social, emotional, and academic adjust-
ment. Historically, research in this area has focused on
person-level processes, in particular, on victimization
and its consequences. More recently there has been a
shift to incorporate attention to school-level factors, or
the structural conditions and education practices that
shape the experiences of LGBTQ students. Finally, we
review research on school policies and programs de-
signed to create supportive environments for LGBTQ stu-
dents, and the evidence of their association with safety
and well-being for students.
Contemporary Development of LGBTQ Youth
Youth are coming out as LGBTQ in larger numbers and at
younger ages than ever before (Floyd & Bakeman, 2006;
Ryan & Futterman, 1998). At a basic level, we under-
stand this at face value: historically speaking, there
simply was almost no such thing as a “gay teenager”
because there were few possibilities for adolescents to
come out as LGBTQ. Scholars have compared studies
of lesbian and gay youth across the last 30 years and
shown that the reported milestones of sexual identity
development—self awareness, self-labeling, and disclos-
ing an LGB identity to others—are reported at younger
ages in more recent cohorts (Ryan & Futterman, 1998).
One recent study used data from a wide age-range of
LGBTQ adults and asked about the ages of these sexual
identity development milestones (Floyd & Bakeman,
2006); those from recent cohorts (after the 1980s) who
self-identied as gay or lesbian during the teenage
2 For example, in British Columbia, the westernmost province, a Human Rights
Tribunal case brought against the provincial Ministry of Education in 1999,
over the lack of inclusion of LGBTQ historical gures and role models in the
curriculum, resulted in a settlement in 2006, which involved developing a
Social Justice course for 12th graders, curricular changes, and requirements for
all schools to have codes of conduct based on the BC Charter of Rights, which
includes sexual orientation (Hansen, 2006).
years reporting reaching these milestones at earlier ages
compared to the earlier cohorts. Although these studies
are not conclusive, they lend evidence to the idea that
LGBTQ youth are coming out at younger ages. At the
same time it is clear that young people are coming out
in larger numbers: the growing number and visibility of
middle and high school Gay-Straight Alliance clubs (GSAs)
is one simple indication that things have changed (Miceli,
2005). Because social scientists never included questions
about sexual orientation or identity on representative
surveys until the 1990s, there are few population-based,
representative studies that show these trends. However,
one regularly repeating survey of high school students in
Canada has shown a declining number of students who
identify as exclusively heterosexual, from 85% in 1992
to 82% in 2003 (Saewyc, Poon, Wang, Homma, Smith, &
McCreary, 2007).
No strong basis exists for thinking that there have
been signicant historical changes in the ontogeny of sex-
ual orientation; thus, explanations for these cohort differ-
ences focus on the dramatic social and historical changes
in the visibility of LGBTQ people and associated changes
in attitudes toward LGBTQ people and issues (Horn, 2010).
Contemporary youth are the rst to have visible LGBTQ
role models, along with access to information and support
about same-sex sexuality in their communities and online
(Russell, 2002; Ryan & Futterman, 1998). These dramatic
changes have created the possibilities that LGBTQ youth
recognize, label, and come out as LGBTQ at younger ages
or in greater numbers than before.
Competing with the trend in coming out is a de-
velopmental pattern that seems to work in the opposite
direction: attitudes about same-sex sexuality are less
favorable among early adolescents, and become more
favorable as youth mature (Heinze & Horn, 2009; Horn,
2006; Poteat, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009). The early ado-
lescent years are a period during which awareness of and
conformity to gender roles and norms becomes particu-
larly salient (Galambos, Almeida, & Petersen, 1990). This
sensitivity to gender roles coincides with awareness of
normative values regarding (hetero)sexuality. Further,
it is well established that high quality contact with LG
people (e.g., interacting regularly with a good friend or
family member who is LG) is one of the strongest predic-
tors of tolerant and inclusive attitudes (Heinze & Horn,
2009; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Horn, 2010); a recent study
showed that among heterosexual youth, those who had
at least one LG friend were less likely to tolerate un-
fair treatment toward LG peers (Heinze & Horn, 2009).

Social Policy Report V24 #4 6 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Heterosexual youth who have no exposure to LG people
in their families or communities may only gain that ex-
posure at school as other students come to awareness of
and begin to assert their LG identities.
A challenge for many LGBTQ youth is the develop-
mental tension between their personal awareness and
desire to come out, and the degree to which coming out
may conict with the social pressures of conformity that
appear to be particularly strong during the early and
middle adolescent years. Thus, while the dramatic social
changes in the last decades have led to unprecedented
possibilities for LGBTQ youth to come out, their interper-
sonal and cultural realities are often still characterized
by prejudice and homophobia.
Homophobia at School and
LGBTQ Student Well-being
Studies since the mid- to late 1990s have documented
the higher rates of harassment, exclusion, and assault
experienced by LGBT youth in schools compared to their
heterosexual peers. These negative experiences have
been documented in the United States and in multiple
other Western countries (Almeida, Johnson, Corliss,
Molnar & Azrael, 2009; Berlan, Corliss, Field, Good-
man, & Austin, 2007; Birkitt, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009;
Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Bos, Sandfort, de Bruyn &
Hakvoort, 2008; Busseri, Willoughby, Chalmers, & Bo-
gaert, 2008; Meininger et al., 2007; Saewyc, Singh, Reis,
& Flynn, 2000; Saewyc, Poon et al., 2007; Smyser & Reis,
2002; Williams, Connolly, Pepler, & Craig, 2003). These
studies have identied different forms of harassment:
anti-gay language, verbal teasing, relational aggression,
and physical aggression/bullying, and have documented
that experiencing name-calling, bullying, harassment and
assault in school is common for the majority of LGBTQ
students. For example, in the GLSEN’s National School
Climate Survey study, which involved a national sample
of over 6,000 LGBT secondary school students, Kosciw
et al. (2008) found that nearly 100% of LGBT students
heard homophobic remarks in their school, and over 75%
heard them frequently or often. The authors also found
that over 80% of LGBT students reported being verbally
harassed, over 40% reported being physically harassed,
and over 20% reported being physically assaulted because
of their sexual orientation.
Some of the earliest studies of LGB youth found
that this form of bullying and victimization at school was
associated with poorer mental health (Hershberger &
D’Augelli, 1995; Martin & Hetrick, 1988). One study found
that verbal abuse in high school was one of the strongest
predictors of traumatic stress reactions for LGB youth,
which include symptoms of depression, anxiety and sleep
disturbances (D’Augelli, Pilkington & Hershberger, 2002).
Other work has made use of larger school-based samples
that include comparisons of LGB to heterosexual students.
Using data from the Massachusetts and Vermont Youth Risk
Behavior Surveys, Bontempo and D’Augelli (2002) found
that LGB youth were at higher risk for at-school victim-
ization and for health risk behaviors, such as substance
use, sexual risk-taking and mental health. The health risk
behaviors were attributed to higher victimization: speci-
cally, at low levels of victimization, LGB youths’ behav-
ioral and emotional health was similar to their non-LGB
peers. Other recent research found that students harassed
or bullied based on LGBT status report greater psychologi-
cal distress (Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack 2008), de-
pression, self harm, or suicide feelings (Almeida, Johnson,
Corliss, Molnar, & Azrael, 2009; Espelage, Aragon, Birkett,
& Koenig, 2008, Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009) and
substance use (Espelage et al., 2008; Birkett et al., 2009).
Fewer studies have examined the associations be-
tween academic achievement indicators and experiences
of victimization in school for LGBT students; however,
links between LGBT-based harassment and poor academic
achievement have been found for GPA (Kosciw et al.,
2008; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001), attendance (Kosciw
et al., 2008, Birkett et al., 2009), and attitudes towards
school (Swearer, Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008; Espel-
age et al., 2008). Murdock and Bolch (2005) found that
LGB youth at schools with negative environments had
lower academic success than LGB youth in more posi-
tive school environments. In the National School Climate
Survey study noted previously, Kosciw et al. (2008) found
that victimization at school based on sexual orientation
Murdock and Bolch (2005) found that
LGB youth at schools with negative environments had lower academic
success than LGB youth in more positive school environments.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 7 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
or gender expression was related to poorer educational
outcomes. LGBT students who had experienced high levels
of victimization at school reported having lower GPAs (2.6
vs. 2.9) than LGBT students who had experienced lower
levels of victimization at school and were more than
twice as likely to have missed school in the past month,
48.3% vs. 20.1%, respectively.
