Running head: EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

The Positive Effects of LGBT-Centric Systems

of Support in Schools
Justin N. McKown
Concordia University Portland

A Thesis Presented to
The Graduate Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of Masters in Education
Concordia University Portland
2016

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youths exposed to sexual discrimination in a
predominantly heterosexist education system deserve professionals in authority who can mediate
on their behalf. While research on LGBT individuals rights is relatively new, many youths, ages
13 through 24, experience stigmatization from a society, which views LGBT people as morally
or physically damaged. Regardless of geographical location or socioeconomic situation,
research finds that most schools, regardless of location, hesitate to embrace diversity and lack
adequate resources or trained staff to work with LGBT students. Such unregulated victimization
directly contributes to lowered academic success, emotional damage, and social hardships.
Several studies reviewed in this Thesis indicate that the two most common contributors to an
improved school climate for LGBT youths are gay-straight alliances and teacher-allies. Having
on-campus LGBT-centric systems of support improves the school climate for all students,
regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity while offering LGBT students a sense of
belonging and a safe place to gather for an otherwise repressed and intimidated margin of
society.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTERCONNECTEDNESS OF LGBT YOUTHS SOCIAL ISSUES AND SCHOOL
ATTENDANCE RATES
LOWER ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AMONG LGBT YOUTHS
Lower Grades among LGBT Youths
ON-CAMPUS GSAS
Resistance Met When Starting a GSA
Negativity Associated With the Absence of Teacher-Allies
Hesitancy of Heterosexual Teachers Involvement
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

Chapter One: The Problem

IntroductionStatement of the Problem
This Thesis reviews research conducted on the emotional, social, and academic effects of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youths involvement in LGBT-centric student-led
organizations in schools. Furthermore, attention concentrates on supportive benefits provided by
teacher-allies. The purpose of this study aims to provide educators with an understanding of the
importance of specific levels of support for LGBT students in an inclusive school setting. The
first chapter of this paper presents the background and significance of the problem.
LGBT people are a marginalized group, historically viewed as a victim to the
internalization of their sexual and gender expression causing many LGBT youth to experience
unjust limitations, sexual prejudice, and hostility in school, a result of the retention of a
predominantly negative heterosexist society (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006). Studies looking to
find support of the educational, social, and emotional successes of LGBT youth in schools are
comparatively new, only occurring within the last 20 years due to cultural and societal shifts of
perception of the LGBT community. Society is slowly becoming more accepting of the sexual
minority due to protective laws, visibility, and the persistence of activists, which in turn enhances
the likelihood of LGBT youth success.
Background or Significance of the Problem
Prior to 1973, the American Psychological Association classified homosexuality as a
mental disorder (Herek, 2000). During a symposium in the same year, before the
declassification, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) met to discuss whether APA
nomenclature should include homosexuality. Notably, Stoller et al. (1973) determined that
although homosexuality is a deviance in human sexual behavior it is not a disorder as there is no

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

assignable syndrome. Stoller et al. (1973) continued by stating that homosexuality is only
noticeable because it frightens many in our society (p. 1207).
Schools are not immune to the heteronormative attitudes expressed in the greater society,
thus sexual discrimination is prevalent in schools. In spite of LGBT students increasing
likelihood of expressing their sexual orientation and gender, they remain an invisible minority
(Lee, 2002). While attending high school, LGBT students experience academic, social, and
emotional hardships due to the prevailing heteronormative attitudes leading to an environment
considerably more unsupportive than the climate experienced by their heterosexual peers.
Students observably learn more efficiently in an environment in which they feel safe and
empowered. Research shows when LGBT youths feel unsafe due to hostility, they are three
times more likely, 61.1% vs. 17.3%, to miss school than their heterosexual peers (Kosciw,
Greytak, & Palmer, 2014). When LGBT students do not attend school, it reasonably follows that
they will not be academically successful. Markedly, the average LGBT students 2.8 GPA was
predictably lower than their straight counterparts average GPA of 3.3 and were twice as likely,
8.7% vs. 4.2%, to say they did not want to pursue a post-secondary education (Kosciw et al.,
2014).
In a study by Eisenberg and Resnick (2006), there were 2,225 gay, lesbian, and bisexual
(GLB) participants (not present in the study were transgender students) identified through a
survey in which they reported having sexual intercourse with a same sex partner. Of these
students, researchers determined that 45.4% of male and 62.8% of female GLB youths
experienced suicidal thoughts, compared to 34.3% of heterosexual male and 49.0% of
heterosexual females (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006). Suicidal attempts were 16.4% higher in
GLB males and 27.6% higher in females.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

Conversely, student-led LGBT organizations and support from teacher-allies increase

LGBT students emotional, social, and academic success as evidenced by school climate surveys.
Historically, schools have hesitated to encourage or accept Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and
similar LGBT-centric clubs. However, GSAs present students of all sexualities and genders,
perceived and actual, the opportunity to create a safe place wherein they are able to feel
accepted, validated, and empowered (Kosciw et al., 2014; Kosciw, Greytak, Kull, & Palmer,
2013; Lee, 2002).
Although

GSAs help support LGBT student mental wellbeing, other support services

provide additional encouragement to LGBT students who are not directly involved in a GSA.
Having multiple supports in place, working in conjunction, creates the most compelling positive
effects on LGBT youths overall welfare. Without other active groups of allies, at every level,
who support sexual diversity among students, the risk exists that many LGBT youths will fail to
recognize any broad validation of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Eisenberg and Resnick (2006) found that when protective support systems were in place,
suicidal ideation among GLB males fell by 5.7% vs. 1.0% among straight males. Suicidal
attempts diminished by 4.6% vs. 1.0% between GLB and non-GLB males. GLB females
suicidal ideation fell by 7.0% vs. 0.6% among non-GLB females. Suicidal attempts fell by 5.8%
vs. 0.6% amid GLB and non-GLB females respectively.
Research continues to suggest that one should not expect LGBT youth to take part,
willingly, in a heteronormative extracurricular club. Furthermore, the findings presented in this
paper point to the notion that when it is acceptance and expectation that only cisgender and
heterosexual identities are valid, it is not likely that LGBT students will feel welcome or
significant in school activities or as part of the student body. Studies show that GSAs provide

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

LGBT students with a safe place in which to belong, as well as the opportunity to develop
positive relationships with their peers and build relationships with understanding adult mentors
(Lee, 2002, p. 14). In a similar study, Worthen (2014) states that when LGBT students form
positive relationships with caring adults there are increased likelihoods of emotional, social, and
academic success in high school, into college, and beyond (Worthen, 2014).
As students become more aware and outspoken about their sexuality, it is paramount that
they have access to the realization of that identity in a school environment that recognizes them
as part of a normal student body, rather than remaining a victimized minority (Lee, 2002). Kohn
(2006) confirms this when defining communities as places where people care about one another
in order to support, and enable them. Kohn further explains that when a community is
established students begin to see themselves as interconnected and part of an us (p. 101).
This sense of community, if established, does not dissipate with time; it only grows stronger and
influences students lives as they continue practicing the concept in their larger communities.
Chapter two of this Thesis will discuss the development of the problem in published
literature as well as the scope of the problem. A history, supported by seminal documents,
continues the exploration of the significance of the issue and will further an understanding of the
research. The writer will also explain the research question and other pertinent information,
including key terms in this inquiry.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

