Content uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu on Feb 03, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roberto L. Abreu on May 24, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wlco21
Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wlco21
School Counselors’ Perceived Preparedness and
School Support for LGBT Students
Roberto L. Abreu, Haiying Long, Sandra Logan & Maureen C. Kenny
To cite this article: Roberto L. Abreu, Haiying Long, Sandra Logan & Maureen C. Kenny (2022)
School Counselors’ Perceived Preparedness and School Support for LGBT Students, Journal of
LGBTQ Issues in Counseling, 16:1, 47-66, DOI: 10.1080/15538605.2021.1967254
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2021.1967254
Published online: 03 Feb 2022.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
School Counselors’Perceived Preparedness and School
Support for LGBT Students
Roberto L. Abreu
a
, Haiying Long
b
, Sandra Logan
c
, and Maureen C. Kenny
c
a
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA;
b
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA;
c
Florida
International University, Miami, FL, USA
ABSTRACT
School counselors may not feel prepared to safeguard LGBT
students or may perceive their schools to be hostile toward
these students. An online survey with 280 school counselors
revealed: (a) counselors who reported having a GSA at their
school, received the most training, have participated in more
hours of LGBT-related training, and have tried to train their
staff on LGBT issues felt more prepared to work with LGBT
students and (b) counselors who were Latinx, worked in pub-
lic, urban high schools, and received the highest amount of
on-the-job training perceived the most amount of school
support for LGBT students.
KEYWORDS
LGBT students; counselor’s
readiness; school support;
training; social justice
The American School Counselor Association (ASCA) represents the prem-
ier professional organization supporting the role and responsibilities of
school counselors across the United States. A key document is the ASCA
Ethical Standards for School Counselors (American School Counselor
Association, 2016), which, in part, highlights that school counselors have
ethical and legal responsibilities of promoting safe and healthy school envi-
ronments. This helps ensure that K-12 students can be successful across the
domains of academics, career readiness, and social-emotional development.
Moreover, the document identifies specific student rights about being
respected and treated with dignity.
Research demonstrates that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
(LGBT) youth have negative encounters and experiences in school, includ-
ing bullying and harassment (Abreu & Kenny, 2018; Kann et al., 2016).
This harassment and bullying happens not only at the hands of peers, but
also at the hands of school personnel. For example, Birkett and colleagues
(2009) found that LGBT youth who were harassed for their sexual orienta-
tion reported that it occurred in the presence of school personnel. This
hostile school environment has been found to negatively affect LGBT
students’achievement (e.g., Abreu et al., 2016; Abreu & Kenny, 2018).
CONTACT Roberto L. Abreu rabreu26@ufl.edu Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
ß2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING
2022, VOL. 16, NO. 1, 47–66
https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2021.1967254
When students feel safe in schools, they are better able to focus on their
learning, which ultimately increases their achievement (Ridings, 2020). It is
imperative that school counselors feel supported by their school in order to
create a safe space for LGBT youth to thrive (Abreu et al., 2016; Ratts
et al., 2013).
School Counselor’s ethical responsibility to LGBT students
The ASCA Ethical Standards for School Counselors (2016) make many
explicit references to the role that school counselors play in supporting and
advocating for LGBT students. These standards further state that school
counselors understand that students have the right to be treated in a man-
ner consistent with their gender identity and to be free from any harass-
ment or discrimination based on their gender identity or gender expression
(ASCA, 2016). Similarly, the American Counseling Association (ACA)
Code of Ethics (2014) also includes several standards that relate to counsel-
ing LGBT individuals. Specifically, the ACA code requires counselors to be
aware of personal values in their work. For example, counselors who have
negative attitudes toward LGBT youth must actively work toward exploring
their self-awareness and personal value as it relates to LGBT students (e.g.,
Byrd & Hays, 2012; Goodrich et al., 2013). ASCA highlights this fundamen-
tal principle by stating that school counselors should, “Respect students’
and families’values, beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identification/expres-
sion and cultural background and exercise great care to avoid imposing
personal beliefs or values rooted in one’s religion, culture or ethnicity”
(ASCA, 2016, p. 1). In addition, Dugger and Carlson (2012) remind us that
regardless of a counselor’s personal values, it is their professional responsi-
bility to provide an environment at school that is conducive to learning for
all students. Furthermore, the ACA code (2014) states that counselors
should receive continuing education to improve their multicultural compe-
tence (Standard C.2.f.). Beyond these ethical guidelines, school counselors
have a legal obligation to safeguard LGBT students in schools (McFarland
& Dupuis, 2001; Stone, 2003,2006).
LGBT students experiences in schools
Throughout schools in the United States, LGBT students continue to be
victims of verbal and physical abuse, necessitating understanding and advo-
cacy from school staff (Goodrich & Luke, 2009; Kosciw et al., 2018,2020).
For example, Kosciw and colleagues (2020) found that 81% of LGBT stu-
dents reported being verbally harassed and approximately 26% reported
being physically harassed in the past year. Also, approximately 53% of
LGBT students heard homophobic remarks from teachers and school
48 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
employees, while about 67% have heard negative comments about gender
expression (Kosciw et al., 2020). In addition, according to Poteat and col-
leagues (2015), LGBT students are more often the victims of name-calling,
aggression (e.g., verbal harassment), and bullying than their heterosexual
and cisgender counterparts. Furthermore, regarding geographical location,
research shows that LGBT students in rural schools report experiencing
more hostile school climates (e.g., exposure to higher rates of biased lan-
guage and victimization) compared to LGBT students in urban and subur-
ban schools (see review in De Pedro et al., 2018; Kosciw et al., 2020).
Moreover, although most research has focused on the experiences of LGBT
students in public schools, research indicates that the experiences of those
in charter schools are similar to those in traditional public schools (Kosciw
et al., 2020). On the other hand, LGBT students in faith-based schools
report higher levels of victimization compared to those in schools with no
religious affiliation (see review in Ginicola et al., 2016; Kosciw et al., 2020).