Finally, it is important to note that gender and
gender nonconformity intersect with LGBTQ identities in
shaping school experiences. Males and those who do not
conform to typical gender behaviors and roles (or whose
behaviors or mannerisms are gender atypical) are most
vulnerable to victimization and harassment at school
(Human Rights Watch, 2001; Pascoe, 2007). Further,
studies of LGB youth have shown that gender atypical-
ity is associated with greater mental health and suicide
risk (D’Augelli, et al, 2002; Remafedi, Farrow, & Deisher,
1991). One new study of LGBTQ young adults specically
showed that the link between gender nonconformity
during adolescence and current negative psychological
adjustment (depression and life satisfaction) was fully ex-
plained by experiences of victimization at school (Toomey,
Ryan, Diaz, Card, & Russell, in press). This work highlights
the importance of policy efforts that include attention
to actual or perceived gender identity and expression, in
addition to sexual orientation and identity.
School LGBTQ Policy Strategies
Associated with Student Well-being
As noted earlier, research on LGBTQ youth in schools his-
torically has emphasized person-level risk such as bullying
and lack of safety at school (Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002;
Rivers, 2001). Much of the new work on LGBTQ youth in
schools has focused on characteristics, policies, and prac-
tices of schools (rather than of LGBTQ young people) that
are associated not only with risk for students, but also
positive adjustment and achievement (Goodenow, Szala-
cha, & Westheimer, 2006; Hansen, 2007; O’Shaughnessy,
Russell, Heck, Calhoun, & Laub, 2004; Szalacha, 2003).
For example, data from a national study of LGBTQ youth
show that several environmental characteristics are as-
sociated with homophobic experiences at school: rural
status, lower education level, and higher poverty levels
were each associated with hostile school climates (Kosciw,
Greytak, & Diaz, 2009; see also Poon & Saewyc, 2009).
The challenge in reducing LGBT harassment is that these
characteristics are not amenable to education policy
change. A growing body of new work, however, focuses
on structural conditions of schools and shows that a
number of education policies and program strategies can
make a difference in the experiences of LGBTQ students
in secondary schools, as well as for heterosexual stu-
dents’ attitudes about LGBTQ peers and homosexuality.
Across multiple studies and in multiple geographic set-
tings, several education policies, programs, or practices
have been shown to promote safety and wellbeing for
LGBTQ youth in schools. These include:
1. School nondiscrimination and anti-bullying
policies that enumerate or specically
include actual or perceived sexual orien-
tation or gender identity or expression;
2. Teacher intervention when harassment
takes place, and training of teachers on
effective intervention strategies;
3. Presence of school-based support groups
or clubs (often called “gay-straight alli-
ances” or GSAs);
4. Inclusion of LGBTQ people or issues in
school curricula and access to information
and resources through the library, school-
based health centers, and other avenues.
In the following sections, we review research nd-
ings related to each of these education policies, pro-
grams, or practices along with discussions of ways that
these strategies may be translated into other systems of
service and care for young people.
First, it is important to provide an overview on
research methods in this body of work. There are no
published studies of changes in school climate or student
well-being due to structured implementation of LGBTQ
education policies or programs; that is, no studies used
an experimental (or even quasi-experimental) design.
The work that is reviewed here, like most of the re-
search that has been reviewed thus far, comes from
multiple disciplines and perspectives, and uses multiple
methodologies, including: ethnographies of school set-
tings; in-depth interviews of students and school per-
sonnel; and local, regional, and national cross-sectional
surveys (some repeated over time; some population-
based). Some studies were intentionally designed for
within-group analyses of LGBTQ youth; others have been
based on samples that include non-LGBTQ youth. The
research represented here includes geographic areas
across the United States and in several Western coun-
tries. Some of the work has been published in academic
journals, and some in publications designed for public

Social Policy Report V24 #4 8 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
and policy audiences. The four areas of education policy
and practice reviewed here represent areas in which
there have been consistent results from studies based
on multiple methods and sources.
Inclusive, Enumerated Policies
The proposed Safe Schools Improvement Act and the
Student Non-Discrimination Act would provide ground-
breaking federal protection for LGBT students in the
United States. Although not yet in place for the nation, a
number of states have enacted legislation to protect stu-
dents on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orienta-
tion and gender identity/expression. Currently, 16 states
plus the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination or
harassment in schools on the basis of sexual orientation.3
Most of these enumerated laws, many passed in the past
ve years, also include protections on the basis of gender
identity/expression, including specic anti-bullying laws
and non-discrimination laws that apply to K-12 education.
In contrast, however, 33 states have enacted school anti-
bullying/anti-harassment laws that do not enumerate
specic protections for any group of students, including
LGBT students.4 Enumeration that is inclusive of sexual
orientation and gender identity is often at the forefront
of the challenges in these state laws being passed. Michi-
gan, for example, remains one of the few states with no
anti-bullying legislation, in part, because of the debate
about enumerated protections including sexual orienta-
tion and gender identity. In the sidebar, we outline the
anti-bullying legislation recently passed in three states:
Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts. Illinois and New
York each have LGBTQ-inclusive, enumerated state laws.
In Massachusetts the law is not enumerated, in part due
3 In addition to the District of Columbia, states that include protection based on
sexual orientation are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina,
Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. All of these states also include
protection based on gender identity/expression except for Connecticut, Mas-
sachusetts, and Wisconsin. Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia,
Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Wisconsin are considered to have enumer-
ated safe school laws because their enumerated state anti-discrimination laws
contain protections applicable to schools. The remaining states have specic
anti-bullying laws that included enumerated categories of protection including
sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
4 States that have non-enumerated legislation are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona,
Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Is-
land, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
and Wyoming. States without any type of anti-bullying/harassment law include:
Hawaii, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
to controversy about LGBTQ inclusion; however, the law
does include a provision for staff training about specic
categories of students who are particularly at risk for
bullying in school.
The importance of inclusive, enumerated policies
is that they serve as a foundation on which other LGBTQ
safe school policies and practices can be based (Russell
& McGuire, 2008). Both researchers and advocates have
argued that creating safe and supportive learning envi-
Selected 2010 State
Anti-Bullying Laws in the United States
Illinois: Senate Bill 3266,
Prevent School Violence Illinois
This law denes bullying for the rst time in Illinois state law,
lists the categories of students against which bullying is explicitly
prohibited (“actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, physical or mental
disability, military status, sexual orientation, gender-related
identity or expression, unfavorable discharge from military
service, association with a person or group with one or more of the
aforementioned actual or perceived characteristics, or any other
distinguishing characteristic”), and creates the Illinois Bullying
Prevention Task Force.
New York: Senate Bill 1987B,
Dignity for All Students Act
Provides protection from harassment or discrimination, including
such acts based on a person’s “actual or perceived race, color,
weight, national origin, ethnic group, religion, religious practice,
disability, sexual orientation, gender, or sex.” It requires schools
to: adopt non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies and
inform students and parents of those policies; develop guidelines
for nondiscriminatory instruction and counseling and for training
teachers, administrators, and other school employees to
discourage discrimination and harassment; and report incidents
of discrimination and bias harassment to the State Education
Department. The bill also requires the State Education Department
to assist school districts to implement the requirements of the act
with regulations, direct services, and model policies.
Massachusetts: Senate Bill 2404,
An Act Relative to Bullying in Schools
Requires teachers and other school staff to report bullying to the
principal or another administrator picked to handle reports when
they see or become aware of it; mandates annual training for
teachers and staff on prevention and intervention; and calls for
instruction on preventing bullying for students in every grade level
as part of the curriculum. The law is non-enumerated. However,
each school district is required to develop a plan to address bullying
prevention and intervention which shall include a provision for
ongoing professional development for all school personnel which
includes “research ndings on bullying, including information
about specic categories of students who have been shown to be
particularly at risk for bullying in the school environment.”

Social Policy Report V24 #4 9 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
ronments is best achieved through policies that require
protection of all students from bullying and harassment
and also specically identies categories of students
most likely to experience such harassment. Enumera-
tion provides students with clear understanding of their
rights to safety at school. Furthermore, enumeration
also provides educators with the tools needed to imple-
ment anti-bullying and harassment policies, and can
make it easier to intervene to prevent bullying. For
example, school staff may be more comfortable in-
tervening on behalf of LGBT students when the state,
district or school policy provides clear protection for
these students (GLSEN, 2010c). Thus, nondiscrimination
policies that do not specically include enumeration of
sexual orientation and gender identity do not provide
the grounding needed for consistent policy implementa-
tion and change. Below we consider the few studies that
have compared student wellbeing indicators in states
with different policies.
Kosciw et al. (2008) found that LGBT students in
states with comprehensive, enumerated safe school laws
reported hearing fewer homophobic remarks in school and
experienced lower levels of harassment and assault based
on their sexual orientation or gender expression than
students in states with no law or in states with a non-enu-
merated anti-bullying law. Further, in states with com-
prehensive and enumerated laws, students also reported
a higher frequency of staff intervention in instances of
harassment. The study also tracked changes in school
climate since 2001, nding a general decrease after 2001
in victimization based on sexual orientation and gender
expression in states that had enumerated safe schools
laws, but no change over time for students in states with
no laws and states with non-enumerated laws. During the
same period there was an increase in levels of victimiza-
tion for all other students (Kosciw et al., 2008).