Chapter Two: The Development of the Problem in Published Literature

Overview
LGBT youths issues in education are significant due to the scale and propensity of the
discrimination they face. Though LGBT-centric student-led clubs and teacher-allies lessen
sexual discrimination in schools, leading to positive effects, the issue is larger than the
educational system alone. While there are high occurrences heterosexism, ill-treatment, and
victimization in schools, the beliefs causing the actions are, largely, a representation of society.
Schools represent a microcosm of their greater communities and as such, reflect the values and
prejudices of the people within each community. Therefore, in order to understand the injustices
that LGBT youths experience, it is necessary to explore the values and assumptions of society.
Occurrences of research studies on the improvement of negative climates on LGBT
youths have increased exponentially as societal awareness and acceptance of nonheteronormative sexual orientation and gender expression has increased. This chapter explores
the psychological and societal factors contributive to changing attitudes toward LGBT people
and directly contributing to increased interests in the prevention of LGBT victimization.
Changes in school values and acceptance always echo those of society.
Historical Background
There has been a steady evolution of social views on sexual orientation throughout
history. Comprehension of the history of perceptions of sexual orientation by the psychological
community is paramount to understanding current trends in LGBT youth discrimination in
education research presented in Chapter Three of this paper.
Queer theory. As a philosopher, activist, and founder of Queer Theory, Foucault, in part,
aimed to explore connections between sex and ethnography (Spargo, 1999). One of the most

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

stimulating theories presented by Foucault claims that homosexuality is a concept created by

society rather than biology and developed in the 1870s. Specifically, Foucault stressed that prior
to the era there was a perception of a person performing a homosexual act rather than labeled as
a homosexual. Freud, at the turn of the 20th Century, and the APA in 1973, supported the aptness
of refraining from labeling a person based on that persons behavior.
Homosexuality declassified as a diagnosis. Sigmund Freud was the first well-known
psychiatrist to find, and publish, perceptions about homosexuality that did not align with moral
and religious views, or societal sensitivities. Freud pioneered the psychological view that
homosexual was not a disease and that homosexuals were not sick. Although Freud felt that
homosexuality was not a degenerative disease, he considered homosexuality as a disorder of
psychosexual development (Freud and homosexuality, 1992; Stoller et al., 1973).
Freud (1960) further expresses his progressive views on the subject in his 1935 letter to
an American mother. In his letter, Freud relates to a woman concerned with the effects of her
sons deviant sexuality that, while homosexuality may not be a positive aspect of a persons life,
it did not merit classification as an illness. Instead, Freud explains that it is but a variation of
the sexual function (S. Freud, personal communication, 1935) and nothing more. He continues
by reassuring the mother that there were many successful homosexual people through history.
Freud, and likeminded psychiatrists, contributed greatly to the debunking the historical
precepts that considered homosexuality to be a sexual deviation worthy of the diagnosis.
Rejection of homosexuality as a disease spread rapidly in the following years. During the 1973
symposium on whether homosexuality should be included in APA nomenclature, Stoller et al.
(1973) discussed the negative consequences of diagnosing homosexuality as an illness. In
addition to declaring homosexuality as a product of fear and loathing of homosexuality, Stoller et

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

10

al. claimed that rather than help people, psychiatry was dedicated to making sick people
wellhas been the cornerstone of a system of oppression that makes gay people sick (Stoller et
al. 1973, p. 1211). This growing anti-heterosexist perception among the prevalent psychiatrists
led to the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the same year.
It was another 40 years, in 2013, before the APA (2013) would no longer consider
transgender people as suffering from gender identity disorder, as it is neither a sexual
dysfunction nor a paraphilia (p. 14). Instead, the APA adopted the more accurate term, gender
dysphoria, focusing on the transgender persons depression and anxiety resulting from the
disassociation between that persons biological sex and gender. This shift in terminology
prevents confusion and prevents labeling a person based on a diagnosis instead of that persons
identity. Essentially, instead of seeing the person as the disorder, the symptoms become the
focus of whatever issues are present.
Much in the same way that the APA (2013) recognizes that a child in the autism spectrum
is not identifiable as autistic, which is a label, there has been a shift away from the person-as-theproblem perspective. When speaking about people who are transgender, the symptoms of angst,
distress, and anxiety, psychiatrists treat the persons symptoms cause by a heterosexist society
rather than the persons gender expression. Without considerations such as these, the perception
of being mentally ill has a tendency to cause a person to view oneself as damaged (Stoller et al.,
1973).
How school environment mirrors society. In 1984, Congress passed the Equal Access
Act to protect and guarantee the rights of all high school student groups to conduct meetings
(Grattan, 1999). The court decision in East v. Board (1999) guaranteed that the Equal Access Act
provided LGBT associated clubs with the same rights as religious ones. The decision also

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

11

afforded GSAs the same rights as those previously granted religious clubs and the East Highs
GSA continued gathering as well as procuring access to bulletin boards, posters and the school
PA system (East v. Board, 1999).
Presentation of the Literature
Historically, Christianity rejected sexual minorities. This disjointed view of sexual
orientation is very damaging. Heron and Friends Home Service Committee (1964) wrote, on
behalf of the Quaker Church, in response to rampant sexual discrimination in Christianity, that
Christianity should no longer judge homosexuality as a condition but judge the quality of the
relationship. The authors continued, stating that homosexual affection is as moral as
heterosexual affection (Heron & Friends Home Service Committee, 1964).
An increased acceptance of LGBT people has solidified a movement for LGBT rights in
a concentrated effort to end sexual discrimination experienced by those who identify as sexually
diverse and their allies. This empowerment not only emboldens the community, but individuals
who contribute directly to education and advocacy on behalf of the LGBT person and therefore
LGBT youth.
When support systems, even if only perceived, are in place, members of the LGBT
community are more likely to feel liberated and expressive. In his A Gay Manifesto, Wittman
(1970), calls people to action, announcing to those identifying as sexual minority they should no
longer feel control by a heterosexist majority is necessary. Wittman goes further by saying that
heterosexuality is inherently wrong as it necessitates a fear and hatred of homosexuality to do so.
While Wittmans assertions are extreme and even anti-heterosexual, his reaction and inspiration
is important to note as it was an early example of LGBT persons insisting that others give
recognition to them.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