Specific to transgender students, research shows that compared to their
cisgender counterparts these students feel less safe and are more frequently
victimized in schools (e.g., Day et al., 2018; Jones et al., 2016; Kosciw et al.,
2018; Ullman, 2017). For example, in a study with 398 transgender youth,
Day and colleagues (2018) found that transgender youth were more likely
to be bullied and to report a more negative school climate than their cis-
gender counterparts. Similarly, Jones and colleagues (2016) found that
transgender youth reported that they avoided attending school and/or did
not disclose their gender identity at school for fear of safety. In addition,
exposure to such a hostile school environment impacts transgender stu-
dents emotionally and academically as evidenced by absence from school,
higher dropout rates, and lower GPAs (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2018; McGuire
et al., 2010).
Hostile school environments have negative consequences on LGBT stu-
dents such as decreased sense of belonging in school (e.g., Heck et al.,
2014), decreased positive perception of school climate (Day et al., 2019),
and decreased feelings of safety (e.g., Day et al., 2019; Konishi & Saewyc,
2013). However, research on Gay Straight Alliances (GSAs) shows that par-
ticipation in them promotes well-being for LGBT students, as students find
schools with GSAs to be affirming and committed to their well-being
(e.g., Porta et al., 2017).
School counselors’readiness and training
While school counselors are uniquely situated to support the development
and success of LGBT youth (Goodrich et al., 2013), these efforts must
come from professionals who have adequate training and understand the
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 49
specific roles they serve. In a recent report published by the Gay Lesbian
Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which focused on the perspective,
preparation, and practices of school-based mental health providers
(SMHP), the findings highlighted the need for pre-service training and con-
tinued professional development in order to effectively support LGBT
youth. In this report, two-thirds of school-based mental health providers
believed that LGBT students would feel safe in school (Kull et al., 2019).
Despite the beliefs of SMHPs that LGBT students feel safe, they are, in fact,
experiencing and reporting continued exposure to unwelcoming and at
times aggressive school climates (Kosciw et al., 2020). This discrepancy
illustrates the gap between school counselors’perception and the actual
prevalence of victimization among these youth.
Along with perceptions, the readiness of school counselors to work with
LGBT students must be considered. SMHP report high confidence to inter-
vene in bullying and harassment toward LGB students (Kull et al., 2019).
The ability to support students in these circumstances may come from the
many laws and policies that have been implemented in school districts
across the country. However, less than half of SMHPs feel somewhat or
very confident about conducting support groups specifically for LGBT
youth or serving as a GSA sponsor/advisor in their school (Kull et al.,
2019). School counselors’comprehensive training on providing direct serv-
ices gives them the necessary competencies to effectively implement serv-
ices, such as support groups or supervise student-led clubs, such as a GSA.
Thus, it is possible that school counselors’confidence and willingness is
linked to their feelings about working with LGBT students. Perhaps these
perspectives are related to their level of training during their own counselor
preparation program, which may or may not be guided by accreditation
standards that contain such competencies. In addition, given that most
GSAs are located in high schools, it is plausible to believe that counselors
at middle and elementary school might feel less confident to work with
LGBT students than those in high schools.
Research shows that counselors receive little to no competency training
during their graduate programs in specifically working with the LGBT stu-
dents (Beck & Wikoff, 2020; Kosciw et al., 2018). Even in circumstances
where graduate programs are providing training, school counselors are not
entering the field appropriately trained to support this population (e.g.,
Abreu et al., 2020). Furthermore, school counselors have an ethical obliga-
tion to continue their learning through professional development, regard-
less of mandates necessary for certification/licensure or their school district.
Unfortunately, according to Kosciw and colleagues (2018), more than one-
third of providers are not receiving any formal LGBT-specific training dur-
ing their professional career. In addition, research shows that when school
50 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
counselors receive LGBT-specific on-the-job training they report higher
self-perceived competency to work with LGBT youth (e.g., Shi & Doud,
2017). Although the level of LGBT-specific professional development varies
among counselor education training programs and school districts, research
shows that there is not a unifying effort to make sure that school counse-
lors are properly prepared to work with LGBT students (See review in
Abreu et al., 2016). Moreover, some research indicates that the more con-
tact counselors have with LGB clients, the greater level of competency they
report (e.g., Graham et al., 2012), suggesting that counselors’competence
and skills might improve by simply being more exposed to LGB clients.
However, there is a dearth of research documenting school counselors’per-
ceived preparedness to work with transgender students.
Current study
This study sought to add to the literature about the disparities among
LGBT students in schools. We conducted a study to assess school counse-
lors’perceived readiness to engage in these crucial roles and their percep-
tion of their schools’support for LGBT students. Specifically, the following
four research questions guided this study:
Q1: To what extent is counselors’perceived preparedness to work with
LGB students different based on their demographic background, characteris-
tics of schools that counselors are working at, and their training experiences?
Q2: To what extent is counselors’perceived preparedness to work with
transgender students different based on their demographic background,
characteristics of schools that counselors are working at, and their train-
ing experience?
Q3: To what extent is counselors’perceived overall level of support for
LGBT students at school different based on their demographic background,
characteristics of schools that counselors are working at, and their train-
ing experience?
Method
The data used in this study is a subset of a larger database on school coun-
selors’perceived readiness to work with LGBT students. This study used
the quantitative data about school counselors’training and work with
LGBT students. Specifically, variables related to demographic information,
counselor’s perceived preparedness to work with LGB and transgender
students, and counselor’s perceived overall level of support for LGB and
transgender students were used in this study. Previously, a qualitative
manuscript focused on school counselors’experiences working with trans-
gender students and efforts to train school staff about transgender issues
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 51
was published (Abreu et al., 2020). Given documented research about dif-
ferences in school experiences of sexual minority vs. transgender and gen-
der diverse students (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2018), it was of particular interest
to the authors to analyze this data separately.