One possible effect of a state having a comprehen-
sive safe schools law is that school districts and perhaps
even individual schools institute local policies that also
enumerate protections based on individual characteris-
tics. Kosciw et al. (2008) found that having a local com-
prehensive policy (those with enumerated categories) in
one’s school or district was associated with less hostile
and more supportive schools: LGBT students reported
hearing fewer homophobic comments and less victimiza-
tion or bullying, and more teacher intervention when
harassment happened.
Other studies have looked at differences between
school districts and schools within states. Studies in
Massachusetts have documented that LGBT-inclusive
school policies are associated with students’ positive
assessment of the school diversity climate (Szalacha,
2003); also, students in schools with enumerated policies
report fewer suicide attempts (Goodenow et al., 2006).
Additionally, in a study investigating the implementa-
tion of safe schools practices on heterosexual students’
sexual prejudice, Horn and Szalacha (2009) found that
heterosexual students in a school without an enumerated
school policy endorsed excluding and teasing a lesbian
or gay peer as more acceptable than students in a school
with an enumerated school policy. Further, students in
the school with an enumerated policy were more likely
to view exclusion and teasing as unfair and hurtful than
students in the school without the policy. These ndings
provide some preliminary evidence that schools’ policies
can create safer and more supportive climates for LGBTQ
students by reducing prejudicial attitudes among hetero-
sexual students within the school environment.
Inclusive, enumerated nondiscrimination and anti-
bullying policies at the school level may provide more
immediate or direct protection for students and provide
the basis for other forms of school safety policy, practice,
or programs. Such policies create a context in which pro-
active efforts to support LGBTQ students can be enacted
and provide the institutional backing for school person-
nel (administrators, staff, and teachers) to create and
enforce these nondiscrimination and anti-bullying mea-
sures (Russell & McGuire, 2008). The studies reviewed
above used administrative data to conrm school policy,
but most research on inclusive LGBT school policies has
been based on students’ reports (their perceptions) of
policies in their schools. This work shows that students
feel safer at school when they perceive that their school
has inclusive policies. For example, a study of over 2,400
students in California has shown that when students
report that their schools have inclusive policies they feel
safer at school, report less anti-LGBTQ harassment, and
believe that their schools are safer for LGBTQ students in
general (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004). These results hold
for LGBTQ and heterosexual students, but the differences
are particularly pronounced for LGBTQ students. More
recent work documents that although inclusive, enumer-
ated policies are an essential starting point for creating
safe school climates, policies alone are not enough. In an
internet study of over 2,000 LGBQ youth, students who
believed that their school had inclusive policies were
moderately less likely to report harassment, but no less
likely to report LGBQ victimization. There were stronger

Social Policy Report V24 #4 10 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
associations, however, between students’ perceptions of
specic programs (discussing homosexuality in the class-
room; having relevant books in the school library; and
the presence of a GSA) and both harassment and victim-
ization (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009). This work shows
that policies are important, but one step removed from
the daily experiences of students, for whom classroom
and school practices matter on a day-to-day level.
Several conclusions can be drawn from these stud-
ies. First, the results show that inclusive and enumerated
school policies create supportive education environments
and promote individual student perceptions of safety and
well-being. Second, although there is variability in the
alignment between actual school policies and students’
perceptions of them, the studies of students’ perceptions
of inclusive policies demonstrate that policy implementa-
tion matters. For example, in the study based in Califor-
nia (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004), a state for which there
are enumerated anti-bullying and non-discrimination
policies that apply to all public school students, some
students were unaware of safe schools policies, and
on average those students judged their schools to be
less safe. These results suggest that a key strategy for
promoting school safety is information dissemination and
advocacy so that students know about and understand
state and local policies that affect them (Hansen, 2007).
Finally, although inclusive policies are important for
establishing the overall school climate, other factors in
the daily experiences of students, including the strate-
gies that are discussed next, are more proximal in their
association with students’ experiences of bullying and
victimization at school (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009).
Personnel Training and Advocacy
With comprehensive, enumerated policies as a backdrop,
the training of school personnel to be knowledgeable
and supportive advocates for LGBTQ students is a sec-
ond school safety strategy. Several studies have docu-
mented the important role that educators play in the
lives of vulnerable students, including LGBTQ students.
A study using data from the National Longitudinal Study
of Adolescent Health (Add Health) found that same-
sex attracted students reported fewer school-related
troubles when they reported more positive relationships
with teachers (Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). Further,
in a nationwide study of LGBT students, having more
teacher supports in schools was associated with missing
fewer days of school for safety reasons, feeling safer
in school, and reporting higher grades and educational
aspirations (Kosciw et al., 2008).
Beyond teacher support, intervention in harassment
is particularly important: students feel safer when they
report that their teachers intervene to stop harassment
(O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004). Unfortunately, students say
that U.S. teachers intervene less often when homophobic
remarks are made than when racist or sexist remarks are
made (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005; Kosciw et al.,
2008). Furthermore, many LGBT students also report that
school personnel are perpetrators of homophobic remarks
in school—nearly two-thirds (63%) of LGBT students in
GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey reported hear-
ing homophobic remarks from school staff (Kosciw et al.,
2008). A lack of intervention by school authorities when
hearing homophobic remarks in school sends a message
to students that such language is tolerated; school staff
making homophobic remarks sets an example that intol-
erance toward LGBTQ people is acceptable.
But teacher training appears to make a difference.
A recent evaluation of a district-wide educator training
program in New York City demonstrated that training
school personnel about LGBTQ student issues was an ef-
fective means for developing the competency of educa-
tors to address bias-based bullying and harassment, and
to create safer school environments for LGBTQ students
(Greytak & Kosciw, 2010). In Illinois, an evaluation of a
school-based professional development program pro-
vided similar evidence that educators who participated
in mandatory educator training more frequently reported
that they had an obligation to create a safe environment
for students regardless of sexual orientation and gender
… results show that inclusive and enumerated school policies create
supportive education environments and promote individual
student perceptions of safety and well-being.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 11 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
identity, that they would intervene in instances of anti-
LGBT harassment or discrimination, that they were more
knowledgeable about LGBT issues, and that students have
the right to an education environment that is free from
harassment and discrimination (Horn & Gregory, 2005).
Further, a statewide study in Massachusetts showed that
students reported a safer diversity climate in schools in
which teachers were trained in LG youth violence and
suicide prevention (Szalacha, 2003).
Ultimately the responsibility for training school per-
sonnel is a matter for teacher preparation or for ongoing
professional development, and thus the responsibility of
school administrators. LGBTQ topics were represented in
all textbooks in a recent comprehensive review of foun-
dations of education textbooks (Macgillivray & Jennings,
2008); this and other work suggests that at least in terms
of formal teacher education, LGBTQ topics receive at
least some attention. However, the available information
about ongoing professional development is less encourag-
ing. In a survey of California school districts, 17% report-
ed that there was no training available in their district
for high school teachers on how to address discrimination
and harassment based on sexual orientation (training was
reportedly available in 34% of districts; required by 49%).
When asked about barriers to training, resources, exper-
tise and time were identied as the greatest obstacles to
staff training; but notably, almost a third of the districts
reported that they did not have incidents that neces-
sitated training for employees (California Safe Schools
Coalition, 2005). In a national survey of school principals,
although the majority reported professional development
for their school staff about bullying and harassment, less
than 5% reported that the trainings specically addressed
LGBTQ student issues (GLSEN & Harris Interactive, 2008).
Interestingly, however, principals reported that the
most helpful efforts for creating safe environments for
LGBT students would be professional development, clear
consequences for school personnel who do not intervene
when witnessing anti-LGBT harassment or homophobic re-
marks, and anti-harassment and anti-discrimination poli-
cies that explicitly protect LGBT students. These ndings
not only underscore that more pre-service and in-service
professional development is needed for school profession-
als on LGBT issues, but they also highlight the importance
of education for and advocacy with school administra-
tors, given their role in providing training for their staff.