12

Purpose of the Study and Rationale

This study examines to what degree student-led LGBT organizations in conjunction with
support from teacher allies increase LGBT students emotional, social, and academic success as
evidenced by school climate surveys. These three pillars are essential for the overall well-being
of any school-age youth. Overwhelmingly, the findings indicate that GSAs provide students
with the means to achieve more positive relationships and successes in both school and their
communities (Kosciw et al., 2013, 2014; Lee, 2002). Lees (2002) findings, in particular,
indicate that LGBT students involved in a GSA were likely to form lasting relationships with
other students in the school and within their community, while also becoming noticeably more
confident in their sexual orientation and gender expression. As students develop confidence and
a sense of acceptance of their identities, they also become more likely to participate in class,
attend extracurricular activities, and develop a sense of ownership within their school
environment while also improving attendance and academic success.
It is promising that GSAs lead to improved relationships, emotional states, and academic
achievements among all members, regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression.
Additionally, all members are cognizant of their academic achievements as well as the
observable changes in their improved environment in terms of acceptance. Even students who
have not improved academically become convinced that they have a more promising academic
future and that they can be successful (Lee, 2002). Lee also found that youths who participate in
GSAs felt that they are more capable of making changes in society. This is very different from
past perceptions of LGBT, as people prone to failure. Instead, research appears to indicate that
the climate surrounding the LGBT students influences LGBT youths achievement and selfawareness. As such, research suggests that embracing an LGBT club and reception of support

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

13

from teacher-allies has the ability to affect LGBT students success or failure within the
emotional, social, and academic aspects of their lives.
Furthermore, LGBT youth are significantly more likely to ideate or attempt suicide than
their heterosexual peers. Studies show that LGBT youth are between 20% (Hatzenbuehler, 2011)
and 37.4% (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006). Though GSAs provide a vast amount of emotional,
social, and academic support, they cannot be the sole support for LGBT youth. There must be an
active group of allies, at every level, willing to support the sexually diverse students thereby
validating the existence of not only the GSA, but the LGBT youth as well.
GSAs improved school environment, self-esteem, GPAs, and attendance (Eisenberg &
Resnick, 2006; Kosciw et al., 2013), so did the presence of teacher-allies. It is, however,
important to note that an absence of GSAs also contributes to a lack of teacher-allies both real
and perceived. Eisenberg and Resnick (2006) confirm that clubs and teacher-allies allow
students to feel safe due to the positive environmental change and the subsequent effect on the
student body as well as LGBT students. Equally, a lack of support led to sexual discrimination
and victimization even being labeled as the primary culprit in the epidemic of GLB suicide
(Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006, p. 663) as well as sexual discrimination.
Questions or Hypotheses
Due to an increased recognition of LGBT people, there are opportunities to create safe
zones and programs at all levels for LGBT youth in schools such as gay-straight alliances and the
support of allies. LGBT youths experience validation and empowerment resulting from a
cessation of the accusations of being damaged people. This confirmation develops through
relationships with teacher allies and involvement in student-led LGBT-centric clubs. This
acceptance of the student and the increased protection from heterosexist attitudes results in fewer

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

14

occurrences of sexual prejudice. These factors increase the LGBT students social, emotional,
and academic success.
Operational Definitions
LGBT. LGBT is the acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender.
Sexual Minority. Sexual minority people are those who are non-heterosexual, noncisgender, or both.
Sexual Prejudice. Sexual Prejudice is used similarly to homophobia, with an assertion
that a behavior exists which conveys negativity toward another persons sexual orientation or
gender (Herek, 2000).
Straight. Straight is a synonym for the word heterosexual.
Teacher-ally. A teacher-ally is an educator who is aware of sexual discrimination in
schools and aims to create a more positive environment for the LGBT community and its allies.
The teacher-ally is committed to creating a safe, inclusive space for all students with the
consciousness that LGBT students are a part of the classroom.
Transgender. A transgender person recognizes an incongruity in ones biological sex
and gender. In response to this recognition, the transgender person diverges from the
heteronormative perception that ones gender and biological sex are consistent.
Youth. The focus of this research is on high school students. Kosciw et al. (2013, 2014)
consider youth as those between 13 and 18 years old. Notably, Malley, Posner, and Potter (2008)
opt to identify youth as being between the ages of 15 and 24.
Conclusion of Chapter Two
It is impossible to view homosexuality, bisexuality, and differences in gender expression
through a single lens. As a multifaceted issue, it goes beyond situational occurrences and be

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

15

considered a product of its environment. Promisingly, schools have had the power in the past to
change society around it. Chapter Three of this paper presents a larger literature review
contributing to the overall understanding of LGBT issues as a grander problem than schools in
the hopes that there can be change that happens from the schools to society. Heterosexist
behavior and beliefs engrain society and should continue to evolve into more accepting and
caring practices and environments.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

16

Chapter Three: Literature Review

Overview
During the last several decades, researchers performed various studies on the
psychological well-being of LGBT individuals. While this is indicative of a changing perception
of the LGBT community by society, comparatively few studies exist on the effects of
heterosexist discrimination in educational settings. Such bigotry directly, and negatively, affects
the emotional, social, and academic well-being of LGBT youth.
Persistence from activists, allies, and members of the LGBT community led to an
increased visibility of LGBT caused by psychological shifts away from identifying LGBT
individuals by their behavior and an end to considering homosexuality a disease worthy of
diagnosis. This shift in thought by mental health experts, coupled with a de-stigmatization of
sexual behavior during Americas sexual revolution during the 1960s began the current evolution
of tolerance towards homosexuality, a social perception, which still lacked acceptance (Allyn,
2000).
The author of this paper presents an investigation into the widespread negative impacts of
sexual discrimination experienced by LGBT youths in educational settings dominated by
heterosexist beliefs. A synthesis of analyzed research explains the discrimination, victimization,
and oppression of LGBT students and the effects endured. Additionally, the author of this paper
proposes to determine the positive corollaries of LGBT inclusive support programs in
educational settings. Specifically, Chapter Three discusses the positive effects produced through
LGBT youths involvement in GSAs, and support received from teacher-allies.
Interconnectedness of LGBT Youths Social Issues and School Attendance Rates

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

17

Sexual discrimination is present within all tiers of the educational system, which may
help explain why the literature reviewed in this paper found discrepancies between LGBT
students academic achievement and their heterosexual peers. Though positive opinions toward
LGBT individuals have increased in the past few decades, there are prevailing struggles for
LGBT youths. The greatest contributing factor for these youth may be the necessity to progress
though a heteronormative school system. Within such an environment, LGBT youth experience
the adverse results of their rejected identities, as well as a perception that others see them as
something not worth considering (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Kosciw et al., 2013; McCarn &
Fassinger, 1996; Szalacha, 2003). This reviews relevance is particularly important to education
considering nearly 60.0% of LGBT students report feeling unsafe at school because of their
sexual orientation while 40.0% report feeling endangered because of their gender.
In the Kosciw et al. (2014) study, 68.4% of LGBT students surveyed stated that their
schools did not present lessons about LGBT people, history, or events. The lack of inclusion
encourages rejection and marginalization during which recognition of the LGBT student as a
whole person does not exist. When students observe they are only valid during special occasions
and days celebrating diversity, they receive a message of being something rather than someone
(Szalacha, 2003).
Absenteeism among LGBT youths. In-school victimization leads to lower GPAs and
increased levels of absenteeism. This is not surprising when taking into account higher levels of
victimization, prejudice, and ill-treatment against LGBT youths (Kosciw et al., 2013, 2014; Lee,
2002; Mack, 2012). One study, conducted in Seattle Washington, found that 16% of LGBT
students had skipped a whole day of school within the last month. This makes LGBT students

