Content uploaded by Alex Espinoza-Kulick
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alex Espinoza-Kulick on Nov 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
The importance of teacher support: Differential impacts by
gender and sexuality
Adrienne B. Dessel
a
, Alex Kulick
b
, Laura J. Wernick
c
,
*
, Daniel Sullivan
c
a
Program on Intergroup Relations, University of Michigan, United States
b
Sociology, University of California Santa Barbara, United States
c
Graduate School of Social Service, Fordham University, United States
article info
Article history:
Received 16 August 2016
Received in revised form 30 January 2017
Accepted 5 February 2017
Available online 21 February 2017
Keywords:
Teachers
LGBTQ students
School climate
Self-esteem
Academic achievement
Gender
abstract
Teachers play an important role in shaping the experiences of high school students with
regard to patterns of heteronormativity and binary gender norms, particularly for lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) students. A climate survey of high
school students (n¼953) in the United States examined the association between students'
well-being and their relationships with teachers. The sample was majority white (65.8%)
and multiracial (14.1%). Cisgender (cis)-girls (49.6%), cis-boys (41.2%), and trans students
(9.2%), as well as heterosexual (78.4%) and LGBQ students (21.6%) were represented.
Regression models indicate teachers' use of oppressive language and their intervention in
situations of bias and students' trust and comfort with teachers were significantly asso-
ciated with students' self-esteem. Teachers' use of biased language was directly associated
with student self-reported grades. Moderation tests indicate teacher relationships are
strongly associated with heterosexual and cisgender students' wellbeing. Recommenda-
tions for teacher education and future research are discussed.
©2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Negative school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and similarly identified (LGBTQ) youth continues to
be a serious concern for communities and educators. Schools often mirror and reproduce inequalities through hetero-
normativity and binary gender systems that make up larger societal norms. Heteronormativity is the set of assumptions that
privilege traditional gender roles and heterosexual orientations (Jackson, 2006; Oswald, Blume, &Marks, 2005; Toomey,
McGuire, &Russell, 2012). School culture and climate, including policies and practices, reinforce this norm in many ways,
including normative assumptions of heterosexualityembedded in language and evident in curricular materials that reinforce
this conclusion (Watson &Miller, 2012). These beliefs unequally distribute advantages for students who are gender con-
forming and heterosexual, including a sense of being normal and valued (Reynolds &Bamford, 2016). Students who express
diverse gender and sexual identities often experience bullying, harassment, and microaggressions that communicate stigma
and lower status (Aspenlieder, Buchanan, McDougall, &Sippola, 2009; Pascoe, 2007; Reynolds &Bamford, 2016; Wyss, 2004).
Teachers are faced with the difficult but important task of challenging these oppressive structures and rethinking educational
practices (Dessel, 2010a, 2010b; Grace &Wells, 2007), including enabling gender fluidity and mobility, as well as sexual self-
determination. The focus of this paper is to examine the association between students' well-being and their relationships
with teachers in order to understand what teachers can contribute to improving student well-being.
*Corresponding author.
E-mail address: lwernick@fordham.edu (L.J. Wernick).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Adolescence
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jado
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.02.002
0140-1971/©2017 The Foundation for Professionals in Services for Adolescents. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144
Anti-LGBTQ discrimination can engender significant negative impacts on the physical, psychosocial, and educational
outcomes for LGBTQ youth compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. They may experience dissolution of
friendships due to their sexuality (Poteat, Espelage, &Koenig, 2009) and peer victimization, such as increased bullying, sexual
harassment, and violence (Goodenow, Szalacha, &Westheimer, 2006; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, &Boesen, 2014; Williams,
Connolly, Pepler, &Craig, 2005). These forms of victimization are associated with lower self-esteem and grade point
average (GPA), and higher incidence of truancy (Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, &Greytak, 2013; Kosciw et al., 2014). As well, due to the
victimization and lack of support, LGBTQ youth experience specific forms and greater rates of depression (Almeida, Johnson,
Corliss, Molnar, &Azrael, 2009; Galliher, Rostosky, &Hughes, 2004; Williams et al., 2005), externalizing symptoms (Williams
et al., 2005), alcohol and marijuana use, suicide attempts, and suicidal ideation (Almeida et al., 2009; Birkett, Espelage, &
Koenig, 2009; Goodenow et al., 2006; Mueller, James, Abrutyn, &Levin, 2015; Silenzio, Pena, Duberstein, Cerel, &Knox,
2007). These indicators of marginalization are highest among transgender youth and queer/trans youth of color, who face
compounding oppressions arising from the racialized and sexual policing of gender norms (Grady, Marquez, &McLaren, 2012;
Wernick, Kulick, Dessel, &Graham, 2016; Wernick, Kulick, &Inglehart, 2014).