Student-Led School Clubs (Gay-Straight Alliances)
Student-led, school-based organizations and clubs such
as gay-straight alliances (GSAs) have grown dramatically
in numbers in recent years. They serve several purposes
for students: education and safety, interpersonal sup-
port, leadership development, advocacy training, and
recreation (Grifn, Lee, Waugh, & Beyer, 2004). Through
GSAs students create a context for developing positive
attitudes towards themselves and others (Herdt, Russell,
Sweat, & Marzullo, 2007); GSAs have been described and
documented as a social space where marginalized youth
are empowered to critique and challenge dominant norms
for gender and sexuality (Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam,
& Laub, 2009). Multiple studies have shown that the pres-
ence of a GSA at school is linked to safety at school for
LGBTQ youth, as well as youth in general (Kosciw et al.,
2008; Lee, 2002; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004; Szalacha,
2003). Specically, students in schools with GSAs report
fewer homophobic remarks, less harassment and bullying
based on sexual orientation or gender identity, were less
likely to miss school because of feeling unsafe, and were
more likely to feel a sense of belonging to their school
environment (Kosciw et al., 2008). Further, several stud-
ies have shown that simply the presence of the GSA – not
necessarily participation in it – is associated with general
school safety (Goodenow et al., 2006; O’Shaughnessy et
al., 2004). In fact, Szalacha’s (2003) statewide study in
Massachusetts found that the presence of a GSA was the
most predictive factor in perceived school safety amongst
LGB and heterosexual students. For example, in schools
with GSAs, 52% of students reported that there were
faculty who were supportive of LGB students compared
to only 37% of students in schools without GSAs: 75% of
students in schools without GSAs reporting hearing anti-
gay slurs everyday compared to 57% of students in schools
with GSAs (Szalacha, 2003). Additionally, the study by
Horn and Szalacha (2009) provides some evidence that
schools with a GSA create a safer climate for students by
reducing sexual prejudice among heterosexual students
within the school context.
Access to LGBT-Related Resources and Curricula
A nal LGBTQ school safety strategy involves making
LGBTQ-related resources and support available for stu-
dents at school, and integrating LGBTQ topics into the
school curricula. Although most students in U.S. schools
report that they do not have access to LGBTQ resources
(Kosciw et al., 2008), a California study showed that

Social Policy Report V24 #4 12 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
when students report that they know where to go at school
for information and support about LGBTQ issues, they also
felt safer personally, and they perceived that their schools
were safer for LGBTQ and gender non-conforming stu-
dents, overall. They also reported more resilience factors
(e.g., perceptions that adults care, or that teachers treat
students fairly; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2004).
In addition to information and
support resources, several studies now
document the role of LGBTQ inclusive
or sensitive curriculum for promoting
positive school climate and student
well-being. California students who
reported that they learned about
LGBTQ issues at school said that their
schools were safer, and they reported
less teasing and social aggression and
less LGBTQ bullying (Russell, Kostroski,
McGuire, Laub, & Manke, 2006). Similar
to the results for GSAs, students in
a national study who reported hav-
ing learned about LGBTQ issues at
school reported hearing fewer LGBTQ
slurs, less LGBTQ victimization, more
safety, and more supportive conversa-
tions with teachers at school (Kosciw
et al., 2008). Finally, consistent with
the argument that LGBTQ curricular
inclusion could promote the health and
well-being of LGBTQ students (Lipkin,
1999), one study showed that teacher
sensitivity to gay issues in HIV educa-
tion has been linked to lower sexual
risk-taking for gay males (Blake, et al.,
2001). Finally, in two studies (one in California and the
other in Massachusetts), the inclusion of LGBTQ issues in
the curriculum has also been shown to explain differences
between schools in average number of reports of LGBTQ
bullying (Russell et al., 2006), and in perceived safety and
school diversity climate (Szalacha, 2003).
Why Resistance?
In light of these studies, an obvious question might be
why some schools, school districts, or policymakers do
not want or resist implementing the policy strategies
reviewed above. One simple explanation is homopho-
bia—yet the ways that heterosexism and homophobia
structure education systems and school environments
is complex, and beyond the scope of this paper, as one
must take into consideration the interplay among policies,
programs, the social environment of the school (Chesir-
Teran, 2003; Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009), and the com-
munity surrounding the school (Kosciw et al., 2009). With
few exceptions (Mayo, 2008), such resistance is not well
documented in the developmental science or education
literatures because it often remains unstated. Yet there
are clear examples in legal cases and
legislation. For example, several states
have education laws that prohibit the
positive portrayal of homosexuality in
schools, often colloquially referred to
as “no promo homo” laws.5 These laws
have been used to prevent access in
schools to young adult literature with
LGBTQ characters, and to limit inclu-
sion of LGBTQ topics in the formal cur-
riculum. Indeed, LGBTQ students from
states with “no promo homo” laws are
less likely to report having inclusive
curriculum and are less likely to report
having other positive LGBTQ-related
resources in their schools, such as hav-
ing supportive teachers, a Gay-Straight
Alliance or a comprehensive school
anti-harassment/assault policy (Kosciw
et al., 2008). Whereas about 40% of
students in states without “no promo
homo” laws had a GSA in their school,
only a quarter of students in states
with this type of law had GSAs. Thus,
these laws may contribute to a general
hostile school climate for LGBT stu-
dents: reports of victimization because
of sexual orientation or gender expression at school were
higher in states with such laws (Kosciw et al., 2008).
When implementing these policy strategies, school
administrators often face a common form of resistance:
the argument that these practices promote homosexuality
as an acceptable “lifestyle” and thus force students who
believe otherwise to change their beliefs or values. It is
argued that this infringes on students’ rights to adhere to
cultural or religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong
or sinful. However, there is good evidence to suggest that
students distinguish between their personal values and a
shared ethic of tolerance and inclusion (Horn, 2007; Horn
5 States that prohibit the positive portrayal of homosexuality in schools include:
Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas
and Utah.
… there is good
evidence to suggest
that students
distinguish between
their personal values
and a shared ethic
of tolerance and
inclusion …

Social Policy Report V24 #4 13 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
& Nucci, 2003). Also, there is compelling evidence that
most adolescents distinguish between their beliefs and
attitudes about homosexuality and their understanding
of the fair treatment of others. Across different samples,
between 50% and 80% of adolescents judged homosexu-
ality to be unacceptable, yet fewer than 10% believed
excluding a gay or lesbian peer was acceptable, and less
than 5% evaluated it as acceptable to tease or harass
someone because they were gay or lesbian (Horn, 2007;
Horn & Nucci, 2003). These data clearly suggest that
students can and do distinguish between their individual
beliefs about homosexuality and the fair treatment of
lesbian and gay individuals.
Conclusion
We began this Report with reference to the recent
high-prole cases of school LGBTQ-related violence:
the urgency for school safety policy is evident. We have
reviewed recent advances in understanding of LGBTQ
adolescents, and in knowledge of education strategies
(laws, policies, and practices) that promote school safety
for LGBTQ students. There is clear scientic consensus
that LGBTQ youth, particularly those in unsafe, unsup-
portive, and hostile environments, are a vulnerable group
with documented higher levels of negative behavioral,
physical, and mental health outcomes (Coker, Austin, &
Schuster, 2009). While it is important to acknowledge the
ways that an uncritical emphasis on risk may further stig-
matize LGBTQ young people by pathologizing them (see
Savin-Williams, 2005), research from multiple disciplines
and perspectives, based on multiple methods, and from
samples across the world continues to show that LGBTQ
youth, particularly those in unsafe and unsupportive
contexts, are a group that is at high risk for preventable
negative outcomes.
On the other hand, it is clear that young people
are coming out in larger numbers and at younger ages
(Cohler & Hammack, 2007; Floyd & Bakeman, 2006;
Saewyc, Poon, et al., 2007), they are resilient (Ham-
mack, Thompson, & Piecki, 2009; Nairn & Smith, 2003),
and in many instances they are advocating for and lead-
ing changes toward inclusive education (Miceli, 2005;
Russell, Muraco, Subramaniam, & Laub, 2009). Recent
research has begun to shift the focus from the individual
LGBTQ youth to the environments in which they are
growing up. We argue that there remains a compelling
need and scientic responsibility to understand how
the social contexts in which youth grow up—particularly
school—relate to risk factors as well as positive outcomes
among LGBTQ adolescents. Given that in the United
States and Canada every child has a legal right to an edu-
cation and to become a contributing member of society
as an adult, it is imperative that scholars and advocates
alike in the elds of education and human development
address issues of anti-LGBTQ behavior in schools and
examine how schools can be more afrming, safe spaces
for LGBTQ students. This knowledge will be essential for
informing federal, state, and district level school policy
innovation and change; it is for this reason that currently
proposed legislation on school safety is so important. n

Social Policy Report V24 #4 14 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
References
Almeida J., Johnson R. M., Corliss H. L., Molnar B. E., & Azrael D. (2009). Emotional distress among LGBT
youth: The inuence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth & Adoles-
cence, 38, 1001-1014. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9397-9
Berlan E. D., Corliss H. L., Field A. E., Goodman E., & Austin S. B. (2007). Sexual orientation and bullying in
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(2), S28.
Birkett M., Espelage D. L., & Koenig B. (2009). LGB and questioning students in schools: The moderating
effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 38, 989-1000.
