GLSEN’s latest biennial National School Climate Survey (NSCS), released today, has found few positive changes for LGBTQ students in the past two years, with 82 percent of LGBTQ students feeling unsafe at school, and almost all hearing anti-LGBTQ remarks, many from teachers and staff. What can we do about this?
The NSCS study was conducted online from April through August 2021—after a school year fully hit by the COVID pandemic—and sought a representative national sample of LGBTQ youth. The final sample consisted of 22,298 students between the ages of 13 and 21 (with an average age of 15.4 years), in grades 6 to 12 (primarily 9, 10, and 11). They were from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Northern Mariana Islands. Just over two-thirds (67 percent) were White, 34 percent identified as cisgender female, 31 percent as nonbinary, 30 percent identified as bisexual and 29 percent as gay or lesbian. Further demographic breakdowns are in the full report.
Bottom-Line Changes
GLSEN asserts, “In 2021, we saw few positive changes from the results of the 2019 installment of this survey.” While school climate for LGBTQ students has improved, overall, since the first NSCS in 1999, “school remains quite hostile for many LGBTQ+ students.”
The study adds:
In 2019, we saw a decline in most forms of discrimination from prior years. In 2021, however, many of these forms of discrimination increased, specifically, restrictions on the use of names and pronouns, clothing based on gender, clothing supporting LGBTQ+ issue, and school dances, as well as generally being disciplined for identifying as LGBTQ+. It is important to note that two forms of discrimination that were specific to gender—prevented from using one’s preferred name or pronouns and being prohibited from wearing clothes of another gender—increased from 2019 to 2021.
Regarding the gender-related changes, “It may be that public discourse on transgender students, such as policy battles about bathroom access and access to sports teams and athletic facilities, and about LGBTQ+ curricular inclusion have brought LGBTQ+ student issues, and transgender student issues in particular, to the forefront in U.S. schools.”
Between 2019 and 2021, too, “School staff were reported to have more frequently made anti-LGBTQ+ remarks themselves, and fewer were seen as supportive of LGBTQ+ students in their schools. In addition, school staff were reported to be less likely to intervene when anti-LGBTQ+ remarks were made,” GLSEN notes. While some of those changes could be because of how schools operated during the pandemic, “it may also signal changes in public opinion and in public discourse, especially when considering the increase in the reported negative actions or inaction by the adults in school.”
Additionally, while more than half of LGBTQ students reported having an active GSA (gender-sexualities alliance) at school in recent years, only 35 percent reported one in 2021—although 18 percent of students reported that they ordinarily would have a GSA, but it was unable to meet this year, possibly because of pandemic disruptions. There have also been few positive changes in LGBTQ-related curricular resources (despite, I’ll add, a tremendous rise in the number of LGBTQ-inclusive children’s and young adult books since about 2017).
Perhaps most worryingly, GLSEN found that although student acceptance of LGBTQ people had increased from 2011 to 2015, it then leveled off until 2019, and “was significantly lower in 2021.” Given that the younger generation has generally been more inclined towards LGBTQ acceptance, this is troubling indeed. I’ll speculate that perhaps the disruption of the pandemic made it harder for many students to get to know each other, so that anti-LGBTQ comments in the media carried more weight than pandemic-limited personal experience. Let’s hope we see increased acceptance again in the 2023 iteration of the NSCS.
The Negative
Let’s dive into the details. Among the students surveyed:
- 82 percent reported feeling unsafe in school because of at least one of their actual or perceived personal characteristics.
- For 68 percent of them, these were SOGIE (sexual orientation, gender identity and/or gender expression) characteristics:
- 51 percent sexual orientation
- 43 percent gender expression, and
- 40 percent gender.
- Nearly all—a whopping 97 percent—reported hearing “gay” used negatively;
- 90 percent heard other homophobic remarks;
- 92 percent heard negative remarks about gender expression, and
- 83 percent heard them about transgender people.
- 76 percent of those in in-person or hybrid learning environments experienced in-person verbal harassment based on their SOGIE characteristics; 31 percent were physically harassed (e.g., pushed or shoved), and 13 percent were physically assaulted (e.g., punched, kicked, injured with a weapon).
- About a third of those who attended school online for all or part of the year experienced verbal harassment based on their SOGIE characteristics.
Awful, right? It gets worse.
- Only about one-tenth (11 percent) reported that school staff intervened all or most of the time when overhearing homophobic remarks at school.
- Even fewer (9 percent) reported that school staff intervened all or most of the time when overhearing negative remarks about gender expression.
- 58 percent of students reported hearing homophobic remarks and 72 percent reported hearing negative remarks about gender expression from their teachers or other school staff.
- The bias was often institutionalized: 59 percent of students experienced LGBTQ-related discriminatory policies and practices at school, most commonly related to gender (e.g., they were prevented from using their chosen name or pronouns and from using the bathroom or locker room, wearing clothes, or playing on sports teams aligned with their gender).