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

18

four times more likely to skip than their straight classmates of whom only 4.0% had skipped a
whole day within the same period of time (Saewyc & Reis, 1999).
The results of a nationwide study were similar to those found by Saewyc and Reis (1999)
when showing that students were 3.5 times more likely to skip if they identified as a sexual
minority (Kosciw et al., 2014). Specifically Kosciw et al. (2014) found that 61.1% of LGBT
students had skipped school in past month due to victimization based on their sexual orientation
as compared to 17.3% of their peers. Similarly, Kosciw et al. (2014) established that students
who felt mistreated because of their gender identity also skipped school more, 58.6% vs. 18.2%
of their non-LGBT peers. Moreover, the study dictates that a surprising 10.8% of LGBT
students had skipped a full day of school four or more times in the last month. A representation
of non-LGBT students was absent in the results of the Kosciw et al. study.
Mack (2012) separated lesbian, gay, and bisexual statistics, further extrapolating the data
collected from several states and urban populations throughout America. In the study,
researchers found that, while 4.8% of heterosexual students missed at least one day in the past
month, 21.1% of gay or lesbian students had done the same while 12.7% bisexual students had
skipped (Mack, 2012).
Lower Academic Achievement among LGBT Youths
Naturally, many students experiencing a hostile environment used avoidance of school as
an attempt to gain relief from prejudice. Reasonably, if students miss school they fail to gain the
skills necessary for academic success. Considering this reason alone, there is a need for more
involvement from educators to thwart sexual discrimination between students in order to
encourage higher attendance rates by LGBT students.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

19

Lower grades among LGBT youths. In addition to higher instances of nonattendance,

LGBT youths earn lower grades due to harassment and lack of support (Aragon, Espelage,
Koenig, & Poteat, 2014). Just as harassment correlates to absenteeism, missing full days of
school noticeably relates to lower GPAs. This aspect of sexual discrimination is not surprising
given the logical effects of not attending school.
In the Kosciw et al. (2014) national study, the average LGBT students GPA was 2.8 as
compared to their corresponding heterosexual students 3.3 GPA. In addition to discrimination
and truancy, this can be partially due to a lack of inclusive classrooms. Many LGBT students
reported that they experienced constant heterosexist attitudes that ended any discussions of
LGBT topics in the classroom (Yost & Gilmore, 2011). One of the suggestions often given to
beginning teachers is to make the material relevant to the students if the educator wants to inspire
deeper understanding and create scaffolding for future learning. If an LGBT youth does not feel
represented in the classroom, that student may be less likely to succeed in several aspects of
accomplishment due to rejection and marginalization during which the LGBT student does not
feel recognized as existing (Kosciw et al., 2014; Stoller et al., 1973).
Lack of ambition among LGBT youths. A further purpose of ending sexual
discrimination in schools results from the fact that LGBT youths who experience sexual
discrimination have lower expectations of attending a four-year college. Remarkably, LGBT
students also have lower expectations of finishing high school (Aragon et al., 2014). Due to
bullying abuse LGBT youths were twice as likely, 8.7% vs. 4.2%, to say they did not want to
pursue a post-secondary education (Kosciw et al., 2014).
LGBT youths were also considerably unsure of if they would graduate high school. In a
nationwide student climate survey, an astonishing 3.4% of LGBT students were uncertain

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

20

whether they would graduate. Of those who were unsure of high school graduation, 57.6%
indicated that a hostile school environment was to blame, while 21.8% feared the academic
requirements put on them in addition to missed school days from trying to avoid hostility.
Another 19.8% had mental issues such as depression and anxiety caused by the intimidating
heterosexist climate they experienced or avoided on a daily basis (Kosciw et al., 2014).
An environment of fear and humiliation greatly contributes to hesitant responses from the
victimized students. For example, of the LGBT students reporting harassment based on their
sexual orientation or gender identity, only 56.7% ever reported the abuse to an educator, while
very few, only 16.1% reported ill treatment on a regular basis. Slightly fewer than half, 46.5%,
confided in a family member. Of the ones that told a family member, only 56.0% claimed that
the family member intervened on their behalf via a meeting with school staff (Kosciw et al.,
2014).
Research indicates that even when students report their dangerous climate to educators
they lose faith in there being a positive resolution in their favor due to the educators lack of
response. As a result, they report future occurrences 40.6% less. These figures express low
levels of intervention by family members on behalf of LGBT youths in heterosexist educational
settings resulting in 26.4% of burdened LGBT youths receiving help from a trusted family
member. Studies imperatively give the impression that trusted individuals must intervene swiftly
and compassionately in order to establish a positive beneficial relationship with LGBT youths in
order to provide trust in the adult and relief from the heterosexist harassment.
Suicidal Ideation among LGBT Youth
In the past, the opinion held was that suicidal members of the LGBT community were
victims of their diagnosed disease. More common in LGBT youths (Almeida et al., 2009), are

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

21

depression, anxiety, and ultimately, a tendency toward suicidal ideation. Many considered these
conditions as merely side effects of an already pervasive illness, correctable if the larger cause,
homosexuality, was cured (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Stoller et al., 1973). Psychological
studies on the results of being homosexual became quite popular at the turn of the 20th Century
until perceptions on homosexuality vs. homosexual behaviors began to surface. Quickly, the
attention changed from the person, to the behavior, and eventually to a study of the environment
in which the LGBT person behaved in the deviant manner. Once perception about
homosexuality changed, studies completed on the effects of environmental conditions pointed to
climate being the primary offender in the negative psychological conditions of LGBT youths
(Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006).
While increased visibility and improved acceptance of the LGBT community over the
last 20 to 30 years increased the safety of LGBT youths, with subsequent increased visibility
comes easier identification of those who do not fit within the confines of heterosexist norms.
Sexual discrimination and the resulting victimization of LGBT youths prevent them from
developing their voice and contribute to a climate of silence among those who would otherwise
speak out against injustice (Dworkin & Yi, 2003).
A negative, discriminatory, heterosexist climate causes LGBT youths psychological
complications just as high levels of indoctrinated sexual discrimination leads to victimization of
non-LGBT youths presumed LGBT (Dworkin & Yi, 2009; Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006, Kosciw
et al., 2013, 2014; Lee, 2002). In one study, 7.0% of respondents, both LGBT and non-LGBT,
reported discrimination simply because of their presupposed sexual identity (Almeida et al.,
2009). This type of discrimination is prevalent enough to lead schools development of specific
anti-bullying language to protect students by including the word perceived, thereby granting