A positive school climate and a sense of belonging is important for students (Birkett et al., 2009; Dessel, 2010a; Heck,
Flentje, &Cochran, 2013), and it can buffer the adverse effects of homophobia and heterosexism on LGBTQ youth
(Szalacha, 2004). A positive and welcoming school climate is associated with decreased teasing, truancy, and alcohol and
marijuana use (Birkett et al., 2009). A sense of school belonging is associated with feeling safe at school (Joyce, 2015), and the
existence of a school policy prohibiting bullying is associated with increased self-esteem (Kosciw et al., 2013) and a lesser
likelihood of attempting suicide (Goodenow et al., 2006). In schools that have curricula that depict sexual minorities posi-
tively, LGBT youth experience less victimization (Kosciw et al., 2013). However, LGB youth report a poorer school climate and a
lower sense of school belonging than heterosexual students (Birkett et al., 2009; Galliher et al., 2004; Joyce, 2015), with
lesbian or bisexual female students reported the lowest sense of school belonging. This may be due to these students
perceiving other students as prejudiced (Galliher et al., 2004; Joyce, 2015). This existing research highlights the dynamic
processes in schools and the challenges in changing school culture. Teachers play an important role in this process by using
their authority to sanction discriminatory behaviors and communicate symbolic norms of exclusion or acceptance (Wilson,
Griffin, &Wren, 2005).
1. Teacher support for LGBT youth
Teachers play an important role in creating, maintaining, and influencing a school's climate (Dessel, 2010a, Garnett et al.,
2014; Poteat &Vecho, 2015; Wernick et al., 2014). Teachers hold authoritative positions in classroom settings, a space where
they help develop and guide the language and behavior of students. Teachers also engage with students and school staff
outside of the classroom to create and enforce norms in shared spaces (Vega, Crawford, &Van Pelt, 2012). Positive re-
lationships with teachers can be protective for LGBT youth (Eisenberg &Resnick, 2006; Saewyc et al., 2009). For instance,
teachers can interrupt bias, model ways to counter bullying, and work directly as a supportive ally for LGBT youth (Vega,
Crawford, Pelt, &J.-L, 2012; Wernick, Kulick &Inglehart, 2013; Wernick et al., 2014). This involves challenging the fixed
binary categories of gender and sexual orientation in course content and in everyday speech (Toomey et al., 2012). As
members of the dominant groups, teachers who identify as heterosexual and cisgender can be particularly influential by using
their position to act as allies for LGBTQ students and modeling supportive behaviors for heterosexual/cisgender students who
may be more likely to identify with and listen to these teachers (Vega et al., 2012).
While teachers can and do work to support students, some may perpetuate harassment and other heteronormative be-
haviors intentionally or unintentionally, arising from socio-cultural norms, personally held biases, and a lack of information
about the harmfulness of such actions (Blackburn &Smith, 2010; Dessel, 2010b; Gerouki, 2010). Although several states have
policies explicitly protecting LGBTQ students from bullying and discrimination (Biegel, 2010), both students and teachers
report LGBTQ bias and harassment goes unchallenged or is even encouraged by teachers and other administrators(O'Connell,
Atlas, Saunders, &Philbrick, 2010; Peters, 2003; Wernick et al., 2014). A majority of LGBT students (67.%) who reported
harassment or assault to school staff rated the school staff's response as ineffective, with 61.6% reporting that school staff “did
nothing”(Kosciw et al., 2014, p. 35). These actions directly influence students and further contribute to a negative school
culture and climate (Dragowski, McCabe, &Rubinson, 2015; Kosciw et al., 2014).
By contrast, support groups in schools, such as gayestraight alliances (GSAs), which may have teacher sponsors, are
associated with improved outcomes of less victimization and better educational performance and mental health status for all
students (Goodenow et al., 2006; Heck et al., 2013; Kosciw et al., 2013; Walls, Kane, &Wisneski, 2010). Goodenow et al. (2006)
found that LGBTQ youth are less likely than heterosexual youth to identify supportive school staff with whom they can talk.
Students who can identify supportive educators tend to report decreased victimization, increased self-esteem, higher grades,
and better attendance (Kosciw et al., 2013). Further, students who reported support from school staff were less likely to be
threatened or to make multiple suicide attempts (Goodenow et al., 2006). Alternatively, Gastic and Johnson (2009) found that
LGBTQ youth are more likely to have teachers as mentors than cisgender/heterosexual youth, although LGBTQ youth of color
were less likely to have a mentor than white LGBTQ youth. Having a teacher as a mentor was associated with future
educational attainment (Gastic &Johnson, 2009).
This study builds from extant literature by investigating the association between multiple aspects of teacher relationships
with student self-esteem and academic achievement. In this study, we tested multiple aspects of teachers' roles in
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144 137
communicating symbolic norms through language and behaviors addressed toward groups of students, as well as the quality
of comfort and trust between individual students and teachers. We extend this literature by specifically addressing academic
achievement as an outcome and including teachers' use of biased language as an indicator of school climate. Specifically, we
pursue the following questions: (1) which aspects of teacher relationships are associated with the quality of students' school
experience as measured by self-esteem and academic achievement? and (2) are these associations differentiated by LGBQ and
transgender identities? We hypothesize that associations between teacher relationships and student well-being will be
stronger for LGBQ students than for heterosexual students, and stronger for transgender students than for cis-gender stu-
dents, given the levels of oppression that these minority students face.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants and procedure
Our analysis is based on a climate survey conducted in 2014 in southeast Michigan in the Midwestern United States. The
Neutral Zone, a youth-led non-profit in Ann Arbor, and leaders from Riot Youth, the organization's LGBTQ program, designed
and distributed surveys in five public high schools. Adult program staff, including two of the authors (Wernick and Kulick)
worked as advisors to the program and supported the youth-led survey development and data collection process. The survey
investigated students' experiences at school, relationships with teachers and peers, and wellbeing. Each section included
general questions as well as specific inquiries into sexuality, gender identity and expression, race, misogyny, and related
topics. Survey items were developed using earlieracademic and community-based studies, and youth leaders adapted survey
questions to enhance their relevance and validity for students in the local context.