Participants
Two hundred and eighty school counselors served as participants. They
came from 41 states in the US, across a range of geographical regions
including Hawaii. Participants’ages ranged from 20 to 77 years (M¼39.39,
SD ¼10.86). They represent an racially and ethnically diverse group of
school counselors. The vast majority of participants held Masters’degrees
(91%) and attended a Council for Counseling and Related Education
Professionals (CACREP) accredited program (81%). On average, they had
nine years of experience as school counselors, with a range of less than one
year to 43 years. The demographic information of the participants is shown
in Table 1.
Procedure
Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was gained for this study (IRB-17-
0084). Participants were recruited from an informational flyer that was posted
in several communities within ACA (e.g., ACA Interest Network for
Professional Counselors in Schools, ACA Professional School Counselors,
ACA Calls for Study Participants) and the ASCA listserve. Further, postings on
social media outlets specific for school counselors served as another form of
recruitment (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). The authors also recruited from school
counselors they knew or with whom they have professional relationships.
Snowball sampling (Gardner, 2009) was used with authors asking colleagues to
forward or distribute the recruitment flyer to further reach the intended audi-
ence. The informational flyer contained a link and QR code to access the online
Qualtrics survey. Participants were eligible to participate if: (a) they identified
as a school counselor; (b) they had experience working with LGB and trans-
gender students; and (c) they were at least 18 years old. No incentive was pro-
vided to participants.
The process for piloting the Qualtrics survey is described in detail in
Abreu and colleagues (2020). Eleven professionals in the field of counselor
education and/or school counseling provided feedback for the piloting of
the study. Based on these professionals’feedback, revisions were made for
content, clarity and evidence of face validity.
The first question of the survey served as the consent form where partici-
pants selected “yes”to consent or “no.”If they chose “no,”the survey
52 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
ended. The Qualtrics survey was accessed by 300 but only 280 were com-
pleted. Questions pertaining to school counselors’readiness to work with
LGB and transgender students were asked separately given documented dif-
ferences of experiences of sexual minority and transgender students in
schools. Questions regarding school counselor’s perceived school support
for LGBT students were not separated.
Instruments
Demographics
The survey included demographic questions to gain information about the
participants’age, sex and gender, ethnic identity, sexual identity, and edu-
cational level. There were also questions pertaining to work setting, geo-
graphic location, state of residence, and years of experience.
Preparedness to work with LGBT students
This measure was developed by the authors to assess participants’perceived
preparedness to work with LGBT students. The authors developed the
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of school counselors (reported in number and % endors-
ing item) (N¼280).
Mean age years (SD) 39.09 (10.46)
Mean years school counselor (SD) 9.09 (7.73)
Gender
Female/Woman 211 (84.1%)
Male/Man 39 (15.5%)
Racial/Ethnic Identity
European American 155 (66.0%)
Latinx/Hispanic 42 (17.9%)
African American/Black 28 (11.9%)
Asian American/Pacific Islander 7 (3.0%)
Middle Eastern/Arab 3 (1.3%)
Sexual Orientation/Identity
Heterosexual 207 (84.8%)
LGB/Non-heterosexual 37 (15.2%)
Education
Masters degree 224 (90.7%)
Ph.D 17 (6.9%)
Ed.S 4 (1.6%)
Current Graduate Student (MS/PhD) 2 (0.8%)
School/Work Setting
Public 203 (81.2%)
Charter 22 (8.8%)
Non-faith based private 18 (7.2%)
Faith based private 7 (2.8%)
Grade Level Served
Elementary School 44 (20.3%)
Middle School 57 (26.3%)
High School 116 (53.5%)
Geographic Location of School
Suburban 121 (48.4%)
Urban 87 (34.8%)
Rural 42 (16.8%)
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 53
measure based on their expertise on the topic (including multiple publica-
tions on LGBT issues in school and counselors’experiences with LGBT stu-
dents). The measure consisted of two multiple-choice questions: (1) Please
describe how prepared you feel in your ability to work with LGB students.
In other words, considering your training and experiences as a school
counselor, how ready are you to provide services to LGB students?; and (2)
Please describe how prepared you feel in your ability to work with trans-
gender students. In other words, considering your training and experiences
as a school counselor, how ready are you to provide services to transgender
students? A four point Likert-type scale (1 ¼great extent, 4 ¼not at all)
was provided for participants to indicate their level of preparedness. After
indicating their level of preparedness using the Likert-scale, a textbox was
provided to allow participants to elaborate on their response by providing
qualitative data. For the purpose of this manuscript, only the quantitative
data was analyzed.
Training to work with LGBT students
This measure was developed by the authors to assess participants’past and
current training on LGBT issues (i.e., pre-service training, on-the- job
training, number of hours of LGBT-related training received) and the num-
ber of known LGB and transgender students they had come in contact
with throughout their careers. The authors developed the measure based
on their expertise on the topic and thorough understanding of the LGBT
students in school literature. Specifically, counselors’pre-service and on-
the-job training was measured by two multiple-choice questions: (1) How
would you categorize the amount of pre-service training (on-the-job train-
ing in the other question) you received in LBGT related topics/areas?; and
(2) How would you categorize the amount of on-the-job training you
received in LBGT related topics/areas? A four point Likert-type scale (1 ¼
great extent, 4 ¼not at all) was provided for participants to indicate their
level of training.
Two short response questions were provided for participants to provide
the number of LGBT students they have come in contact within their car-
eer: (1) Approximately, how many lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) stu-
dents have you come in contact with over the course of your career as a
school counselor? (e.g., contact means sought your help or you were
involved in providing counseling-related services- individual or group ther-
apy; psychoeducation; workshop) (2) Approximately, how many trans-
gender students have you come in contact with over the course of your
career as a school counselor? (e.g., contact means sought your help or you
were involved in providing counseling-related services- individual or group
therapy; psychoeducation; workshop).