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

22

protection of both reputed and actual LGBT students (Parkersburg South High School
Handbook, 2015).
Suicide is the third leading cause of death among youth in the United States (Malley et al.
2008). However, data from surveyed LGBT youth in Boston showed LGBT suicidal ideation
twice as much as heterosexual youth, 31.0% vs. 14.0% (Almeida et al., 2009). During a national
study conducted by Eisenberg and Resnick (2006) analysis revealed that 45.4% of male and
62.8% of female GLB students expressed having had suicidal ideation during the past year when
compared to 34.3% of heterosexual males and 49.0% of heterosexual females who experienced
the same. A smaller sample consisting of students from nine states and cities, Delaware, Maine,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, Boston, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco,
research showed that 10.0% of heterosexual students had planned their suicide within the past 12
months compared to 21.2% of gay or lesbian students, and 35.7% of bisexual students (Mack,
2012).
Similar to findings about ideation, researchers find it common that LGBT youths attempt
suicide when compared to non-LGBT youths. Additionally, LGBT youth suicide attempts need
professional medical treatment five times more often than heterosexual youths (Mack, 2012).
Eisenberg and Resnick (2006) found that suicidal attempts occurred over twice as many times in
GLB youths than non-GLB youths, 29.0% GLB males vs. 12.6% non-GLB males and 52.4% vs.
24.8% among GLB and non-GLB females Hatzenbuehler (2011) further indicates that variances
as great as 21.5% vs. 4.2% exist between LGBT and non-LGBT students of both sexes. As with
suicidal ideation, the dissimilarities in suicidal tendencies tend to increase as the sample size
shrinks. A possible reason lies in the urban areas in which the samples occurred, a phenomenon
discussed later in this chapter.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

23

On-Campus GSAs
Recent studies propose that LGBT-centric, student-led organizations such as GSAs have
the ability to create safer, more accepting climates for LGBT youth by creating specific,
inclusive safe spaces that combat negative consequences faced daily by LGBT youth. Aragon et
al. (2014) suggest one method of reducing the differences between heterosexual and LGBT
youths academic, emotional, and social development is to consider the harm done by climatic
factors such as discrimination and victimization. GSAs provide a way to ameliorate such
conditions.
Resistance met when starting a GSA. Present in schools is an attitude of tolerance but
not acceptance. LGBT students experience a begrudged recognition of existing while being
expected to hide their identities or risk violating the underlying anti-sexual minority expectations
of their schools social order. The stigma of homosexuality as immoral or disgusting pervades in
areas rooted in heteronormativitya direct cause of LGBT hatred and rejection (Stoller, et al.,
1973). Ultimately, LGBT students feel a need to hide not only their actions but also their
identities from both students and teachers in order to keep from having their sexual orientation or
gender shared without their consent while being labeled by their actions (Higa et al., 2012).
Though established as protection for religious speech, the Equal Access Act of 1984
extends to other instances of free speech. Additionally, provided to extracurricular clubs is
secure and equal access to school facilities when meeting as long as said club does not directly
interfere or prevent the educational process. Finally, the club must have a school representative
present in a non-participatory capacity (Equal Access Act of 1984). While legal protection for
GSAs is in place, many times LGBT students continue to experience high levels of conflict from
within their schools and the communities alike.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

24

Due to such levels of resistance, prejudice occurs when students attempt to start their own
GSAs. Subsequently, youths potentially experience resistance from every level of school, listing
administration and teachers at the top of the list (Higa et al., 2012). Oftentimes, overbearing
heterosexist climates may remain hidden to non-LGBT persons ignorant of discriminatory
factors faced by LGBT people. As part of a hidden curriculum, school boards will often adopt
curricula that interfere with LGBT youths safety, wellbeing, and personal identity. Mayo (2008)
explored schools tendency to encourage abstinence-only sex education in which educators
equate sex to sexual orientation, further perpetuating a heterosexual-only concept of sex, as well
as institutionalizing heterosexism and its included prejudices. A further consequence of an
abstinence-only curriculum is that it limits potential discussion on the topic of sexual minorities.
This hesitancy results from a perception that the word gay, in gay-straight alliance, links to
promiscuity and fornication (Mayo, 2008). Often, such strategies, used preventatively, prohibit
GSAs under the guise of a policy to prevent encouragement of sexual practices in schools while
LGBT students experience greater levels of isolation, oppression, and dehumanization than
before.
The tolerate-but-not-accept attitude pervades among conservative parents who idealize
the false claim that GSAs are a byproduct of some kind of gay agenda and that the clubs
encourage teenage intercourse. The author of this Thesis witnessed a high school principal
express concern over the incongruous possibility of increased teenage pregnancies caused by
having a GSA in the school. Said principal was also concerned about the possibility of offending
people by including the word gay in the announcements when reminding students of the meeting
times each Friday morning.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

25

Offending people is a valid concern since resistant school personnel potentially lead to
further acts of sexual discrimination, if not directly, through passivity when it occurs in their
classrooms. Likewise, conservative students have conservative parents who regularly insist that
a positive view of homosexuality does not belong in a school environment (Szalacha, 2003).
Benefits of on-campus GSAs. The presence of GSAs directly contributes to fewer
occurrences of sexual discrimination in schools (Kosciw, 2013). Essential to LGBT students
seeing educators as people who will help protect and encourage them is finding adults to support
and advise their clubs. When administrators and educators embrace diversity, they contribute to
a climate wherein acceptance and tolerance become integral to the student body with the
possibility of spreading to the community. Modeling the desired behavior is a part of shifting
negative behavior towards a positive one as well as a method to promote understanding. The
result of likeminded individuals supporting LGBT students not only transforms their students
vitriolic atmosphere, but also the lives of the students.
Having support systems at every level is necessary for the successful education and
safety of all students, and is especially imperative for LGBT students who continue to experience
prejudice at a considerably higher rate than do their heterosexual peers. Functioning as a
transformative feature of LGBT youths lives, GSAs create safe places where students have the
ability to develop positive relationships with other students, and adult mentors while establishing
a foundation on which to build self-esteem and optimistic outlooks on their lives. For example,
LGBT students in pervasively unaccepting schools felt hopeless about their futures. Inversely,
when encouraged by a GSA, students felt enabled and supported to the extent of embracing the
hopes of a postsecondary education. Even when LGBT students grades did not improve, they
felt hopeful when considering their academic and personal futures (Lee, 2002).

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

26

Many youths report very positive levels of support and a more accepting school climate
resultant of having a GSA in schools. Respondents surveyed by Higa et al. (2012) who had
participated in a GSA stated that they gained approval and validation from other students in their
school. LGBT students no longer felt isolated when meeting with peers who shared their sexual
orientation or gender identity. They were also more cognizant of supportive peers regardless of
their classmates involvement in the club in addition to teachers who seem supportive and caring
(Higa et al., 2012; Kosciw et al., 2014, 2013; Lee, 2002).
In addition, by having a GSA in their school, LGBT youths are more likely to stay in
school. LGBT youths were 13.0% less likely to miss school that those who did not have access
to a GSA on campus (Kosciw et al., 2014). LGBT students considered their school environments
to be generally safer, 36.7% vs. 23.2%, when they had a GSA in which to be involved (Kosciw et
al., 2014). These positive effects occur regardless of the clubs visible activism pointing to the
idea that the importance of a GSAs existence is of foremost importance in determining a climate
of significant change.
The contrast between schools with GSAs and those without is stark. When LGBT youths
experience unregulated sexual discrimination the stress to conform to heteronormative standards
symptomatology is considerably higher in LGBT youths as compared to non-LGBT youths.
Upon onset of support systems, LGBT youths likelihood of self-harming is marginally lower
than their straight peers chances. Additional improved attitudes and resulting comfort are
inevitable as LGBT student experience increased notions of safety within the school
environment. Most notably, not only are LGBT youths less inclined to experience depression,
they also drink less alcohol, experience less heterosexist discrimination or violence, and