Data collection procedures varied by school. Riot Youth and Neutral Zone leaders collaborated with the GSA (or similar
organization serving LGBTQ youth) in each school to negotiate with administration. Having a GSA or similar group was a
criterion for schools to be in included in the study, but these organizations ranged widely in their age and size. Some schools
had small organizations made up of a handful of committed leaders, while others had over 30 regular members. As well, some
schools had established their GSA within the past year and others had existed for over a decade. Sampling prioritized
representativeness while also yielding to concerns about the appropriateness of survey topics in certain classes and for
younger students, as well as timing constraints based on standardized testing schedules and teacher availability. All students
were informed that participation was confidential and voluntary. Data were made available to researchers as de-identified
secondary data. This study was approved as exempt from oversight by Fordham University and the University of California
Santa Barbara.
In Table 1, we summarize the frequencyand central tendency of study variables among this sample, as well as among each
of the five participating schools. The sample was distributed across a range of ages, as measured by current grade-level.
Among the full sample, about two-thirds of participating students identified as white (65.8%), and most students of color
identified as multiracial and Black (14.1% and 12.4%, respectively). The racial identities represented among the sample were
highly reflective of the regional sampling strategy. The two suburban schools were majority white (School A: 73% white) and
majority-minority (School B), which included large groups of multiracial (23%), Black (12%), and Asian (12%) students, and a
slightly smaller proportion of Latino (6%) students. The two schools located in more rural settings were predominantly white
(Schools A and B: 85%). At the fifth site, urban school A, students identified almost exclusively as monoracial Black (74.3%) and
multiracial (23.8%). Middle Eastern and Native students were present across many of the schools, but in relatively small
proportions (1% and <1% respectively). A full report of the demographics for each school is included in Table 1. One in five
students overall reported a non-heteronormative sexual orientation (21.6%), including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer. This
was highest at the majority white suburban school A (27.3%) and lowest in the two rural schools (rural school A ¼15.3%, rural
school B ¼18.4%). About half as many students (9.2%) reported a non-binary gender identity; this was lowest at suburban
school A (7.7%) and strikingly higher at the urban school (14.0%).
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Well-being
We measured two aspects of students' self-evaluation of their well-being: self-esteem and self-reported grades. We used
the 10-item scale developed by Rosenberg (1965), which measures various aspects of general self-evaluation on a 4-point
Likert-type scale (1 ¼strongly disagree,4¼strongly agree;
a
¼0.91). Negatively worded items are reverse-coded such that
higher mean scores indicating greater positive self-regard. Healthy self-esteem has been linked to various opportunities for
development and future growth (Kosciw et al., 2013). Similarly, self-reported grades reflect academic achievement and
success. We measured grades by asking respondents to self-report their overall grades on a 7-point scale from “mostly Ds”to
“mostly As”. This was used as an indicator of one's self-evaluation relative to their academic performance.
2.2.2. Teacher relationships
We investigated four types of perceived student-teacher relationships. Teacher's use of biased language related to gender
and sexuality was measured through a 5-item Likert-type scale (0 ¼never,4¼frequently;
a
¼0.84) assessing how often
students heard teachers using derogatory or offensive language related to gender and sexuality. Teacher's intervention
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144138
behaviors were inquired about using a 4-item scale (
a
¼0.79), measured on a similar Likert-type scale. These items inquired
about how often teachers productively responded to instances of harassment based on gender and sexuality. Respondents
were also given the option of selecting “never present”for these items. These were recoded to be included with those re-
spondents who indicated teachers never intervene, as students who never witness teachers intervene will not benefit from
the social-environmental learning of authoritative role models. We also created an indicator if teachers were never present
and included these in regression models. These were non-significant in all models and did not change the significant of other
predictors, so they are excluded from the reported results below. Further, the relative presence of responses provides
important indicators of the contextual nature of biased language in schools. Anti-trans language and jokes about sexual
assault (36.6% and 30.5%, respectively) were reportedly more common in settings with no teachers present, whereas anti-
LGBTQ harassment (22.4%) and misogynistic language (19.4%) were more pervasive in settings where teachers were present.
We also inquired about whether students felt they had a trusted adult at school with whom they could talk about personal
issues (0 ¼no,1¼yes), without reference to specific identities. Finally, students' comfort with teachers was measured using a
3-item scale that asking how comfortable respondents felt discussing issues related to their sexual orientation, gender
identity, and gender expression with teachers at their school (1 ¼not comfortable,5¼comfortable;
a
¼0.98).
2.2.3. Demographics and controls
Three demographic variables and two contextual indicators were used to test and control for anticipated differences in
self-esteem and self-reported grades. Sexual orientation (0 ¼heterosexual, 1 ¼LGBQ), gender (cis-boys, cis-girls, and trans
people), and race (0 ¼monoracial white, 1 ¼multiracial, person of color, and/or indigenous) were included as categorical
indicators. Each of these reflect an opportunity of experiencing marginalization by identity and may thus be associated with
lower self-esteem and grades. Gender was using measured using multiple questions including assigned sex at birth as well as
current gender identity in order to assess diverse gender categories among a population of students with varying levels of
knowledge related to gender. Grade-level is included to control for potential developmental differences as students' progress
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for total sample and by school.