54 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
Efforts to train school staff
This measure was developed by the authors to assess participants’efforts to
training school staff on LGBT issues. The authors developed the measure
based on their expertise on the topic and thorough understanding of the
LGBT students in schools literature. Two multiple-choice questions were
used: (1) Have you tried to train your staff on LGB issues?; and (2) Have
you tried to train your staff on transgender issues?
Data analysis
Given that there were missing values in the dataset, Little’s(1988) MCAR
test was first performed. The result showed that the missing data was com-
pletely at random (v
2(5)
¼8.45, p¼.13). Multiple imputation approach
was used with five imputations to handle missing values (Rubin, 1988).
The first set of imputed data was used for all the statistical analyses. In
addition, several continuous variables in the dataset, including years of
working as a school counselor, hours of LGBT-related training in the last
year, and number of LGB students and number of transgender students
with whom the counselor worked, were recoded into different categories
based on frequency distribution. The 1 (great extent) to 4 (not at all)
Likert-type scale provided for participants to indicate their perceived pre-
paredness to work with LGBT students and their training experience was
reverse coded so that a high value means more preparedness and more
training. The skewness and kurtosis of all the variables were examined and
they were within acceptable ranges (e.g., between .05 and þ.05 for skew-
ness and between 1.96 and þ1.96 for kurtosis; Pett, 2015).
The main methods used to analyze data were independent t-tests and
ANOVA. Independent t-tests were used when there were only two categories
in the independent variable, such as whether the counselor was in an accred-
ited school, while ANOVA was used when there were three and more catego-
ries in the independent variable such as race. When performing both tests, the
statistical assumption of homogeneity of variance was checked (Edgington,
1965). When the assumption was violated, results were corrected by using a
non-integer degree of freedom. The results of Welch’s test that takes unequal
variance into account were reported in the ANOVA analyses (Derrick et al.,
2016). All the analyses were performed in IBM SPSS Version 25.
Results
School counselors’perceived preparedness to work with LGB students
For research question 1, the results indicated that the degree to which
school counselors felt prepared to work with LGB students was not affected
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 55
by their gender (p¼.860), race (p¼.072), sexual orientation (p¼.099),
educational degree (p¼.840), whether the counselor was trained in a
CACREP program (p¼.840), or how many years they have worked as a
counselor (F
(6, 250)
¼.845, p¼.536). Counselors’feeling of preparedness
was not different in terms of school type (p¼.876), geographical location
(p¼.707), or level of students (p¼.428). Feelings of preparedness was
significantly affected by number of LGB or transgender students they had
come in contact with (F
(5, 250)
¼3.117, p¼.010 for number of LGB stu-
dents; F
(6, 247)
¼2.851, p¼.011 for number of transgender students) and
whether there is a GSA in the school (t
(253)
¼2.013, p¼.045). Counselors
who had come in contact with more LGB or transgender students felt
more prepared than those who had come in contact with fewer LGB or
transgender students (e.g., 0-5 LGB students vs. 21-30, 31-50, and over 50
students; 0 transgender students vs. 3 students, 4-5, and over 10 students,
ps¼.005 .044). Also, counselors in schools with a GSA felt more
prepared than those in schools without one.
Counselors’perception of being prepared was also significantly different
in terms of different amounts of pre-service training (F
(3, 251)
¼7.444, p<
.001), on-the-job training (F
(3, 253)
¼5.829, p¼.001) that counselors
received in LGBT-related topics as well as the hours of LGBT-related train-
ing that counselors have attended in the past year (F
(7, 248)
¼3.554, p¼
.001). More specifically, counselors who received the most pre-service or
on-the-job training felt more prepared to work with LGB students than
those who received little or no training (ps¼.001–.020). Counselors who
had more hours of LGBT-related training in the past year felt more pre-
pared than those who had fewer hours of training (e.g., 0 h, 1 h vs. 3–5h,
6–10 h, ps¼.001–.023). This was further affected by whether the counse-
lors have tried to train their staff on LGB issues. Those who have trained
their staff felt significantly more prepared than those who have not trained
their staff (t
(195)
¼5.963, p<.001). A multiple linear regression analysis
showed that counselors’pre-service and on-the-job training on LGBT
issues and their intention of training staff on LGB issues were significant,
positive predictors of how prepared they felt to work with LGB students.
Yet, hours of training in the past year was not a significant predictor. This
regression model including the four predictors accounted for 26% of the
variance in counselors’feeling of preparation (see Table 2).
School counselors’perceived preparedness to work with
transgender students
For research question 2, results showed that counselors’perceived pre-
paredness to work with transgender students was not affected by their
56 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
gender (p¼.516), race (p¼.996), sexual orientation (p¼.123), educa-
tional degree (p¼.485), school type (p¼.176), geographical location (p¼
.829), level of students (p¼.594), whether the counselor was in an accred-
ited school (p¼.290), or how many years they have worked as a counselor
(F
(6, 250)
¼.435, p¼.855). But it was significantly affected by number of
LGB or transgender students they had come in contact with (F
(5, 250)
¼
3.928, p¼.002 for number of LGB students; F
(6, 247)
¼7.923, p<.001 for
number of transgender students) and whether there is a GSA in school
(t
(253)
¼2.901, p¼.004). School counselors who had come in contact with
more LGB or transgender students felt more prepared to work with trans-
gender students than those who had come in contact with fewer LGB or
transgender students (e.g., e.g., 0-5 LGB students vs. 21-30, 31-50, and over
50 students; 0 transgender students vs. 3 students, 4-5, and over 10 stu-
dents, ps¼.001 .028). Also, counselors in schools with a GSA were more
prepared than those in schools without a GSA.