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

27

ultimately involved in less suicidal ideation and attempts (Almeida et al., 2009; Hatzenbuehler,
2011; Worthen, 2014).
In spite of statistics showing that 56.1% of LGBT students participated in a GSA some of
the time, nearly 32.3% did not, while the remaining 11.6% rarely participated (Kosciw et al.,
2014). In a study by Szalacha (2003), findings determined that 65% of all students did not know
if there were specific protective policies or educator training in place to benefit LGBT students.
However, nearly 90% of the entire student body knew if a GSA existed in their school. These
studies indicate that no requirement exists for LGBT youth involvement in a GSA in order to
reap the benefits. This corresponds with research stating that LGBT students involved in GSAs
more likely participate in other extracurricular activities (Szalacha, 2003).
GSAs do not merely function as a social club. GSAs create safer, supportive schools for
the entire student body, predominantly those considered as sexual minority. GSAs make visible
those students that all too often remain otherwise through interactions between peers and adults
that would be otherwise possible. Sent, is the message that all students receive respect,
encouragement, and value regardless of any minority status they hold.
Teacher-Allies
Promisingly, the occurrence of GSAs directly relate to the exposure of teachers who
willingly take on the role of teacher-ally. LGBT youths necessity for teacher-allies in their lives
stems greatly from a lack of positive support provided by trustworthy, supportive adults. To
clarify the essentiality of teacher-allies, one must first examine how LGBT youth view teachers.
Teacher-allies, ultimately affect all aspects of LGBT students lives including directly
correlating to fewer missed days of school by LGBT students leading to higher GPAs and
increased probabilities of obtaining a postsecondary education. Whereas 12.0% of LGBT

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

28

students in non-inclusive schools choose not to attend college, the number drops to 3.0% when
there are 11 or more supportive teachers in the individual LGBT students life (Kosciw et al.,
2013). Kosciw et al. (2013) emphasizes that in addition to increasing LGBT students academic
success, relationships with teacher-allies become especially helpful for highly traumatized
students in that they reduce suicidal thoughts and attempts as well as provide intervention and
relief to students experiencing heterosexist victimization.
Negativity associated with the absence of teacher-allies. The reason specified most
often by 32.5% of LGBT students for choosing not to report harassment and violence to an
educator resulted from students doubt about the likelihood of preventative intervention on their
behalf (Kosciw, 2014). Research further explains a possible factor for LGBT youths distrust in
educators as 51.4% of youth surveyed by Kosciw et al. (2014) recounted hearing sexually
discriminatory remarks from teachers and administration. Likewise, 55.5% of students reported
witnessing school employees making disparaging remarks about a students gender or gender
expression. Kosciw et al. (2013) discovered that close to 70% of student participants reported
hearing similar remarks from teachers and faculty. Hesitancy in seeking help may also result
from the fact that nearly a third, of students recognized a school employees presence and
inaction while discriminating students verbalized heterosexist remarks.
Hesitancy of heterosexual teachers involvement. The question to ask is why do
teachers hesitate to become involved in bettering the lives of the LGBT students? Frequently
teachers feel positively toward the LGBT community but do not advocate on behalf of LGBT
youths nor become visible allies. This is due, in part, to the social stigma of being labeled as part
of the LGBT community when not a member as well as the possible consequences on ones
professional appearance in a heavily heteronormative society.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

29

Most commonly, heterosexuals fail to act as allies due to their lack of confidence. Many
do not feel qualified to be an ally because of ignorance on LGBT issues. Participants in Ji,
Dubois, and Finnessys (2009) study, while unwilling to accept the responsibility of the role of
ally, stated that they felt strongly about LGBT issues in spite of a disinclination to speak out or
act on behalf of the victimized person. Additionally, guilt from saying disparaging remarks
about LGBT peers in the past, made it difficult for them to accept a positive role (Ji et al., 2009).
Participants displayed culturally ingrained heterosexist fears about others perceptions if
recognized as an ally to the LGBT community as well as a lack of support from their friends and
family due to the two groups personal prejudices (Ji et al., 2009). Inevitably, the participants'
hesitancy to act as allies mirrored LGBT youths' frequent fear of being open with their sexual
preference or gender identity.
The benefits of teacher-allies on campus. LGBT youths observed significantly reduced
occurrences of derogatory remarks stemming from sexual prejudice by nearly 25%, regardless of
whether initiated by students or teachers. When LGBT youths could not identify having teacherallies in their schools, 78.5% of students regularly heard pejoratives related to sexual orientation
and gender expression (Kosciw et al., 2014). On the contrary, the study found that, with the
addition of teacher-allies, the number of LGBT youths noticing disparaging comments fell to
54.7%.
The most contributive factor affecting LGBT youths' suicidal ideation was a lack of
support from caring adults, including teachers, leading to lowered perceptions of school safety
(Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006). Supportive educators equate to greater chances of social,
emotional, and academic outcomes in LGBT youths. Similar to the results of having a GSA
available to students to participate, teacher-allies greatly improve the school climate for the

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

30

safety and success of both LGBT and non-LGBT students. Interestingly, Kosciw et al. (2014)
discovered that teacher-allies led to greater occurrences of GSA formation. The inverse was also
true. Additionally, researchers found that teachers intervened more often when they knew other
teachers who openly supported and defended LGBT youth (Szalacha, 2003). Even though
36.1% of students reported not feeling safe due to their teachers failure to intervene, that number
fell to 19.3% in schools with known teacher-allies (Kosciw et al., 2014).
When developing proactive methods of making education relevant, schools often attempt
to develop and adopt innovative and adaptive pedagogical techniques. Such policies are not
effective when students are frightened to the point of not attending class. GSAs and teacherallies not only provide support, they are systems contributive to positive changes in LGBT and
non-LGBT youths lives. Schools cannot afford to ignore the destructive nature of
discrimination in schools and the effects it has on its students, faculty, and community.
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study
Assumptions at the onset of this chapters creation included the notion that LGBT youth
experience higher levels of sexual discrimination when compared to non-LGBT peers resulting
from a heterosexist society and the expectations of schools with similar values. Unexpected
were the numerous accounts of open discrimination from educators. Such actions are
detrimental to students identifying as LGBT. Furthermore, victimization caused by educators,
witnessed by the student body, sends the message that such behaviors are not only acceptable,
but are acceptable as part of the norm.
Social perception and acceptance of the LGBT community is multifaceted and larger in
scope than educational environments. While strong qualitative methodology exists in this
chapters reviewed literature, assumptions and limitations exist in several areas. Firstly,