Blake, S. M., Ledsky, R., Lehman, T., Goodenow, C., Sawyer, R., & Hack, T. (2001). Preventing sexual risk
behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: The benets of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in
schools. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 940-946.
Bontempo, D. E., & D’Augelli, A. R. (2002). Effects of at-school victimization and sexual orientation on
lesbian, gay, or bisexual youths’ health risk behavior. Journal of Adolescent Health, 30(5), 364-374.
doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(01)00415-3
Bos, H. M. W., Sandfort, T. G. M., de Bruyn, E. H., & Hakvoort E. M. (2008). Same-sex attraction, social
relationships, psychosocial functioning, and school performance in early adolescence. Developmental
Psychology, 44, 59-68. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.59
Busseri, M. A., Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Bogaert, A. F. (2008). On the association between sexual at-
traction and adolescent risk behavior involvement: Examining mediation and moderation. Developmental
Psychology, 44(1), 69-80. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.69
California Safe Schools Coalition. (2005). Safe schools research brief 1: District policies and trainings.
Retrieved from http://gsanetwork.org/les/resources/CSSC1-policies.pdf
Chesir-Teran, D. (2003). Conceptualizing and assessing heterosexism in high schools: A setting-level approach.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3-4), 267-279. doi:10.1023/A:1023910820994
Chesir-Teran, D., & Hughes, D. (2009). Heterosexism in high school and victimization among lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and questioning students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 963-975.
doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9364-x
Cohler, B. J., & Hammack, P. L. (2007). The psychological world of the gay teenager: Social change, narrative,
and “normality.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36(1), 47-59. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9110-1
Coker, T. R., Austin, S. B., & Schuster, M. A. (2009). Health and healthcare for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender youth: Reducing disparities through research, education, and practice. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45(3), 213-215. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.06.020
D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual
orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly,
17(2), 148-167. doi:10.1521/scpq.17.2.148.20854
Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B. W. (2008). Homophobic teasing, psychological out-
comes, and sexual orientation among high school students: What inuence do parents and schools have?
School Psychology Review, 37(2), 202-216.
Floyd, F. J., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Coming-out across the life course: Implications of age and historical con-
text. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(3), 287-296. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9022-x
Galambos, N. L., Almeida, D. M., & Petersen, A. C. (1990). Masculinity, femininity, and sex-role atti-
tudes in early adolescence—Exploring gender intensication. Child Development, 61(6), 1905-1914.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb03574.x
Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the
safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 573-589. doi:10.1002/pits.20173.
Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2010). Year one evaluation of the New York City Department of Education
Respect for All Training Program. New York: GLSEN.
Grifn, P., Lee, C., Waugh, J., & Beyer, C. (2004). Describing roles that gay-straight alliances play in schools:
From individual support to social change. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(3), 7-22.
doi:10.1300/J367v01n03_03
GLSEN. (2010a). Safe Schools Improvement Act – Action Kit. Retrieved from
http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/le/000/001/1518-1.PDF

Social Policy Report V24 #4 15 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
GLSEN. (2010b). Student Non-Discrimination Act – Action Sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-in/iowa/all/library/record/2522.html?state=policy&type=policy
GLSEN. (2010c). Enumeration: A tool for advocates. Retrieved from
http://www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/le/000/000/754-1.PDF
GLSEN & Harris Interactive. (2008). The principal’s perspective: School safety, bullying and harassment, a
survey of public school principals. New York: GLSEN.
Hammack, P. L., Thompson, E. M., & Piecki, A. (2009). Congurations of identity among sexual minority
youth: Context, desire, and narrative. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 867–883.
doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9342-3
Hansen, A. L. (2007). School-based support for GLBT students: A review of three levels of research. Psychol-
ogy in the Schools, 44(8), 839-848. doi:10.1002/pits.20269
Hansen, D. (2006, June 1). Gay activists win ght for ‘social justice’ class in schools: There was merit in what
they were suggesting, attorney-general says. Vancouver Sun, p. A1.
Harris Interactive & GLSEN. (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate in America, a survey of students
and teachers. New York: GLSEN.
Heinze, J. E., & Horn, S. S. (2009). Intergroup contact and beliefs about homosexuality in adolescence. Jour-
nal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 937-951. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9408-x
Herdt, G., Russell, S. T., Sweat, J., & Marzullo, M. (2007). Sexual inequality, youth empowerment, and the
GSA: A community study in California. In N. Teunis & G. Herdt (Eds.), Sexual inequalities (pp. 233-252).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Herek, G., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men: Results
from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239-244.
Hershberger, S. L., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the mental health and suicidality
of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental Psychology, 31(1), 65-74.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.65
Horn, S. S. (2006). Heterosexual students’ attitudes and beliefs about same-sex sexuality and the treatment
of gay, lesbian, and gender non-conforming youth. Cognitive Development, 21, 420-440.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.06.007
Horn, S. S. (2007). Leaving lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students behind: Schooling, sexuality, and
rights. In C. Wainryb, J. Smetana, & E. Turiel (Eds.), Social development, social inequalities & social
justice (pp. 131-153). Mahwaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Horn, S. S. (2010). Contemporary attitudes about sexual orientation. In C. Patterson & A. D’Augelli (Eds.), The
handbook for the psychology of sexual orientation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Horn, S. S., & Gregory, E. L. (June, 2005). Preventing anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender violence
in schools: Models for best practice. (Technical Report). Coalition for Education on Sexual Orientation,
Violence Prevention for Vulnerable Youth Project, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Adminis-
tration grant # 4 U79 SM54979-02-2.
Horn, S. S., Kosciw, J. G., & Russell, S. T. (2009). New research on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
youth: Studying lives in context. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 863-866.
doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9420-1
Horn, S. S., & Nucci, L. (2003). The multidimensionality of adolescents’ beliefs about and attitudes toward
gay and lesbian peers in school. Equity and Excellence in Education, 36, 136-147.
Horn, S. S., & Szalacha, L. A. (2009). School differences in heterosexual students’ attitudes about homosexu-
ality and prejudice based on sexual orientation. European Journal of Developmental Sciences, 3, 66-81.
Human Rights Watch. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bi-
sexual, and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York: Human Rights Watch.
Hurley, M. (2005). Sexual orientation and legal rights: A chronological overview. PRB 04-13E. Ottawa: Library
of Parliament. Revised September 2005.
Kosciw, J. G., Diaz, E. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2008). 2007 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: GLSEN.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., & Diaz, E. M. (2009). Who, what, where, when, and why: Demographic and eco-
logical factors contributing to hostile school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 976-988. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9412-1

Social Policy Report V24 #4 16 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Lee, C. (2002). The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High School Journal,
85(3), 13-26. doi:10.1353/hsj.2002.0005
Lipkin, A. (1999). Understanding homosexuality, changing schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Macgillivray, I. K., & Jennings, T. (2008). A content analysis exploring lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
topics in foundations of education textbooks. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(2), 170-188.
doi: 10.1177/0022487107313160
Marshal, M. P., Friedman, M. S., Stall, R., King, K. M., Miles, J., Gold, M. A., … Morse, J. Q. (2008). Sexual
orientation and adolescent substance use: A meta-analysis and methodological review. Addiction, 103,
546-556. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02149.x
Martin, A. D., & Hetrick, E. S. (1988). The stigmatization of the gay and lesbian adolescent. Journal of Homo-
sexuality, 15, 163-183. doi:10.1300/J082v15n01_12.
Mayo, C. (2008). Obscene associations: Gay-straight alliances, the equal access act, and abstinence-only
policy. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 5(2), 45-55. doi:10.1525/srsp.2008.5.2.45
Meininger, E., Saewyc, E., Skay, C., Clark, T., Poon, C., Robinson, E. … Homma, Y. (2007). Enacted stigma
and HIV risk behaviors in sexual minority youth of European heritage across three countries. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 40, S27.
Miceli, M. (2005). Standing out, standing together: The social and political impact of gay-straight alliances.
New York: Routledge.
Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjustment in lesbian, gay,
and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-centered analyses. Psychology in the Schools,
42(2), 159-172. doi:10.1002/pits.20054
Nairn, K., & Smith, A. B. (2003). Taking students seriously: Their rights to be safe at school. Gender and Edu-
cation. 15(2), 133–149. doi:10.1080/09540250303853
O’Shaughnessy, M., Russell, S. T., Heck, K., Calhoun, C., & Laub, C. (2004). Safe place to learn: Consequences of
harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender non-conformity and steps for mak-
ing schools safer. San Francisco: California Safe Schools Coalition and 4-H Center for Youth Development.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Poon, C., & Saewyc, E. (2009). ‘Out’ yonder: Sexual minority youth in rural and small town areas of British
Columbia. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 118-124. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.122945
Poteat, V. P. (2008). Contextual and moderating effects of the peer group climate on use of homophobic epi-
thets. School Psychology Review, 37(2), 188-201.