Counselors’perceived preparedness were also different depending on the
amount of pre-service training (F
(3, 92.82)
¼4.155, p¼.008), on-the-job
training on LGBT issues (F
(3, 99.60)
¼6.870, p<.001), LGBT-related
training that counselors have attended in the past year (F
(7, 248)
¼2.447,
p¼.019), and whether the counselors have tried to train their staff on
transgender issues (t
(173)
¼4.425, p<.001). Counselors who received the
highest amount or some amount of pre-service or on-the-job training felt
more prepared to work with transgender students than those who received
little or no training (ps¼.004 .040). Counselors who had more hours of
LGBT-related training in the past year felt more prepared than those who
Table 2. Regression analysis summary for training experience predicting counselors’perceived
readiness and support.
Variable B S.E. btp
DV: Counselors’Perceived Preparedness of Working With LGB Students
(Constant) 2.452 .152 16.139 <.001
Pre-service training .168 .044 .241 3.850 <.001
On-the-job training .115 .049 .161 2.354 .020
Training hours in the past year .026 .020 .085 1.268 .206
Intention of training staff on LGB .430 .084 .327 5.140 <.001
DV: Counselors’Perceived Preparedness of Working With Transgender Students
(Constant) 1.941 .198 9.784 <.001
Pre-service training .176 .057 .201 3.092 .002
On-the-job training .118 .064 .132 1.860 .064
Training hours in the past year .047 .027 .124 1.775 .078
Intention of training staff on transgender .444 .109 .270 4.067 <.001
DV: Counselors’Perceived Support for LGBT Students
(Constant) 2.017 .086 23.399 <.001
Pre-service training .123 .026 .139 4.751 <.001
On-the-job training .275 .028 .305 9.640 <.001
Training hours in the past year .027 .012 .072 2.313 .021
Intention of training staff on LGB .120 .057 .074 2.098 .036
Intention of training staff on transgender .243 .061 .139 3.960 <.001
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 57
had fewer hours of training to work with transgender students (e.g., 0 hour,
1 h vs. 3–5h, 6–10 h, 11–20 h, ps¼.008 .046). Counselors who have tried
to train their staff on transgender issues felt significantly more prepared
than those who haven’t. A multiple linear regression analysis showed that
counselors’pre-service and their intention of training staff on transgender
issues were significant, positive predictors of how prepared they felt to
work with transgender students. However, counselors’on-the job training
and hours of training in the past year were not significant. This regression
model including the four predictors accounted for 20% of the variance in
counselors’feeling of preparation (see Table 2).
School counselors’perceived overall level of support for LGBT students
The degree to which school counselors perceived support for LGBT stu-
dents at school was not affected by gender (p¼.304), sexual orientation
(p¼.481), educational degree (p¼.136), whether the counselor was
trained in a CACREP program (p¼.147), or how many years they have
worked as a counselor (p¼.312). However, it was significantly different
due to race (F
(4,237)
¼2.694, p¼.032), school type (F
(3,253)
¼3.610, p¼
.014), geographical location (F
(2,113.21)
¼3.665, p¼.029), level of students
(F
(2,90.29)
¼3.665, p<.001), whether there is a GSA (t
(242.57)
¼7.725, p<
.001), or number of LGB or transgender students in the school (F
(5, 250)
¼
2.362, p¼.041 for number of LGB students; F
(6, 247)
¼5.199, p<.001 for
number of transgender students). More specifically, White counselors per-
ceived more support for students than their Asian colleagues did (p¼
.040), but Latinx counselors perceived more support than White (p¼
.034), African American (p¼.031), and Asian counselors (p¼.005). In
addition, counselors in charter schools felt more support for their LGBT
students than their colleagues in public schools (p¼.020) and private
faith-based schools (p¼.002). Counselors in public schools perceived more
support than their colleagues in private faith-based schools (p¼.033).
Counselors in rural areas perceived less support than those in urban areas
(p¼.004) or suburban areas (p¼.032). Counselors in high schools
perceived more support than those in elementary schools (p<.001) or
middle schools (p¼.001). Counselors in schools with more LGB or trans-
gender students felt more prepared than those in schools with fewer LGB
or transgender students (e.g., 0-5 LGB students vs. over 20; 0 transgender
students vs. all other numbers, ps¼.001-.027). Counselors in schools with
a GSA were more prepared than those in schools without a GSA.
Counselors’perceived support for LGBT students at school also varied in
terms of the amount of pre-service training (F
(3, 251)
¼2.751, p¼.043),
on-the-job training on LGBT issues (F
(3, 97.87)
¼7.667, p<.001), and
58 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
whether the counselors have tried to train their staff on transgender issues
(t
(173)
¼2.046, p¼.042). However, counselors’LGBT-related training that
they have attended in the past year (F
(7, 248)
¼.430, p¼.883) and whether
the counselors have tried to train their staff on LGB issues (t
(195)
¼.304,
p¼.304) did not significantly affect their perceived support. A multiple
linear regression analysis showed that counselors’pre-service training, on-
the-job training, and their intention of training staff on transgender issues
were significant, positive predictors of counselors’perceived support for
LGBT students. Yet, school counselor’s hours of training in the past year
and their intention of training staff on LGB issues were significant but
negative predictors. This regression model accounted for 14% of the vari-
ance in counselors’perceived support (see Table 2).