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

31

difficulties arise from the inability to cross analyze studies due to differences in geographical
area resulting in generalizations. This prevents an individual from thoroughly evaluating
discrimination in schools by limiting cultural and socioeconomic factors also affecting social
opinions of LGBT students.
For example, similarities do not parallel sameness. When comparing suburban areas
from national surveys to urban youth, the results may be similar, but discrimination factors faced
by students are distinct. It is necessary, for instance, to note that the smaller samples presented in
this Thesis are from urban areas in which there are higher percentages of people of color. Rigid
gender roles pose unique conflicts for Hispanic youth, traditionally expected to act as strong
male role models in their families and communities while African American students may
experience both familial obligation and religious discrepancies when considering the
acceptability of sexual orientation and gender expression (Higa et al., 2012).
The administered climate surveys also lacked consistency when measuring the status of a
students sexual orientation and gender identity varying from heterosexual to the more specific
non-LGBT. Arguably, the words, used interchangeably in this paper, the more precise term, nonLGBT becomes more apt in distinguishing one inclination from the other considering a
transgender student may consider themselves heterosexual. Additionally, the overall exclusion
of transgender youth may be the result of the APA classifying transgender individuals as
suffering from a psychological illness prior to 2013. Considering the declassification and
transgender persons rights being in the forefront of LGBT activists concerns, the author of this
thesis hypothesizes greater occurrences of transgender specific youth-in-education studies
appearing in the near future.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

32

As was the case in the two Kosciw (2013, 2014) surveys, student selection came from
recruitment from LGBT youths who self-identified as such on social media websites, as well as
community centers and other outside support systems. Initially, there is strength in such a
method. However, when an LGBT youth is open with the individuals sexuality or gender
identity, the youth may experience more sexual discrimination than those who prefer discretion.
Additionally, if an LGBT youth seeks out the support of a center outside of school, there is the
potentiality of the youths discouragement over other systems of support in their life, which, in
theory skews the data collected by researchers due to greater feelings of abandonment. The
contrary could also be true if the youth feels added levels of support from community services
skewing the results of the surveys.
Conclusion of Chapter Three
As a result of growing tolerance of sexual minorities in the United States, acceptance
continues to grow. Providing a safe and caring environment in which students may learn is
essential to every student regardless of sexual orientation or gender expression. Upon
consideration of LGBT youths victimizations systems of support should be in place to
counteract the existing prejudices and forced heteronormativity present in most aspects of LGBT
youths lives.
As evidenced in this chapter, GSAs and teacher-allies are certainly two systems that,
when in place, change the lives of the entire student body. Though resistance is common, it
should be imperative for all school representatives to embrace similar methods of creating
positive change in school climates. When this happens, individual attitudes change, students feel
supported, all while communities experience transformation.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

33

The benefit of this paper is to provide an in-depth understanding of the benefits of

student-led LGBT organizations and teacher-allies as supportive methods benefiting the lives of
LGBT students. Chapter Four further explores the conclusions found when reviewing the
presented literature. Additionally, the chapter gives recommendations to stakeholders for
ensuring a supportive school climate for all students with a specific focus on LGBT youth.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

34

Chapter Four: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Summary
While an increased tolerance of LGBT youths exists, a lack of acceptance contributes to a
continuing disregard for LGBT students specific needs. LGBT youths, due to subjection to a
heterosexist climate, directly experience lower GPAs, higher levels of absenteeism, apathy,
depressive disorder, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and reported greater occurrences of
discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. In turn, this leads to LGBT
youths feeling invalidated, leading LGBT youths to feel damaged and have a decreased chance
of social, emotional, or academic success.
In spite of experiencing hostility, sexual prejudice, and resulting hardships due societal
rejection LGBT youths have hope (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Stoller et al., 1973). Systems of
support not only empower LGBT youth, but directly reduce negative effects resulting from the
creation of positive change. The effects provided by LGBT-centric, student-led groups, such as
GSAs in conjunction with supportive teacher-allies result in a more LGBT inclusive environment
and consequently, a safer environment for all students regardless of sexual orientation or gender
expression.
LGBT issues in education are not exclusive to schools as values inside schools mirror
those of society. Though systems of support provide positive relief from ill-treatment and
victimization, without educator support for such programs, change is not likely to be
comprehensive. Presented, in this chapter, is a discussion of found conclusions potentially
contributive to the overall success of LGBT youths in school and beyond as well as
recommendations for, and benefits of, on-campus GSAs and teacher-allies as systems of support
for victimized LGBT youths.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

35

Discussion of the Results and Conclusions

Eisenberg and Resnick (2006) confirm that GSAs and teacher-allies directly contribute to
a more positive school environment leading to a safer school climate and encourage LGBT
students success. Equally, such provisions provide a counteractive effect on depressive
symptoms and suicidal ideation among LGBT students, which in turn increase the likelihood of
social, emotional, and academic success.
The most commonly mentioned negative aspects mentioned by youths identifying as
LGBT was fear of exposure (Szalacha, 2003). In many cases, being out to others created a
dangerous situation for LGBT youths, already forced to conform to a heteronormative society.
GSAs and teacher-allies provide a sense of belonging for an otherwise repressed and intimidated
margin of society. By participating in a GSA youth of all sexualities and genders, perceived and
actual, have the opportunity to create a safe place wherein they are able to feel accepted,
validated, and empowered (Kosciw et al., 2014, 2013; Lee, 2002). Students, educators, and
parents should realize that addressing LGBT issues in education is not optional, but essential.
Assumptions and Limitations of the Study
During the last 20 years, research pertaining to LGBT individuals increased
exponentially, though studies on the effects of negative school climate on LGBT youths are
relatively new significantly limiting the scope of the issue. Very limited nationwide and global
studies exist on the educational aspects of LGBT youths creating difficulty when properly
attempting analysis of the range of LGBT issues in education. Due to stigmatization and cultural
views of LGBT individuals, widespread global research is unlikely in the near future.
Held in the beginning of this paper was an assumption that smaller, rural schools display
sexual prejudice on a more frequent basis than larger areas with visible LGBT populations.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

36

Upon completing this Thesis, the assumption held is that most schools, regardless of location, are
hesitant to embrace diversity and lack adequate resources or trained staff to work with LGBT
students. No longer adequate is reaction enough, there should be those who adopt proactive
roles in the prevention of sexual discrimination in schools not only to protect LGBT students, but
the entire student body. In this way, school safety and student success increases as evidenced by
the studies presented in this Thesis.
While the held assumptions changed, discouragement did not occur. Instead, a further
understanding of the enormous impact of sexual prejudice comes into view. Additionally, the
necessity for systems of support becomes logical and apparent.
Recommendations
A vital recommendation is that schools need to develop LGBT inclusive policies and
standards that include specific language to safeguard students identifying as LGBT from
victimization and prejudice. While Parkersburg South High Schools GSA was part of what
many considered a media firestorm when members of the community perceived an educators
social media post as derogatory and anti-gay, entertaining the complaints of those who are
offended by the word gay in gay-straight alliance should not be administrations response.
Neither should the assumption exist that parents educate their children about sexual
discrimination, something considerably different from sex education.
Lickona (1992) points out that one can no longer assumea strong, cohesive family that
supports and teaches the value norms of the school (p. 35). To guarantee effective collaboration
between schools and parents, on behalf of LGBT youths, educators should recognize that neither
party is able to create a safe environment without the others help. By actively teaching values