Variable (n) Total
(n¼1046)
Suburban
School A (n¼327)
Suburban
School
B(n¼158)
Rural School
A(n¼228)
Rural School
B(n¼194)
Urban School
A(n¼139)
M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)M(SD)
Self-esteem
a
3.01 (0.66) 2.95 (0.69) 2.98 (0.63) 3.05 (0.64) 3.04 (0.63) 3.04 (0.66)
Comfort
b
3.50 (1.49) 3.75 (1.40) 3.27 (1.50) 3.50 (1.50) 3.58 (1.50) 2.94 (1.53)
Teacher biased
language
c
1.30 (0.58) 1.16 (0.35) 1.42 (0.67) 1.28 (0.53) 1.22 (0.49) 1.64 (0.86)
Teacher intervention
c
2.99 (1.10) 3.41 (1.07) 2.80 (1.06) 2.77 (1.10) 2.95 (1.06) 2.74 (1.02)
Self-reported grades
d
5.62 (1.51) 5.70 (1.51) 5.32 (1.70) 5.90 (1.19) 5.93 (1.43) 4.75 (1.56)
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
Trusted adult in school
No 647 (66.6) 193 (60.9) 107 (70.9) 149 (68.3) 112 (64.0) 86 (78.2)
Yes 324 (33.4) 124 (39.1) 44 (29.1) 69 (31.7) 63 (36.0) 24 (21.8)
Grade-level
9th 168 (17.6) 88 (27.8) 24 (15.6) 20 (9.3) e36 (35.6)
10th 248 (26.0) 81 (25.6) 78 (50.6) 76 (35.5) 1 (0.6) 12 (11.9)
11th 236 (24.8) 79 (24.9) 26 (16.9) 53 (24.8) 69 (41.3) 9 (8.9)
12th 301 (31.6) 69 (21.8) 26 (16.9) 65 (30.4) 97 (58.1) 44 (43.6)
Race
White 617 (65.8) 230 (73.0) 67 (45.6) 181 (85.4) 139 (85.3) e
Black 116 (12.4) 18 (5.7) 17 (11.6) 5 (2.4) 1 (0.6) 75 (74.3)
Latino 22 (2.3) 12 (3.8) 9 (6.1) 1 (0.5) ee
Middle Eastern 10 (1.1) 3 (1.0) 4 (2.7) 1 (0.5) 2 (1.2) e
Multiracial 132 (14.1) 39 (12.4) 33 (22.4) 19 (9.0) 17 (10.4) 24 (23.8)
Native 4 (0.4) 1 (0.3) e1 (0.5) e2 (2.0)
Asian 37 (3.9) 12 (3.8) 17 (11.6) 4 (1.9) 4 (2.5) e
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual 735 (78.4) 226 (72.7) 119 (79.9) 177 (84.7) 133 (81.6) 80 (76.2)
LGBQ 202 (21.6) 85 (27.3) 30 (20.1) 32 (15.3) 30 (18.4) 25 (23.8)
Gender
Cis-boys 385 (41.2) 148 (47.4) 62 (41.9) 71 (33.5) 70 (43.2) 34 (34.0)
Cis-girls 463 (49.6) 140 (44.9) 73 (49.3) 120 (56.6) 78 (48.1) 52 (52.0)
Trans 86 (9.2) 24 (7.7) 13 (8.8) 21 (9.9) 14 (8.6) 14 (14.0)
Notes.
a
Theoretical range [1,4].
b
Theoretical range [1,5].
c
Theoretical range [0,4].
d
Theoretical range [1,7].
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144 139
through school years (1 ¼9th to 4 ¼12th). Finally, school is included as an independent variable to control for potential
differences in community norms and socio-geographic differences across the studied sites.
3. Analysis
All analyses were conducted in SPSS, version 24. Multiple linear regression models with OLS estimators were used to test
the main effects of teacher relationships on students' self-esteem and self-reported grades, while controllingfor demographic
and contextual differences. First, bivariate relationships were tested using correlations (see Table 2), independent samples t-
tests, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Next, partial models were used to test the associations of control
variables and teacher relationships separately with self-esteem and grades. In Table 3, we report the results of the full main
effects model as no notable patterns of difference were detected among the partial models. For categorical variables (gender,
school), each reference category was tested separately and ANOVA results were used to determine the optimal reference
category based on empirical differences. Cis-boys are used as the reference category for the regression model predicting self-
esteem and cis-girls for grades, as these showed evidence of the greatest number of significant differences. Urban school A
was selected as the reference category for both regression models based on a similar logic. In the reportedmodels, no issues of
multicollinearity were detected among the study variables (variance inflation factor score less than 4.0 for all variables in both
models). Missing data was using imputed using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) fully conditional specification, which
estimates values for missing cases based on valid scores on model variables.
Further, moderation effects were tested by estimating separate models with eight interaction terms calculated from the
four teacher relationship measures with LGBQ and trans identities. To interpret significant moderations, we replicated
regression models tested among the full sample among divided samples (cis/trans; heterosexual/LGBQ).