Discussion
The aim of this study was to examine school counselors’preparedness to
work with LGB and transgender students and assess the degree to which
they perceive support for LGBT students at their school. Regarding counse-
lors’preparedness to work with LGB and transgender students, our find-
ings show that being exposed to more LGB and transgender students and
whether there was a GSA at their school or not increased counselors’per-
ceived preparedness to work with LGB and transgender students. While the
current literature supports the importance of counselors’support on the
well-being of LGBT students (e.g., Goodrich et al., 2013; Kull et al., 2019)
and counselors’increased competence by being exposed to more LGB indi-
viduals, our findings add to this body of research by showing that being
exposed to more transgender students also increases counselor’s perceived
preparedness to work with these students. Given this finding, it can be
argued that making it safer for these students to come out and openly
express their sexual orientation and gender will also increase counselor’s
ability to identify their school as supportive. In addition, our results show
the importance of LGBT-specific training for counselors. Specifically,
according to the school counselors in our study, pre-service training,
on-the-job training, and more hours engaged in the past year in LGBT
training increased their perceived preparedness to work with LGB and
transgender clients. These results add to the current research about the
importance of schools facilitating training for counselors on LGBT-specific
issues (Abreu et al., 2016; Kuff et al., 2019). Given current evidence that
shows that counselors do not receive enough LGBT-specific support and
training (e.g., see Abreu et al., 2020), the findings in this study show that
providing opportunities for counselors to engage in more LGBT-specific
training will allow them to feel more prepared to work with these students.
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 59
Regarding counselors’perspective of overall level of school support for
LGBT students, our results show that race, school type, geographical loca-
tion, level of students, GSA presence, and number of LGB or transgender
students in the school to be important factors. Results about counselors’
race were mixed, with White counselors perceiving more support for stu-
dents than their Asian colleagues but Latinx counselors perceiving more
support than White, African American, and Asian counselors. This finding
adds to the current literature about counselors’perceptions and is worth
further examination. For example, perhaps there are cultural differences
that lead counselors from different racial and ethnic backgrounds to per-
ceive different levels of support for LGBT students. In addition, an import-
ant finding in our study is that counselors in charter schools perceive more
support for LGBT students than counselors in public and faith-based
schools, and counselors in public schools perceived more support than
their colleagues in private faith-based schools. These findings are both
unique and consistent with the current literature. Specifically, current
research supports the findings that LGBT students in faith-based schools
face more discrimination and are less likely to have LGBT-related school
resources or supports than students in public and non-religious schools
(e.g., see review in Kosciw et al., 2020). On the other hand, our findings
show that counselors in charter schools reported greater support for LGBT
students than those in public schools. Given that current research shows
that LGBT students in charter schools report similar levels of support than
those in public schools (Kosciw et al., 2020), there seems to be a discrep-
ancy among LGBT students’experiences and counselors’perception of
support for LGBT students in charter vs. public schools.
While some research studies have assessed for the geographical location
of schools (i.e., rural, urban, suburban) in their sample of LGBT students
(e.g., De Pedro et al. 2018; Kosciw et al., 2020), our findings add to this
body of research by specifically asking counselors about their perceived
level of school support for LGBT students depending on the school’s
geographical location. Current research supports the findings that LGBT
students in rural schools face more discrimination and are less likely to
have LGBT-related school resources or supports than students in urban
and suburban schools (e.g., see review in Robertson & Full, 2015; Kosciw
et al., 2020). Our findings add to this body of research by providing evi-
dence that school counselors in rural areas schools also perceive less levels
of support for LGBT students from other school staff. Furthermore, our
research contributes to the literature about the influence of GSAs in school
personnel reported knowledge and engagement with LGBT students (e.g.,
Johns et al., 2019; Swanson & Gettinger, 2016) by providing further insight
about the influence of the importance of GSAs on counselor’s perceived
60 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
readiness to work with LGBT students. That is, it seems to be the case that
being in a school with a GSA increases counselor’s perceived preparedness
to work with these students. Alternatively, there may be GSAs in schools
where counselors feel more prepared to work with LGBT students.
Moreover, the findings that counselors in high schools perceived more sup-
port than those in elementary schools or middle schools support the idea
that LGBT-specific curriculum is needed in all K-12 classrooms. For
example, recent research supports the idea that gender specific training for
elementary students results in changes in gender norm beliefs toward a
broader and expansive understanding of gender (e.g., positive attitudes
toward gender-expansive roles) among these students (Vilkin et al., 2020).
Seeing this type of training taking place at their school might shift the per-
ception of support for LGBT students among counselors. Finally, another
unique finding of this study is that it does not generalize school counseling
trends for transgender students as the same as for LGB students. In other
words, this study parses out the differences between LGB and transgender
students and, thus, acknowledges that the experiences of transgender stu-
dents might vastly differ from the overall LGB experience.
Supporting school counselors’ability in creating an LGBT affirming school
environment
School counselors are often seen as a source of support for LGBT students
and as a resource for training school staff (e.g., Abreu et al., 2020;
Bartholomaeus et al., 2017). Therefore, school counselors are often put in the
position to both provide emotional and structural support for LGBT students
while having to train school staff on how to also be affirming and supportive
of these students. In order to engage in this arduous task, it is important that
they feel prepared to provide this intense level of work to multiple stakehold-
ers within their schools. Based on our results, it is imperative to support
school counselors such as offering them training at multiple levels (e.g., pre-
service training, on-the-job training) and having a GSA at the school.
Counselor education preparation programs need to include the LGBT popu-
lation throughout their curriculum, including but not limited to their multi-
cultural counseling courses (Abreu et al., 2016). School counselors should be
encouraged and supported financially to pursue additional training in work-
ing with LGBT students. School districts should be providing these training
as part of professional development and emphasizing the importance of sensi-
tivity to sexual minority students (see recommendations in Abreu et al.,
2020). These findings deliver a clear message to training programs and school
administrators: part of supporting LGBT students and their families include
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 61
providing school counselors with specific, culturally-competent and relevant
resources pertaining to working with LGBT students.