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

37

and personal responsibility in schools, students learn that contracts to perform as expected exist
with teachers.
The school system does not need to teach parents the definition of a safe environment.
Schools need to teach parents the necessity of a safe school environment by showing parents the
results of having one. Personal responsibility fosters respect. Respect leads to comfort.
Comfort leads to an enriched, effective learning environment. Therefore, school personnel must
work collaboratively to promote supportive LGBT-inclusive school climates that offer
opportunity for the academic and social development of sexual minority youth (Aragon et al.,
2014).
This all relates to a need for training for teachers and others who wish to be allies. GSAs
are a way to educate students and teachers, in addition to other programs such as Safe Zone
Training. Research shows that similar preparation helps improve the teacher-ally participants'
comfort in advocating on behalf of LGBT people, as did a support system provided by the GSA
in which they shared their fears and hopes for the future (Ji et al., 2009).
Suggestions for Further Research
Due to the minimal amount of existing research, there is an additional need for the
completion of studies on the effects of educational climate on LGBT youths. Additionally
necessary is the presence of transgender students in student climate surveys. Any statistics
pertaining to transgender students contains possible inaccuracies due to transgender individuals
diagnoses as mentally ill prior to 2003, in addition to many transgender peoples concern for
personal safety preventing them from disclosing their gender identity. Regardless of the reason
for there not being a greater sample of transgender students in LGBT student surveys at least is
partially due a lack of acceptance and a hesitancy for tolerance.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

38

References
Allyn, D. (2000). Make love, not war : the sexual revolution, an unfettered history. Boston,
Mass: Little, Brown.
Almeida, J., Johnson, R., Corliss, H., Molnar, B., & Azrael, D. (2009). Emotional distress among
LGBT youth: The influence of perceived discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38(7), pp. 1001-1014.
doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9397-9
American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). Highlights of changes from DSM-IV to
DSM-5. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596.changes
Aragon, S., Espelage, D., Koenig, B., & Poteat, P. (2014). The influence of peer victimization on
educational outcomes for LGBTQ and Non-LGBTQ high school students. Journal of
LGBT Youth 11(1), pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1080/19361653.20140761
Dworkin, S., & Yi, H. (2003). LGBT identity, violence, and social justice: The psychological is
political. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 25(4), pp. 269279.
doi:10.1023/b:adco.0000005526.87218.9f
East High Gay/Straight Alliance v. Board of Education of Salt Lake City School District, 81
F.Supp.2d 1166 (1999).
Eisenberg, M., & Resnick, M. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth: The
role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39(5), pp. 662668.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.04.024

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

39

Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. 407174, 1984 Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/4071

Freud, S. (1960). The letters of Sigmund Freud. E. Freud (Ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Freud and homosexuality. (1992). American Journal of Psychiatry, 149(6), p. 847a847.
doi:10.1176/ajp.149.6.847a
Grattan, R. (1999). It's not just for religion anymore: Expanding the protections of the equal
access act to gay, lesbian, and bisexual high school students, The George Washington
Law Review, March 1999(577).
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2011). The Social Environment and Suicide Attempts in Lesbian, Gay, and
Bisexual Youth. Pediatrics (5), pp. 896903. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-3020
Herek, G. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, February 2000(9), pp. 19-22. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00051
Heron, A., & Friends Home Service Committee. (1964). Towards a Quaker view of sex: An essay
by a group of Friends. London: Friends Home Service Committee.
Higa, D., Beadnell, B., Hoppe, M., Lindhorst, T., Mincer, S., Morrison, D., Mountz, S.
(2012). Negative and Positive Factors Associated With the Well-Being of Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Youth. Youth & Society, 46(5),
pp. 663687. doi:10.1177/0044118x12449630
Ji. P., Du Bois, S., & Finnessy, P. (2009). An academic course that teaches heterosexual students
to be allies to LGBT communities: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Gay & Lesbian
Social Services, 21(4), pp. 402-429, doi: 10.1080/10538720802690001
Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community (10th Anniversary Edition).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

40

Kosciw, J., Greytak, E., & Palmer, N. (2014). The 2013 national school climate survey: The
experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nations schools. New
York: GLSEN. Retrieved from https://www.glsen.org/download/file/NjA1MQ==
Kosciw, J., Greytak, E., Kull, R., & Palmer, N. (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(1), pp. 45-63. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.732546
Lapointe, A. (2015). Standing straight up to homophobia: Straight allies involvement in GSAs,
Journal of LGBT Youth, 12(2), pp. 144-169. doi: 10.1080/19361653.2014.969867
Lee, C. (2002).The impact of belonging to a high school gay/straight alliance. The High School
Journal, 85(3). pp.13-26. doi: 10.1353/hsj.2002.0005
Lickona, T. (1992). Educating for character. How our schools can teach respect and
responsibility. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Mack, A. (2012). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-risk behaviors among
students in grades 912 youth risk behavior surveillance, selected sites, United States,
20012009. MMWR June 6, 2011(60), doi:10.1016/j.ypsy.2011.08.118
Malley, E., Posner, M., & Potter, L. (2008). Suicide risk and prevention for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender youth. Newton, MA: Education Development Center, Inc.
Mayo, C. (2008). Obscene associations: Gaystraight alliances, the Equal Access Act,
and abstinence-only policy. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 5(2), 4555.
McCarn, S., & Fassinger, R. (1996). Revisioning sexual minority identity formation: A new
model of lesbian identity and its implications for counseling and research. The
Counseling Psychologist, 24(3), pp. 508534. doi:10.1177/0011000096243011

EFFECTS OF LGBT-CENTRIC SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT

41

Murphy, H. E. (2012). Improving the lives of students, gay and straight alike: Gay-straight
alliances and the role of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 49 pp. 883-891.
doi: 10.1002/pits.21643
Parkersburg South High School Student Handbook. (2015). Parkersburg, West Virginia:
Parkersburg South High School.
Saewyc, E., & Reis, B. (1999). Eighty-three thousand youth selected findings of eight
population-based studies as they pertain to anti-gay harassment and the safety and wellbeing of sexual minority students. Seattle, WA: The Safe Schools Coalition.
Spargo, T. (1999). Foucault and queer theory. New York, NY: Totem Books.
Stoller, J., Bieber, I., Gold, R., Green, R., Marmor, J., Socarides, W., & Spitzer, R. (1973). A
symposium: Should homosexuality be in the APA nomenclature? [Abstract]. American
Journal of Psychiatry 130(11), pp. 1207-1216. doi:10.1176/ajp.130.11.1207
Szalacha, L., (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an evaluation of
Massachusetts safe schools program for gay and lesbian students. American Journal of
Education, 110(1), pp. 5888. doi: 10.1300/j367v01n02_10
Wittman, C. (1970). The gay manifesto. New York, NY: The Red Butterfly.
Worthen, M. (2014). The interactive impacts of high school gay-straight alliances (GSAs) on
college student attitudes toward LGBT individuals: An investigation of high school
characteristics, Journal of Homosexuality, 61(2), pp. 217-250. doi:
10.1080/00918369.2013.839906
Yost, M., & Gilmore, S. (2011). Assessing LGBTQ campus climate and creating change, Journal
of Homosexuality, 58(9), pp. 1330-1354, doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.605744