4. Results
The full model predicting self-esteem (n¼934) estimated 16.9% of the variance in respondents' scores, F(13, 920) ¼14.40,
p<0.001. Both gender and sexual orientation were significantly associated with self-esteem. Both cis-girls and trans students
reported significantly lower average self-esteem than cis-boys (
b
¼0.24, 0.17, respectively; p<0.001, both). Holding a
sexually marginalized identity as LGBQ was also significantly associated with lower average self-esteem (
b
¼0.13,
p<0.001). As well, students at each of the suburban and one of the rural schools reported significantly lower self-esteem than
students at urban school A (Suburban School A:
b
¼0.23, p<0.001; Suburban School B:
b
¼0.10, p¼0.025; Rural School B:
b
¼0.11, p¼0.037).
All four teacher relationship variables were significantly associated with self-esteem. Teacher's use of biased language was
negatively associated with self-esteem (
b
¼0.11, p¼0.001), suggesting that hearing derogatory language from authority
figures may degrade students' sense of self-worth. By contrast, higher rates of witnessing teachers intervene in instances of
these types of oppressive language related to gender and sexuality were associated with greater self-esteem (
b
¼0.08,
p¼0.011). Both the presence of a trusted adultin school (
b
¼0.19, p<0.001) and comfort talking with teachers about gender/
sexuality were both positively associated with self-esteem (
b
¼0.09, p¼0.008).
We found evidence that sexual orientation and transgender identity moderated the impact of teacher relationships on
students' self-esteem. Specifically, sexual orientation X teachers' biased language was significantly associated with self-
esteem (b¼0.21, SE ¼0.05, p¼0.080). Among heterosexual students, teachers' biased language negatively predicted
self-esteem (
b
¼0.13, p<0.001), while among LGBQ* students, this variable was not significant (
b
¼0.06, p¼0.486). As
well transgender identity X teachers' intervention was significantly associated with self-esteem (b¼0.14, SE ¼0.04,
p<0.001). Among cisgender students, teachers' intervention was significantly associated with self-esteem (
b
¼0.11,
p¼0.001) and this relationship was not present among transgender students (
b
¼0.12, p¼0.405).
The full model predicting self-reported grades (n¼934) estimated 12.3% of the variance in the outcome, F(13, 920) ¼9.90,
p<0.001. Similar to self-esteem, holding a sexually marginalized identity was associated with lower grades (
b
¼0.12,
p<0.001), and transgender students reported significantly lower grades than cisgender students (
b
¼0.09, p¼0.005).
However, unlike self-esteem, an opposite trend emerged from self-esteem among cisgender students: cis-boys reported
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations (n¼934).
M(SD) Correlation
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Self-esteem 3.00 (0.66) e
2. Self-reported grades 5.63 (1.50) 0.19*** e
3. Teacher's biased language 0.28 (0.53) 0.10*** 0.18*** e
4. Teacher intervention 1.46 (1.11) 0.12*** 0.01 0.10** e
5. Trusted adult 0.34 (0.47) 0.19*** 0.07* 0.05 0.12*** e
6. Comfort with teachers 3.49 (1.50) 0.16*** 0.10** 0.11*** 0.09** 0.25*** e
*p<0.05. **p<0.01. ***p0.001.
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144140
lower grades than cis-girls (
b
¼0.12, p<0.001). As well, racial identity was significantly with grades; students of color were
more likely to report lower grades (
b
¼0.11, p¼0.004). This relationship persisted while controlling for school differences
that are also largely patterned racially. Students at each of the majority white and majority-white suburban and rural schools
reported significantly higher grades than the students at urban school A. These relationships were strongest among the
majority and predominantly white schools (Suburban School A:
b
¼0.20, p¼0.001; Rural School A:
b
¼0.21, p<0.001; Rural
School B:
b
¼0.21, p<0.001) compared to the multiracial suburban school B (
b
¼0.11, p¼0.017).
Among the teacher relationship variables, only the use of biased language was significantly associated with self-reported
grades in the full sample regression model (
b
¼0.09, p¼0.007). There was no significant association between teachers'
intervention, or either comfort or trust with adults in predicting students' self-reported grades. Further, we found evidence of
significant moderation effects by sexual orientation and transgender identity. With respect to sexual orientation, the in-
teractions with teachers' biased language, intervention behaviors, and students' comfort with teachers were all significantly
associated with grades (biased language: b¼0.31, SE ¼0.11, p¼0.010; intervention: b¼0.14, SE ¼0.07, p¼0.040;
comfort: b¼0.11, SE ¼0.05, p¼0.020).
Among heterosexual students, teachers' use of biased language and intervention behaviors were not significantly asso-
ciated with students' grades (
b
¼0.04, p¼0.302,
b
¼0.01, p¼0.711, respectively). However, among LGBQ students,
teachers' use of biased language was marginally associated with self-reported grades (
b
¼0.15, p¼0.076) and intervention
behaviors were also non-significant (
b
¼0.06, p¼0.400). As well, comfort talking with teachers was significantly associated
with grades among heterosexual students (
b
¼0.08, p¼0.036) but not LGBQ students (
b
¼0.00, p¼1.00).
Transgender identity significantly moderated the relationships between teachers' biased language use as well as comfort
talking with teachers on self-reported grades (biased language: b¼0.48, SE ¼0.14, p<0.001; comfort: b¼0.20, SE ¼0.07,
p<0.001). Biased language was significantly associated with grades among cisgender students (
b
¼0.09, p¼0.016) but not
trans students (
b
¼0.04, p¼0.774). Similarly, comfort talking with teachers was marginally associated with grades among
cisgender students (
b
¼0.06, p¼0.102) but not trans students (
b
¼0.08, p¼0.604).