Given the findings in this study about school counselors’perception of
school support for LGBT students, it appears that counselors in certain
school settings might be in need of more assistance and resources in order
to better support LGBT students. For example, counselors in faith-based
institutions and in rural areas might require more support and resources to
better provide services to their LGBT students (De Pedro et al., 2018;
Ginicola et al., 2016). Therefore, it is important for training programs in
predominantly rural areas to be mindful about how much training they are
providing to counselors-in-training. Additionally, counselors in rural areas
may need to seek out more extensive training if it was not included in their
preparation programs. Similarly, religious-based institutions should be
intentional and vocal about ways in which they support their counselors in
better preparing them to work with LGBT students. In addition, because
school counselors might not have the support from their training institu-
tion and/or current jobs, it is crucial that they also seek training that is
LGBT-specific (Abreu et al., 2020). For example, counselors should be
deliberate about seeking continuing education training that specifically
addresses issues in schools. We ask counselor preparation programs and
school districts to focus on providing sufficient LGBT-specific training and
increasing exposure to LGBT students in order for school counselors to be
ready to provide services, affirm, and advocate for these students.
Limitations and future directions
This study presents limitations that are important to address. Data collec-
tion was conducted among U.S. based school counselors. We acknowledge
that LGBT training, counselor training programs, and LGBT programs
such as GSAs in the U.S. are different in other countries. Future research
should compare the difference in counselors’perceived readiness and coun-
selors’perception of school support for LGBT students across countries.
Also, while the current study shows that the more counselors are exposed
to LGBT students the more prepared they feel to work with these students,
it is unknown what specifically about working with LGBT students
increases their perceived readiness. Future research should specifically
inquire, both qualitatively and quantitatively, about what aspects of working
with LGBT students increases a counselors’perceived preparedness to work
with this population.
Another limitation of this study is the measures used, as they were created
by the authors. Although the authors have expertise in the subject matter and
items were carefully designed, responses to the options may have differed
62 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
widely based on participants’biases toward this population. Future research
should develop, and then use, statistically rigorous measures to best capture
counselor’s experiences and perceived support for LGBT students. Finally,
duetothecross-sectionalnatureofthisstudy,itisnotpossibletoestablish
causation. Future research should collect longitudinal data in order to better
understand counselors’perceived readiness to support LGBT students and
their perception of their schools’support for these students over time.
Conclusion
School counselors may not feel prepared to safeguard LGBT students or may
perceive their schools to be hostile toward these students. Yet, it is their eth-
ical responsibility to provide and advocate for safe spaces within schools in
order for LGBT students to thrive. This study assessed for school counselors’
perceived readiness to provide affirming services to LGBT students and their
perception of their schools’support for LGBT students. Findings revealed
that counselors who reported having a GSA at their school, received the
most training, have participated in more hours of LGBT-related training, and
have tried to train their staff on LGBT issues felt more prepared to work
with LGBT students. Also, counselors in this study who were Latinx, worked
in public, urban high schools, and received the highest amount of on-the-job
training perceived the most amount of school support for LGBT students.
Future research directions are provided in this paper, including comparing
differences in counselors’perceived readiness and counselors’perception of
school support for LGBT students across countries.
References
Abreu, R. L., Black, W. W., Mosley, D. V., & Fedewa, A. L. (2016). LGBTQ youth bullying
experiences in schools: The role of school counselors within a system of oppression.
Journal of Creativity in Mental Health,11(3–4), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15401383.2016.1214092
Abreu, R. L., & Kenny, M. (2018). Cyberbullying and LGBTQ youth: A systematic literature
review and recommendations for prevention and intervention. Journal of Child &
Adolescent Trauma,11(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-017-0175-7
Abreu, R. L., Kenny, M., Hall, J. G., & Huff, J. (2020). Supporting transgender students:
School counselors’preparedness, training efforts, and necessary support. Journal of
LGBT Youth,17(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2019.1662755
American Counseling Association. (2014). Code of ethics. https://www.counseling.org/
resources/aca-code-of-ethics.pdf
American School Counselor Association (2016). Ethical standards for school counselors.
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/asca/media/asca/Ethics/EthicalStandards2016.pdf
Bartholomaeus, C., Riggs, D. W., & Andrew, Y. (2017). The capacity of South Australian
primary school teachers and pre-service teachers to work with trans and gender diverse
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 63
students. Teaching and Teacher Education,65(1), 127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.
2017.03.06
Beck, M. J., & Wikoff, H. D. (2020). “Professional development is really key”: Experiences
of school counselors engaging in professional development focused on LGBTQ youth.
Professional School Counseling,24(1), 2156759X2095206–2156759X2095211. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2156759X20952062
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 out-
comes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,38(7), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-008-9389-1
Byrd, R., & Hays, D. G. (2012). School counselor competency and lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth. Journal of School Counseling,10(3), 1–30.
http://jsc.montana.edu/articles/v10n3.pdf
Day, J. K., Ioverno, S., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Safe and supportive schools for LGBT youth:
Addressing educational inequities through inclusive policies and practices. Journal of
School Psychology,74,29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.05.007
Day, J. K., Perez-Brumer, A., & Russell, S. T. (2018). Safe schools? Transgender youth’s
school experiences and perceptions of school climate. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
47(8), 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0866-x
De Pedro, K. T., Lynch, R. J., & Esqueda, M. C. (2018). Understanding safety, victimization
and school climate among rural lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning
(LGBTQ) youth. Journal of LGBT Youth,15(4), 265–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19361653.2018.1472050
Derrick,B.,Toher,D.,&White,P.(2016).WhyWelch’stestisTypeIerrorrobust.The
Quantitative Methods for Psychology,12(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.12.1.p030
Dugger, S., & Carlson, L. (2012). Sexual minority youth: The case of Donald Wilson. In S.
Dworkin & M. Pope (Eds.), Casebook for counseling lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans-
gender persons and their families (pp. 7–22). American Counseling Association.