Poteat, V. P., Espelage, D. L., & Koenig, B. W. (2009). Willingness to remain friends and attend school with
lesbian and gay peers: Relational expressions of prejudice among heterosexual youth. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 38(7), 952-962. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9416-x
Remafedi, G., Farrow, J. A., & Deisher, R.W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in gay and bisexual
youth. Pediatrics, 87(6), 869-875.
Rivers, I. (2001). The bullying of sexual minorities at school: Its nature and long-term correlates. Educational
& Child Psychology, 18(1), 32-46.
Russell, S. T. (2002). Queer in America: Citizenship for sexual minority youth. Applied Developmental Science,
6(4), 258-263. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0604_13
Russell, S. T. (2005). Beyond risk: Resilience in the lives of sexual minority youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian
Issues in Education, 2(3), 5-18.
Russell, S. T., Kostroski, O., McGuire, J. K., Laub, C., & Manke, E. (2006). LGBT issues in the curriculum pro-
motes school safety. (California Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief #4). San Francisco: California Safe
Schools Coalition.
Russell, S. T., & McGuire, J. K. (2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
students. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Changing schools and community organizations to foster
positive youth development (pp. 133-158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Russell, S. T., Muraco, A., Subramaniam, A., & Laub, C. (2009). Youth empowerment and high school gay-
straight alliances. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(7), 891-903. doi:10.1007/10964-008-9382-8

Social Policy Report V24 #4 17 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States:
Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence. Special Issue: Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth,
24(1), 111-127. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0365
Russell, S. T., Talmage, C., Laub, C., & Manke, E. (2009). The economic costs of bullying at school. (California
Safe Schools Coalition Research Brief #5). San Francisco: California Safe Schools Coalition.
Ryan, C., & Futterman, D. (1998). Gay and lesbian youth: Care and counseling. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health
outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123(1), 346-352.
Saewyc, E. M., Homma, Y., Skay, C. L., Bearinger, L. H., Resnick, M. D., & Reis, E. (2009). Protective factors
in the lives of bisexual adolescents in North America. American Journal of Public Health, 99(1), 110-117.
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.123109
Saewyc, E. M., Poon, C., Homma, Y., & Skay C. L. (2008). Stigma management? The links between enacted
stigma and teen pregnancy trends among gay, lesbian and bisexual students in British Columbia. Canadian
Journal of Human Sexuality, 17(3), 123-131.
Saewyc, E., Poon, C., Wang, N., Homma, Y., Smith, A., & the McCreary Centre Society. (2007). Not yet equal:
The health of lesbian, gay, & bisexual youth in BC. Vancouver, BC: McCreary Centre Society. ISBN #: 978-
1-895438-84-5.
Saewyc, E., Richens, K., Skay, C. L., Reis, E., Poon, C., & Murphy, A. (2006). Sexual orientation, sexual abuse,
and HIV-risk behaviors among adolescents in the Pacic Northwest. American Journal of Public Health,
96(6), 1104-1110.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2005.065870
Saewyc, E. M., Skay, C. L., Hynds, P., Pettingell, S., Bearinger, L. H., Resnick, M. D., & Reis, E. (2007). Suicidal
ideation and attempts among adolescents in North American school-based surveys: Are bisexual youth at
increasing risk? Journal of LGBT Health Research, 3(2), 25-36. PubMedCentral ID#: PMC2645066.
Saewyc, E. M., Singh, N., Reis, E., & Flynn, T. (2000). Intersections of gender, racial, and orientation harass-
ment in school and associated health risks among adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 26, 148.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2005). The new gay teenager. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smyser, M., & Reis, B. (2002). Bullying and bias-based harassment in King County schools. Public Health
Data Watch, 5(2), August 2002, Seattle-King County Public Health. Available at
http://www.metrokc.gov/health/datawatch/
Swearer, S.M., Turner, R.K., Givens, J.E., & Pollack, W.S. (2008). “You’re So Gay!”: Do different forms of bul-
lying matter for adolescent males? School Psychology Review, 37, 160-173.
Szalacha, L. A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an evaluation of Massachu-
setts safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. American Journal of Education, 110, 58-88.
doi:10.1086/377673
Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R., Card, N. A., & Russell, S. T. (In press). Gender nonconforming lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender youth: School victimization and young adult psychosocial adjustment. Develop-
mental Psychology.
Valentine, S. E. (2008). Queer kids: A comprehensive annotated legal bibliography on lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and questioning youth. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 19, 449-453.
Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig W. (2003). Questioning and sexual minority adolescents: high
school experiences of bullying, sexual harassment, and physical abuse. Canadian Journal of Community
Mental Health, 22, 47-58.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 18 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Commentary
Understanding the Changing Nature of Identity in
LGBTQ Youth Research
Ian Rivers
Brunel University, UK
The challenge faced by
any author attempting
to make sense of almost
four decades of research
with sexual minority
youth lies in trying to
provide readers with a coherent story.
As our understanding of the experi-
ences of these youth has developed,
we have also witnessed social and po-
litical change that has provided young
people who identify as other than
heterosexual with opportunities to ex-
plore their sexuality in different ways.
From early research focusing upon
young people described as ‘lesbian
and gay’, we have witnessed changes
in the collective acronym for sexual
minority youth that include those who
identify as bisexual (LGB), those who
are transgender (LGBT), and those
who describe themselves as ‘queer’
and ‘questioning’ (LGBTQ). Method-
ologically this evolution in our under-
standing of the multiple identities that
can exist within human sexual orienta-
tion brings with it questions relating
to the historical coherence of this
research, the continuities and dis-
continuities that exist in terms of its
application to sexual minority youth
today, and, ultimately, the robust-
ness of the data. Are studies that
purport to show the challenges faced
by lesbian and gay youth also appli-
cable to those youth who identify as
bisexual, transgender, questioning,
or queer?
Today we acknowledge that the
challenges experienced by transgender
youth differ from those experienced
by youth who identify as LGB or Q
(questioning). Concomitantly, we have
also come to realize that many of the
difculties gay and lesbian youth face
growing up also have resonance for
those who identify as bisexual, and
those who openly question their sexual
orientation. However, challenges re-
main in demonstrating the ecological
validity of some of this research. For
example, many early studies relied
upon retrospective reports where
adults were asked to reect upon their
experiences of growing up lesbian, gay,
or bisexual. While we now have several
excellent prospective studies con-
ducted with youth who are open about
their sexual orientation or transgender
status, it is only with the advent of
the internet that we have been able
to access those youth who feel unable
to disclose their sexual orientation
or gender variance and understand
the challenges they face. Finally, in
terms of developmental science, we
have yet to create models or theories
depicting the typical development of
LGBTQ youth who grow up free from
fear and discrimination. Today LGBTQ
youth continue to be denied culturally
avowed opportunities to explore and
achieve those relationship milestones
we typically expect of heterosexual
youth (e.g., dating) without engaging
in subterfuge, or opening themselves
up to risk.
And ‘queer’ youth? The term
‘queer’ can be found in much of the lit-
erature on sexual minority youth and is
increasingly used interchangeably with
LGBT (Talburt, 2010). However ‘queer’
is also an identity used by those who
do not wish to limit themselves to the
gender binaries of male and female,
or indeed the limitations imposed by
LGB orientations. Some describe it
as liberating although historically it
is grounded in notions of abnormality
and stigmatization (Saltzburg & Davis,
2010). It is, in essence, about being a
person rather than a sexual or gen-
dered object. For some youth it signi-
es a spiritual as well a multi-sexual
and non-gendered ‘plastic’ identity
shaped experientially rather than by
those socially dened roles many of
us accept and adopt in life. For some
scholars, ‘queer’ cannot be dened and
has to be accepted as something that is
unstable with multiple means
of expression.
LGBTQ youth research is dy-
namic and ever-evolving. Inevitably,
as young people are afforded greater
opportunities to construct their
own identities, it is incumbent upon
researchers and policy makers to nd
new ways of engaging with and under-
standing those identities.
References
Saltzburg, S., & Davis, T. S. (2010).Co-
authoring gender-queer youth identi-
ties: Discursive tellings and retellings.
Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity
in Social Work, 19, 87-108.
Talburt, S. (2010). Constructions of LGBT
youth: Opening up subject positions.
Theory into Practice, 43, 116-121.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 19 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Commentary
Safe Schools Policies
Necessary but not Sufcient for Creating
Positive School Environments for LGBTQ Students
Susan M. Swearer
University of Nebraska—Lincoln
In this issue of Social Policy
Report, authors Russell,
Kosciw, Horn, and Saewyc
review the research on LGBTQ
youth and illuminate a funda-
mental challenge facing re-
searchers, educators, students, fami-
lies, and policymakers. They write
that “homophobia
and LGBTQ preju-
dice are daily
experiences” (p.