5. Discussion
This study found that multiple vectors of teacherestudent relationshipsdincluding teachers' use of biased language,
public interventions in anti-LGBTQ bullying, students' access to a trusted adult at school, and comfort talking with teach-
ersdwere significant in predicting self-esteem. These associations held for both heterosexual/cisgender as well as LGBTQ
students. Thus, supportive interventions designed to support and empower LGBTQ young people may have wider ranging
impacts on student success and school climate. As well, we found that teachers' use of biased language was significantly
associated with lower academic achievement. Teachers' support of students is critical in shaping the culture of schools
(Espelage, Aragon, Birkett, &Koenig, 2008) and promoting teachers' intervention in bullying is critical for the success of all
Table 3
Linear regression predicting self-esteem and self-reported grades (n ¼934; Robust SEs).
Variable Self-Esteem Self-Reported Grades
b
B(SE)
b
B(SE)
Demographics and Controls
Grade-level 0.01 0.00 (0.02) 0.00 0.00 (0.05)
Gender (ref. cis-girls)
Cis-boys ee 0.12*** 0.37 (0.10)
Trans ee 0.09** 0.49 (0.17)
Gender (ref. cis-men)
Cis-women 0.24*** 0.31 (0.04) ee
Trans 0.17*** 0.38 (0.08) ee
Sexual orientation (ref. heterosexual) 0.13*** 0.21 (0.05) 0.12*** 0.45 (0.12)
Race (ref. white) 0.04 0.06 (0.05) 0.11** 0.34 (0.12)
School (ref. Urban A)
Suburban A 0.23*** 0.32 (0.08) 0.20*** 0.63 (0.19)
Suburban B 0.10* 0.19 (0.08) 0.11* 0.46 (0.19)
Rural A 0.10 0.15 (0.09) 0.21*** 0.75 (0.20)
Rural B 0.11** 0.19 (0.09) 0.21*** 0.82 (0.21)
Independent Variables
Teacher's biased language 0.11*** 0.14 (0.04) 0.09** 0.25 (0.09)
Teacher intervention 0.08* 0.05 (0.02) 0.02 0.02 (0.04)
Trusted adult in school 0.19*** 0.26 (0.04) 0.04 0.13 (0.10)
Comfort talking with teachers 0.09*** 0.04 (0.01) 0.04 0.04 (0.03)
Model Statistics
Constant 3.22*** (0.11) 5.33*** (0.26)
R
2
0.169 0.123
Notes. Cis ¼cisgender; Models include cases with imputed data.
*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p0.001.
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144 141
students (Goodenow et al., 2006; Greytak &Kosciw, 2010). As well, ensuring that teachers are equipped to use inclusive, non-
derogatory language, as well as committed to this ongoing practice and held accountable for their language use, is an
important aspect of ensuring the success of all students. Further, the estimated negative relationship between derogatory
language on students' self-reported grades was present among LGBQ students but not heterosexual students. This suggests
that there may be a more direct pathway for students who internalize negative messages about gender and sexual diversity.
Feeling victimized by teachers may directly impede LGBQ students' ability to engage in classroom learning. Future research
may benefit from looking at more direct relationships between individual teachers and course grades. Thatis, there may be an
underlying relationship between teacher behaviors and students' ability to engage that is lost in aggregating mean scores of
students' grade averages and experiences with all teachers. Alternatively, there may be a curvilinear relationship at play as
well estudents who perceive teachers to be hostile may have increased motivation to succeed academically (Cammarota &
Fine, 2008). Contrary to our hypothesis, we found stronger evidence for the impact of teacher relationships on students'
wellbeing at school among heterosexual and cisgender students. We hesitate to overemphasize the non-significant associ-
ations, as they may be an artifact of the relatively smaller sample size of marginalized students (LGBQ and trans). However,
the significance of these sexualized and gendered interactions with teachers among socially privileged students highlights
the potential benefits of addressing programmatic and policy interventions toward the school environment writ large.
Our findings underscore the important roles that sexuality, gender, and race play in shaping academic and psychosocial
outcomes for LGBTQ students in educational settings. A full two-thirds of students reported that they did not have a trusted
adult in their school, and this was the strongest predictor of self-esteem among the teacher variables. As well, students re-
ported only moderate comfort talking with teachers about issues related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender
expression These findings indicate that there is still a considerable amount of vital work to be done to improve the quality of
school systems for all students. Our findings corroborate this amidst the variability in teacher relationships, and concur with
previous research indicating effective support from teachers is correlated with students' mental health outcomes (Goodenow
et al., 2006) and academic success (Kosciw et al., 2013). This is particularly true for LGBTQ youth. Our regression analysis
provide evidence that holding a gender or sexually marginalized identity was associated with lower grades and lower self-
esteem than holding a heterosexual identity, highlighting the unequal opportunities for LGBTQ students and the pressing
need to increase teacher support for these communities of students (Gastic &Johnson, 2009; Goodenow et al., 2006).