Edgington, E. S. (1965). The assumption of homogeneity of variance for the ttest and non-
parametric tests. The Journal of Psychology,59(1), 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00223980.1965.9916790
Gardner, B. (2009). Incentivized snowballing. The Psychologist,22, 768–769.
Ginicola, M., Smith, C., & Rhoades, E. (2016). Love thy neighbor: A guide for implement-
ing safe school initiatives for LGBTQ students in nonaffirming religious communities.
Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling,10(3), 159–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.
2016.1199992
Goodrich, K. M., Harper, A. J., Luke, M., & Singh, A. A. (2013). Best practices for profes-
sional school counselors working with LGBTQ youth. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in
Counseling,7(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839331
Goodrich, K. M., & Luke, M. (2009). LGBTQ responsive school counseling. Journal of
LGBTQ Issues in Counseling,3(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538600903005284
Graham, S. R., Carney, J. S., & Kluck, A. S. (2012). Perceived competency in working with
LGB clients: Where are we now? Counselor Education and Supervision,51(1), 2–16.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00001.x
Heck, N. C., Lindquist, L. M., Machek, G. R., & Cochran, B. N. (2014). School belonging,
school victimization, and the mental health of LGBT young adults: Implications for
school psychologists. School Psychology Forum,8(1), 28–37.
Johns, M. M., Poteat, V. P., Horn, S. S., & Kosciw, J. (2019). Strengthening our schools to
promote resilience and health among LGBTQ youth: Emerging evidence and research
64 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
priorities from the state of LGBTQ youth health and wellbeing symposium. LGBT
Health,6(4), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.109
Jones, T., Smith, E., Ward, R., Dixon, J., Hillier, L., & Mitchell, A. (2016). School experien-
ces of transgender and gender diverse students in Australia. Sex Education,16(2),
156–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678
Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J., Queen, B.,
Lowry, R., Olsen, E. O., Chyen, D., Whittle, L., Thornton, J., Lim, C., Yamakawa, Y.,
Brener, N., & Zaza, S. (2016). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2015.
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report: Surveillance Summaries,65(6), 1–174.
Konishi, C., & Saewyc, E. (2013). Still a target: Sexual diversity and power of caring. School
Psychology International,35(5), 504–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034313512407
Kosciw, J. G., Clark, C. M., Truong, N. L., & Zongrone, A. D. (2020). The 2019 National
School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Zongrone, A. D., Clark, C. M., & Truong, N. L. (2018). The
2017 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-
gender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN.
Kuff, R. M., Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2019). Supporting safe and healthy schools for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students: A National survey of school counse-
lors, social workers, and psychologists. GLSEN.
Kull, R. M., Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Gay, L. (2019). Supporting safe and healthy
schools for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students: A national survey of
school counselors, social workers, and psychologists. GLSEN.
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with miss-
ing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association,83(404), 1198–1202. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
McFarland, W. P., & Dupuis, M. (2001). The legal duty to protect gay and lesbian students
from violence in schools. Professional School Counseling,4(3), 171–179.
McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for
transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experiences and school
responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,39(10), 1175–1188. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10964-010-9540-7
Pett, M. A. (2015). Nonparametric statistics for health care research: Statistics for small sam-
ples and unusual distributions.
Porta, C. M., Singer, E., Mehus, C. J., Gower, A. L., Saewyc, E., Fredkove, W., & Eisenberg,
M. E. (2017). LGBTQ ’youth’s views on gay-straight alliances: Building community, pro-
viding gateways, and representing safety and support. The Journal of School Health,
87(7), 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12517
Poteat, V. P., Rivers, I., & Vecho, O. (2015). The role of peers in predicting students’
homophobic behavior: Effects of peer aggression, prejudice, and sexual orientation iden-
tity importance. School Psychology Review,44(4), 391–406. https://doi.org/10.17105/spr-
150037.1
Ratts, M. J., Kaloper, M., McReady, C., Tighe, L., Butler, S. K., Dempsey, K., &
McCullough, J. (2013). Safe space programs in K-12 schools: Creating a visible presence
of LGBTQ allies. Journal of LGBTQ Issues in Counseling,7(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15538605.2013.839344
Ridings, A. (2020). Removing barriers to LGBTQ student safety and achievement. State
Education Standard,20(2), 37–41.
JOURNAL OF LGBTQ ISSUES IN COUNSELING 65
Robertson, P. K., & Full, J. (2015). Rural school counselors and LGBTQ students. Journal
of School Counseling,13(15), 1–20.
Rubin, D. B. (1988). An overview of multiple imputation. In Proceedings of the Survey
Methods Section of the American Statistical Association, 79–84. Citeseer.
Shi, Q., & Doud, S. (2017). An examination of school counselors’competency working
with lesbian, gay and bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students. Journal of LGBTQ
Issues in Counseling,11(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2017.1273165
Stone, C. (2003). Counselors as advocates for gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth: A call for
equity and action. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,31(2), 143–155.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00539.x
Stone, C. (2006). School counseling principles: Ethics and law. American School Counselor
Association.
Swanson, K., & Gettinger, M. (2016). Teachers’knowledge, attitudes, and supportive behav-
iors toward LGBT students: Relationship to Gay-Straight Alliances, antibullying policy,
and teacher training. Journal of LGBT Youth,13(4), 326–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19361653.2016.118576
Ullman, J. (2017). Teacher positivity towards gender diversity: Exploring relationships and
school outcomes for transgender and gender-diverse students. Sex Education,17(3),
276–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2016.1273104
Vilkin, E., Einhorn, L., Satyanarayana, S., Eisu, A., Kimport, K., & Flentje, A. (2020).
Elementary students’gender beliefs and attitudes following a 12-week arts curriculum
focused on gender. Journal of LGBT Youth,17(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19361653.2019.1613282
66 R. L. ABREU ET AL.