3) and that the
challenge facing
educators is to
“design supportive
school climates
that promote the
positive development of
LGBTQ and all students” (p. 3). There
exists in this country and in many
countries around the world a huge
gulf between acceptance of LGBTQ
individuals and creating supportive
school and work environments for
all individuals. The reality is that in
many communities and schools there
is a profound intolerance for LGBTQ
youth, in particular, and for people
who are perceived as different from
the normative culture (Swearer,
Turner, Givens, & Pollack, 2008). The
question of the day becomes, can
safe school policies really change the
climate that promotes and supports
homophobic beliefs?
In the past decade research on
bullying has exponentially increased
in the U.S. and world-wide. Current-
ly, forty-three states have passed
anti-bullying legislation that ranges
from mandating prevention and
intervention programming, assess-
ment of bullying, and consequences
for bullying (Espelage & Swearer, in
press). The proliferation of anti-
bullying policies is a result of the
increased evidence-base regarding
the association between bully-
ing and negative mental health,
health, and academic consequences
(Swearer, Espelage, & Napolitano,
2009). However, will increased
legislative attention translate to
better protection and support for
LGBTQ and all students?
In 2003, we asserted that bul-
lying should be examined “within
special populations such as GLBT
youth, students in special educa-
tion, and ethnically diverse youth”
(Espelage & Swearer, 2003, p. 378).
In the past decade research on bul-
lying has focused on consequences
of bullying and forms of bullying.
Less research has addressed bullying
among and toward specic groups of
students. A paucity of research has
examined the complex social-ecolog-
ical inuences on bullying. Research
has suggested
that individuals
are bullied be-
cause they are
different from
the norm. These
differences are
idiosyncratic to
the norms of the
community and
the school. How do educators rise to
the challenge of teaching tolerance
and respect for differences when
perceived differences fuel engage-
ment in bullying behaviors? Will
these federal policies trickle down
to the individual school level and
help change the climate that sup-
ports the oppression and harassment
of LGBTQ students and students who
are perceived as different?
The hope is that federal poli-
cies will provide the foundation that
will change homophobic beliefs,
increase support toward LGBTQ stu-
dents, and inuence state and local
policymakers. Hopefully, this social
policy report will serve as a catalyst
Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to
one’s own beliefs. Rather it condemns the
oppression or persecution of others.
—John F. Kennedy

Social Policy Report V24 #4 20 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
for research on the complex relation-
ship between homophobia and school
and community environments. Social
mores and norms in communities and
schools inuence policies, programs,
and the culture of neighborhoods,
schools, and communities. Research
on bullying, harassment, and LGBTQ
students has guided policy makers to
provide specic protection for LGBTQ
students in schools. This is vital for
creating safe schools for all students.
Future research can guide our under-
standing of the complex relationship
between policies and attitudinal
change and behavior. Creating safe
and supportive schools for all stu-
dents is critical for the well-being of
future generations.
Federal, state, and local poli-
cies are necessary for changing the
culture of bullying toward students;
however, they are not sufcient for
changing the culture of homopho-
bia that pervades many schools and
communities. In the nal analysis,
bullying toward LGBTQ students and
all students will only cease when
we as a society have successfully
educated a generation of youth who
truly accept, support, and respect
differences.
References
Espelage, D. L., & Swearer, S. M.
(2003). Research on school bullying
and victimization: What have we
learned and where do we go from
here? School Psychology Review, 32,
365-383.
Espelage, D. L, & Swearer, S.M. (in
press). Bullying in North American
schools. UK: Routledge
Swearer, S. M., Espleage, D. L., &
Napolitano, S. A. (2009). Bullying
prevention and intervention: Realis-
tic strategies for schools. New York:
The Guilford Press.
Swearer, S. M., Turner, R. K., Givens, J.
E., & Pollack, W. S. (2008). “You’re
so gay!”: Do different forms of bul-
lying matter for adolescent males?
School Psychology Review, 37,
160-173.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 21 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
As this issue of
Social Policy
Report makes
painfully appar-
ent, harassment
and discrimina-
tion against LGBTQ students is all
too prevalent in our schools today,
sometimes with devastating con-
sequences. New York State is no
exception. The need to work toward
creating a safe environment free of
harassment for our schoolchildren is
only growing.
However, I am proud to say
that this year New York has nally
taken up the problem. After its
ninth consecutive passage in the
New York State Assembly since
2002, the Dignity for All Students
Act (DASA) nally passed the State
Senate and was signed into law by
the Governor in September 2010.
DASA will require public schools
in New York to combat bias-based
bullying and harassment through a
variety of means.
As noted in this article, DASA
enumerates specic categories for
protection from “harassment and
discrimination,” most relevantly,
“actual or perceived… sexual orien-
tation, gender, or sex” (NYS Assem-
bly Bill 3661C). This list was created
to explicitly recognize those catego-
ries with the dubious distinction of
being the most frequently-targeted
characteristics.
To ensure this legislation
would be both effective and pass
both houses of the NYS Legislature,
I worked closely with the New York
State Department of Education, a
coalition of advocacy organizations,
and my colleagues to rewrite the
legislation over the years to have a
minimal scal impact that will be
easily implemented, more likely to
accomplish its intended effect, and
more inclusive. To this end, DASA
was designed to build off of proce-
dures already in place in schools,
taking advantage of already-existing
expertise, and thus reducing the
ability of legislators to hide behind
cost as a reason for opposition. Ad-
ditionally, while DASA does enumer-
ate protected categories, the bill
also makes clear it does not exclude
students being bullied for other
reasons—another sticking point on
the bill.
As is true for all legislative
efforts—and DASA was no excep-
tion—facts and statistics regarding
the topic at hand are always useful
tools for garnering support and win-
ning passage. Without such informa-
tion, it is far easier for legislators
to rely on ill-informed viewpoints
and biases to oppose a particular
piece of legislation. However, when
such individuals are faced with hard
facts, it becomes much more dif-
cult for them to fall back on these
preconceived notions and forces a
confrontation of their own preju-
dices. Statistics and well-reasoned
conclusions are always good ammu-
nition for any legislative battle.
While anti-bullying legislation
is not an end-all cure for this prob-
lem in our schools, I believe that
DASA was a necessary and important
rst step toward preventing harass-
ment and discrimination against
LGBTQ and other vulnerable stu-
dents. Too many students today are
bullied based on real or perceived
differences with their classmates,
and as this article makes clear,
changes in policy can have sig-
nicant, positive results. With
this knowledge, we cannot sit idly
by without attempting to change
our laws. All students deserve a
harassment-free environment that
encourages them to reach their full
potential.
Commentary
The Dignity for All Students Act
Daniel O’Donnell
New York State Assembly

Social Policy Report V24 #4 22 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Commentary
We’re Not Doing Enough
Marko Liias
Washington State Representative
We can all
remember
classic sit-
coms about
American
families.
In every one, there is at least one
episode about a bully. I can still
remember the Brady Bunch episode
where the mean bully, Buddy Hinton,
teases poor little Cindy. Like all sit-
coms, there is conict, but every-
thing works out and there is always a
happy ending.
Today, we understand that
school harassment, intimidation and
bullying is much different than these
classic images. Fights are no longer
about lunch money, they are about
the very basic characteristics of our
students, and bullies use the ubiquity
of technology to harass and intimi-
date their victims 24 hours a day.
As the authors of this issue of
Social Policy Report document, the
impacts of this behavior can be dev-
astating. Victims of school bullying
and harassment struggle to perform
in the classroom, and fall behind
their classmates. Many face emotion-
al and psychological stress that turns
into on-going mental health chal-
lenges. In the most extreme cases,
these victims try to take their own
lives, and a few succeed.
Simply put, we’re not doing
enough to prevent harassment, in-
timidation and bullying in our schools.
What’s not simple is how to
confront the problems our kids are
experiencing in classrooms and hall-
ways across the state. Society is fail-
ing both the bully and the victim by
allowing intimidation and harassment
to interfere with their education.
For this reason, in 2010, I
sponsored a new state law designed
to strengthen and expand exist-
ing state-mandated anti-bullying
policies in local schools. This is our
state’s rst step in a renewed effort
to tackle bullying.
Currently, every school dis-
trict in Washington is required to
adopt a general policy on school
harassment, intimidation and bul-
lying. What isn’t required is a clear
and specic plan for how to report
and respond to bullying.
Data show that in many parts
of the state, local school boards
have adopted policies, but these
policies have been too general and
have failed to translate into action
at a school or student level.
The new law requires a more
rigorous and comprehensive policy,
along with the adoption of specic
procedures for receiving and address-
ing complaints. The law also requires
that each school district identify a
specic individual responsible for as-
suring implementation of the policy.