While our primary focus in this study is on the processes of sexual and gender marginalization impacting LGBTQ youth, we
also found important differences by race and within binary cisgender categories. In regression models, students of color and
cis-boys reported significantly lower grades than white students and cis-girls, respectively. Further, students at the pre-
dominantly Black/multiracial school reported significantly lower grades than the suburban and rural white/multiracial set-
tings. There was no evidence for racial differences in overall self-esteem, however, cis-girls reported lower average self-
esteem than cis-boys. These differences highlight the need for teacher interventions and supports designed around LGBTQ
identity to attune to the multiple and often mutual processes of sexual, gendered, and racial inequalities in changing school
climate. For instance, assumptions related to whiteness and masculinity may impede the efficacy of pro-LGBTQ interventions
in reaching women and persons of color (Dessel &Bolen, 2014). Training and resources thus should focus on ensuring fidelity
to local context and cultural norms in assessing and addressing issues of heteronormativity and cissexism.
5.1. Limitations and future research
This study addresses existing gaps in the literature by using previously unexamined measures and a large sample of high
school students collected across multiple sites. However, aspects of the study limit the interpretation and generalizability of
these findings. Self-reported grades are likely an imprecise measure of actual GPA. Given the cross-sectional survey design,
we cannot parse the degree to which significant findings indicate causal or associational dynamics. Future research might
consider longitudinal designs as well as a wider data collection strategy that allows for population-based sampling. Engaging
in this type of research will also necessitate adapting to the changing context of public education and norms about the ability
of adolescents to engage with difficult topics related to gender and sexuality. Future studies may also benefit from larger
purposive samples of transgender students and students of color. This type of data collection would enable a more fine-
grained analysis of diversity within these groups, including differences in experiences among communities of color and
between binary and non-binary identified trans students. Related, our sampling included only schools with a pro-LGBT
student club or organization, although within each school surveys were randomly distributed. While the schools ranged
widely in the size, age, and impact of these organizations, future studies may benefit from comparing schools with or without
a GSA to assess potential differential role of teachers amidst the larger context of institutional support.
6. Conclusion
It is imperative that schools offer training for teachers on LGBT issues and creating welcoming schools that include specific
bias intervention and ally skill development (Birkett, Russell, &Corliss, 2014; Dessel, 2010b; Vega et al., 2012). LGBT youth
want teachers to intervene in bullying, to examine their choice of words and language, to recognize that heterosexual youth
suffer as well in climates that tolerate bullying, and to identify LGBT rights as a civil rights issue (Dessel &Bolen, 2014; Young,
2012). Countering reluctance to address heteronormative school structures is a critical aspect of teacher education (Vega
et al., 2012). Trainings designed to promote teacher awareness and interventions in bias and bullying have found mixed
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144142
results with some studies indicating an increase in knowledge but not necessarily increased intervention behavior
(Goodenow et al., 2006; Greytak &Kosciw, 2010). Schools often lack the ongoing training and support teachers need to
support LGBT youth (Birkett et al., 2014; Dessel, 2010b) making it challenging for even teachers with supportive beliefs to act
as allies.
Schools need to provide more inclusive environments for gender and sexually marginalized students, such as imple-
menting education policies designed to support teacher learning around LGBTQ harassment and bullying (Dessel, 2010b;
Theoharis, 2010; Wang, 2015). School social workers and other youth workers can support teachers through education
and interventions designed to increase teacher awareness and provide skill building to address LGBTQ bullying and bias and
bystander intervention work. These efforts will support LGBTQ student self-esteem and school success.
Acknowledgments
We'd like to thank the youth leaders and adult staff involved in the Neutral Zone and school-based organizing for sexual
and gender liberations who helped make this study possible.
References
Almeida, J., Johnson, R. M., Corliss, H. L., Molnar, B. E., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional distress among LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination
based on sexual orientation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38,1001e1014.
Aspenlieder, L., Buchanan, C. M., McDougall, P., & Sippola, L. K. (2009). Gender nonconformity and peer victimization in pre- and early adolescence. European
Journal of Developmental Science, 3,3e16.
Biegel, S. (2010). The right to be out: Sexual orientation and gender identity in America's public schools. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
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 Adolescence, 38, 989e1000 .
Birkett, M., Russell, S. T., & Corliss, H. L. (2014). Sexual-orientation disparities in school: The mediational role of indicators of victimization in achievement
and truancy because of feeling unsafe. American Journal of Public Health, 104,1124e1128 .
Blackburn, M. V., & Smith, J. M. (2010). Moving beyond the inclusion of LGBT themed literature in English language arts classrooms: Interrogating het-
eronormativity and exploring intersectionality. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 625e634.
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2008). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York, NY: Routledge.
Dessel, A. (2010a). Prejudice in schools: Prevention and promotion of an inclusive culture and climate. Education and Urban Society, 42(4), 407e429.
Dessel, A. B. (2010b). Effects of intergroup dialogue: Public school teachers and sexual orientation prejudice. Small Group Research, 41, 556e592.
Dessel, A. B., & Bolen, R. M. (Eds.). (2014). Conservative Christian beliefs and sexual orientation in social work: Privilege, oppression, and the pursuit of human
rights. Alexandria, VA: CSWE Press.
Dragowski, E. A., McCabe, P. C., & Rubinson, F. (2015). Educators' reports on incidence of harassment and advocacy toward LGBTQ students. Psychology in the
Schools, 53,127e142.
Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth: The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39,
662e668.
Espelage, D. L., Aragon, S. R., Birkett, M., & Koenig, B. W. (2008). Homophobic teasing, psychological outcomes, and sexual orientation among high school
students: What influence do parents and schools have? School Psychology Review, 37, 202e216.