Looking at which students were impacted the most:
- Pansexual students reported the most negative school experiences versus students of other sexual orientations, and transgender students, in general, experienced the most hostile school experiences compared to their peers.
- Intersectional identities also came into play:
- Native and Indigenous LGBTQ students experienced more hostile school climates than their peers of other racial/ethnic groups.
- Black students were more likely than most others to feel unsafe because of their race/ethnicity, except for Asian/Pacific Islander and Native and Indigenous students.
- White students were (no surprise!) less likely than all other racial/ethnic groups to feel unsafe or experience victimization because of their racial/ethnic identity.
- LGBTQ students in middle school had more hostile school experiences than those in high school, and were less likely to have access to LGBTQ-related resources, including GSAs, supportive school personnel, LGBTQ-inclusive curricular resources, and inclusive policies.
- LGBTQ students in rural schools faced more hostile school climates and were less likely to have LGBTQ-related school resources or supports than those in urban and suburban schools.
- LGBTQ students in the South had more negative school experiences overall than those in all other regions, and those in the Midwest had more negative experiences overall than those in the Northeast and West.
- Those in the South were least likely to have access to LGBTQ-related resources at school, while students in the Northeast were the most likely.
- Those in private non-religious schools had fewer hostile school experiences in general than those in public schools or religious schools.
Among all students, the type of victimization unsurprisingly tracked with whether students were in in-person, online, or hybrid learning environments during the pandemic. Students who attended school in-person for the entire year experienced more in-person victimization than hybrid students, while online-only students experienced more cyber harassment than hybrid students. Students who were in hybrid settings thus experienced a lower frequency of both forms of victimization, but experienced both forms, versus peers in online-only or in-person-only environments, who only experienced one. Most often, the harassment they faced targeted their LGBTQ+ identities.
The Impact
LGBTQ students who experienced victimization or discrimination were about three times as likely to have missed school in the past month. They had lower GPAs (on average, around B-, versus around B+), and were about twice as likely to report not planning to pursue post-secondary education (college or trade school). They had lower self-esteem, higher levels of depression, and a lower sense of belonging to their school communities.
The Positive
Was there any good news? Or any way to alleviate the negative? Yes. Nearly all LGBTQ students (96 percent) could identify at least one staff member at their school supportive of LGBTQ students. More than half (58 percent) could identify at least six supportive school staff, though only about a third (35 percent) could identify 11 or more, and less than a quarter (24 percent) reported that their school administration was somewhat or very supportive of LGBTQ students.
LGBTQ+ students in schools with an LGBTQ+-inclusive curriculum or a GSA were less likely to hear negative remarks about SOGIE characteristics, less likely to feel unsafe or to miss school because of feeling unsafe, less likely to experience victimization, and more likely to feel a sense of belonging. The presence of LGBTQ-supportive educators and inclusive and supportive school policies also helped.
The Future
Given all of the above, GLSEN recommends that schools (my bold):
- Support student clubs, such as Gay-Straight Alliances or Gender and Sexuality Alliances (GSAs), that provide support for LGBTQ+ students and address LGBTQ+ issues in education;
- Provide training for school staff to improve rates of intervention and increase the number of supportive teachers and other staff available to students;
- Increase student access to appropriate and accurate information regarding LGBTQ+ people, history, and events through inclusive curricula and library and Internet resources; [I’ll note the growing number of LGBTQ-related history books for kids that support this goal.]
- Ensure that school policies and practices, such as those related to dress codes and extracurricular activities including sports, do not discriminate against LGBTQ+ students;
- Enact and implement policies and practices to ensure transgender and nonbinary students have equal access to education, such as having access to gendered facilities that correspond to their gender; and
- Adopt and implement comprehensive school and district anti-bullying/harassment policies that specifically enumerate sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression as protected categories alongside others such as race, religion, and disability, with clear and effective systems for reporting and addressing incidents that students experience.
I’ll add that, given the public policy battles noted above, and the fierce local fights within school and library boards over LGBTQ-inclusive materials and policies (particularly related to transgender students), a key component of helping to make things better for LGBTQ students (and those with LGBTQ parents and guardians) is staying tuned in to our local politics, taking part in meetings, and even running for local office. At the very least, vote, even in purely local elections.
Additionally, I’ll note that while the NSCS necessarily looks at LGBTQ students in aggregate, we need to apply its learnings while never forgetting to treat people as individuals. Not every LGBTQ student is a victim. Not every one is experiencing low self-esteem and depression (though those who are deserve our support). We absolutely do need schools to address victimization and discrimination and implement more inclusive curricula, but not every LGBTQ student is going to experience these the same way or have the same stories to tell.
That being said, the NSCS remains a critical overview of the landscape, a powerful tool for advocacy, and a call to action. Thanks to everyone at GLSEN who has helped to make it happen.