Our state’s approach is not
conned to one subset of students.
We know that LGBTQ youth are
clearly victims of bullying, but so
are children of color, children with
disabilities, and in some cases,
children are victimized without any
clear reason.
The coalition we have con-
structed, both among community
members and policymakers, has been
strengthened by our broad-based
strategy that focuses on all students.
Asking our schools to create
clear and specic plans is just the
rst step. We need to change the
climate in our schools, and that will
take time and investment. Bullying
is a complicated issue and when it
comes to changing the attitudes of
students and school personnel, we
have a lot of conversations that need
to take place rst. These are areas
where we certainly could use some
good research.
Moving forward, I intend to
use legislative action to pull togeth-
er an ongoing workgroup to exam-
ine the implementation of the new
state law and tackle the broader
issue of prevention.
Without better teacher prepa-
ration, curricular changes, and
cultural shifts in our schools, our
approach will continue to be reac-
tive. This current approach ensures
that students are victimized before
appropriate action is taken. I look
forward to a day when tolerance
and respect are the norm in our
classrooms and school hallways,
not the exception.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 23 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
About the Authors
Marko Liias represents the 21st Legislative District in the
Washington State House of Representatives, a suburban
district north of Seattle which includes the cities of Ed-
monds, Lynnwood and Mukilteo. Rep. Liias was appointed
to the House in January 2008, and elected to a full term
in November. He is currently the youngest member of the
Washington State Legislature and was the prime sponsor
of House Bill 2801, regarding antiharassment strategies
in public schools. He currently serves as Vice Chair of the
House Transportation Committee and he is also a mem-
ber of the Agriculture & Natural Resources, Community
& Economic Development & Trade, Education, and Rules
Committees. Rep. Liias is a graduate of Georgetown Uni-
versity and completed graduate coursework at the Evans
School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.
Daniel J. O’Donnell represents the 69th District in the
New York State Assembly, a Manhattan district which
includes Morningside Heights, Manhattan Valley, and
portions of the Upper West Side and West Harlem. When
elected in 2002, O’Donnell was the rst openly gay man
elected to the Assembly. He was the Assembly’s prime
sponsor of the Dignity for All Students Act. He currently
serves as the Chair of the Ethics and Guidance Commit-
tee, and the Chair of the Codes Subcommittee on Crimi-
nal Procedures. His Standing Committee Assignments
include: Codes; Judiciary; Education; Environmental Con-
servation; Tourism, Parks, Arts and Sports; and Oversight,
Analysis & Investigation.
Ian Rivers, Ph.D., is Professor of Human Development
at Brunel University in London, UK. He is a Chartered
Psychologist (CPsychol) and a registered Health Psychol-
ogist. He received his doctoral degree in Developmental
Psychology from the University of Surrey (Roehamp-
tion Institute London). Prior to joining Brunel, he held
personal chairs in applied and community psychology at
York St John University and Queen Margaret University
Edinburgh. He is a fellow of the American Psychological
Association and of the British Psychological Society. Ian
is the author of a new book entitled, Homophobic Bul-
lying: Research and Theoretical Perspectives, published
by Oxford University Press.
Stacey S. Horn, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Educa-
tional and Developmental Psychology in the Department
of Educational Psychology and Program Director for the
M.Ed. program in Youth Development at University of Il-
linois at Chicago. Her research focuses on issues of sexual
prejudice among adolescents and adolescents’ reasoning
about peer harassment. Stacey is on the Editorial Board
for the Journal of Youth and Adolescence, International
Journal of Behavioral Development, and the Journal of
Gay and Lesbian Youth, serves on the governing board of
the Jean Piaget Society and is immediate past-chair of
the Governing Board for the Illinois Safe Schools Alliance.
She is a past recipient of the Wayne F. Placek Award from
the American Psychological Foundation (2002). She is a
former high school English teacher and has worked with
young people for over 20 years.
Joseph G. Kosciw, Ph.D., is the Director of Research at
GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
He trained as a family therapist and has worked as a
school counselor and psychoeducational consultant in ele-
mentary and secondary schools. His research has focused
on evaluation and program development of community-
based initiatives for LGBT adolescents and adults regard-
ing health and well-being, community effects on family
processes, and the family school connection. GLSEN
Research focuses on understanding the school experi-
ences of all students, specically as they are related to
issues regarding sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression, the school experiences of LGBT parents, per-
ceptions of educators and school administrators regarding
school climate, and the utility of school- and community-
based efforts regarding bullying and harassment.

Social Policy Report V24 #4 24 Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students
Stephen T. Russell, Ph.D., is Professor and Fitch Nes-
bitt Endowed Chair in Family and Consumer Sciences in
the John & Doris Norton School of Family and Consumer
Sciences at the University of Arizona, and Director of
the Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth,
and Families. Stephen conducts research on cultural
inuences on parent-adolescent relationships, ado-
lescent sexuality, and the health and development of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth.
He received a Wayne F. Placek Award from the American
Psychological Foundation (2000), was a William T. Grant
Foundation Scholar (2001-2006), a board member of the
National Council on Family Relations (2005-2008), and
was elected as a member of the International Academy
of Sex Research in 2004. He is President-Elect of the
Society for Research on Adolescence.
Elizabeth Saewyc, Ph.D., P.H.N., RN, holds one of 17
national Chairs in Applied Public Health in Canada, hers
focused on adolescent health; she is Professor of Nurs-
ing and Adolescent Medicine, at the University of British
Columbia and Research Director of the McCreary Centre
Society in Vancouver. Her research focuses on health is-
sues of youth, with a particular emphasis on understand-
ing the links between stigma, violence, and trauma,
how these inuence teens’ coping and risk behaviours,
and the protective factors in relationships and environ-
ments that can inuence the health of vulnerable young
people. The particular groups of young people include
sexual minority youth (gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans-
gender teens), homeless and runaway youth, sexually-
abused and sexually-exploited teens, pregnant and
parenting adolescents, youth in custody, and indigenous
young people in Canada and other countries.
Susan M. Swearer, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of
School Psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
She is the principal investigator on the Target Bullying:
Ecologically-Based Prevention and Intervention project
(www.targetbully.com) and has a long-standing track
record working with schools and districts nationwide to
reduce bullying behaviors. Over the past decade she has
collected data and conducted staff training in elemen-
tary, middle, and high schools, with the goal of helping
school personnel establish cost-effective and data-based
strategies to reduce bullying behaviors. She has authored
over 100 book chapters and articles on the topics of
bullying, depression, and anxiety in school-aged youth.
As a licensed psychologist, she is the co-director of the
Nebraska Internship Consortium in Professional Psychol-
ogy and is a supervising psychologist in the Child and
Adolescent Therapy Clinic at UNL.

Social Policy Report is a quarterly publication of the Society for Research
in Child Development. The Report provides a forum for scholarly reviews
and discussions of development research and its implications for the poli-
cies affecting children. Copyright of the articles published in the SPR is
maintained by SRCD. Statements appearing in the SPR are the views of the
author(s) and do not imply endorsement by the Editors or by SRCD.
Purpose
Social Policy Report (ISSN 1075-7031) is published four times a year by
the Society for Research in Child Development. Its purpose is twofold:
(1) to provide policymakers with objective reviews of research ndings
on topics of current national interest, and (2) to inform the SRCD mem-
bership about current policy issues relating to children and about the
state of relevant research.
Content
The Report provides a forum for scholarly reviews and discussions of devel-
opmental research and its implications for policies affecting children. The
Society recognizes that few policy issues are noncontroversial, that authors
may well have a “point of view,” but the SPR is not intended to be a ve-
hicle for authors to advocate particular positions on issues. Presentations
should be balanced, accurate, and inclusive. The publication nonetheless
includes the disclaimer that the views expressed do not necessarily reect
those of the Society or the editors.
Procedures for Submission and Manuscript Preparation
Articles originate from a variety of sources. Some are solicited, but authors
interested in submitting a manuscript are urged to propose timely topics
to the lead editor (slodom@unc.edu). Manuscripts vary in length ranging
from 20 to 30 pages of double-spaced text (approximately 8,000 to 14,000
words) plus references. Authors are asked to submit manuscripts electroni-
cally, if possible, but hard copy may be submitted with disk. Manuscripts
should adhere to APA style and include text, references, and a brief bio-
graphical statement limited to the author’s current position and special
activities related to the topic.
Reviews are typically obtained from academic or policy specialists with
relevant expertise and different perspectives. Authors then make revisions
based on these reviews and the editors’ queries, working closely with the
editors to arrive at the nal form for publication.
The Committee on Policy & Communications which founded the Social Policy
Report, serves as an advisory body to all activities related to its publication.