Galliher, R. V., Rostosky, S. S., & Hughes, H. K. (2004). School belonging, self-esteem, and depressive symptoms in adolescents: An examination of sex, sexual
attraction status, and urbanicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 235e245.
Garnett, B. R., Masyn, K. E., Austin, S. B., Miller, M., Williams, D. R., & Viswanath, K. (2014). The intersectionality of discrimination attributes and bullying
among youth: An applied latent class analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1225e1239.
Gastic, B., & Johnson, D. (2009). Teacher-mentors and the educational resilience of sexual minority youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services: Issues in
Practice, Policy &Research, 21,219e231.
Gerouki, M. (2010). The boy who was drawing princesses: Primary teachers' accounts of children's non-conforming behaviours. Sex Education, 10,335e348.
Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology
in the Schools, 43,573e589.
Grace, A. P., & Wells, K. (2007). Using Freirean pedagogy of just ire to inform critical social learning in arts-informed community education for sexual
minorities. Adult Education Quarterly, 57,95e114 .
Grady, J., Marquez, R., & McLaren, P. (2012). A critique of neoliberalism with fierceness: Queer youth of color creating dialogues of resistance. Journal of
Homosexuality, 59, 982e1004 .
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, NY: GLSEN.
Heck, N. C., Flentje, A., & Cochran, B. N. (2013). Offsetting risks: High school gay-straight alliances and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth.
Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1,81e90.
Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality, and heterosexuality: The complexity (and limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7,105e121.
Joyce, H. D. (2015). School connectedness and studenteteacher relationships: A comparison of sexual minority youths and their peers. Children &Schools,
37,185e192.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender youth in our nation's schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Kosciw, J. G., Palmer, N. A., Kull, R. M., & Greytak, E. A. (2013). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-
school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12,45e63.
Mueller, A. S., James, W., Abrutyn, S., & Levin, M. L. (2015). Suicide ideation and bullying among US adolescents: Examining the intersections of sexual
orientation, gender, and race/ethnicity. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 980e985.
Oswald, R. F., Blume, L. B., & Marks, S. R. (2005). Decentering heteronormativity: A model for family studies. In V. L. Bengston, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen,P.
Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 143e165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O'Connell, L. M., Atlas, J. G., Saunders, A. L., & Philbrick, R. (2010). Perceptions of rural school staff regarding sexual minority students. Journal of LGBT Youth,
7, 293e309.
Pascoe, C. J. (2007). Dude, you’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Peters, A. J. (2003). Isolation or inclusion: Creating safe spaces for lesbian and gay youth. Families in Society, 84(3), 331e337.
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, 952e962.
Poteat, V. P., & Vecho, O. (2015). Who intervenes against homophobic behavior? Attributes that distinguish active bystanders. Journal of School Psychology,
54,17e28.
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144 143
Reynolds, J. R., & Bamford, M. J. (2016). School gender culture and student subjective well-being. Sex Roles, 74,62e77.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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, 99,110e117.
Silenzio, V. M. B., Pena, J. B., Duberstein, P. R., Cerel, J., & Knox, K. L. (2007). Sexual orientation and risk factors for suicidal ideation and suicide attempts
among adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public Health, 97,2017e2019.
Szalacha, L. (2004). Educating teachers on LGBTQ issues: A review of research and program evaluations. Journal of Gay &Lesbian Issues in Education, 1,
67e79.
Theoharis, G. (2010). Disrupting injustice: Principals narrate the strategies they use to improve their schools and advance social justice. Teachers College
Record, 112,331e373.
Toomey, R. B., McGuire, J. K., & Russell, S. T. (2012). Heteronormativity, school climates, and perceived safety for gender nonconforming peers. Journal of
Adolescence, 35,187e196.
Vega, S., Crawford, H. G., & Van Pelt, J.-L. (2012). Safe schools for LGBTQI students: How do teachers view their role in promoting safe schools? Equity &
Excellence in Education, 45, 250e260.
Walls, N. E., Kane, S. B., & Wisneski, H. (2010). Gayestraight alliances and school experiences of sexual minority youth. Youth &Society, 41, 307e332.
Wang, F. (2015). Conceptualizing social justice: Interviews with principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 53, 667e681.
Watson, S., & Miller, T. (2012). LGBT oppression. Multicultural Education, 19,2e7.
Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., & Inglehart, M. H. (2013). Factors predicting student intervention when witnessing anti-LGBTQ harassment: Influence of peers,
teachers and climate. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(2), 296e301.
Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., Dessel, A. B., & Graham, L. F. (2016). Theater and dialogue to increase youth’s intentions to advocate for LGBTQQ people. Research on
Social Work Practice, 26,189e202.
Wernick, L. J., Kulick, A., & Inglehart, M. H. (2014). Influences of peers, teachers, and climate on students' willingness to intervene when witnessing anti-
transgender harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 37,927e935.
Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer victimization, social support, and psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34,471e482.
Wilson, I., Griffin, C., & Wren, B. (2005). The interaction between young people with atypical gender identity organization and their peers. Journal of Health
Psychology, 10,307e315.
Wyss, S. E. (2004). ‘This was my hell’: The violence experienced by gender non-conforming youth in US high schools. International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 17, 709e730.
Young, A. L. (2012). LGBT students want educators to speak up for them. Educational Horizons, 91,8e10 .
A.B. Dessel et al. / Journal of Adolescence 56 (2017) 136e144144
