Does a Decade of School Administrator Support for Educator Training on Students’ Sexual and Gender Identity Make a Difference for Students’ Victimization and Perceptions of School Climate?

Author(s):  
Salvatore Ioverno ◽  
Meg D. Bishop ◽  
Stephen T. Russell
Education ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey M. Poirier ◽  
Allison Mattheis ◽  
Deborah Temkin

This review synthesizes recent literature and research on students in K–12 schools who are attracted to the same gender (lesbian, gay), attracted to people of the same or other genders (bisexual), or identify as a gender different than the one they were assigned at birth (transgender). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) young people have historically experienced vulnerability in schools because of challenges such as invisibility in school curricula; peer and staff rejection, harassment, and violence; and ill-equipped school professionals who lack the competence and will to effectively address bias and foster inclusive school environments. Foundational research in the field examines this vulnerability to document the experiences and needs of this population—and to draw attention to gaps in school policy, practice, and outcomes for LGBT students. Research examining vulnerabilities and challenges for this population is also prominent in the early 21st century because many of these concerns persist. At the same time, more recent research on LGBT youth in schools is attending to these young people’s positive assets and their resilience, including their abilities to effectively navigate conflict and stress and adapt to different situations. Throughout this article, “LGBT” is used as an umbrella acronym. Although the rich diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, such as students who are queer, genderqueer, or questioning their sexual orientation or gender identity is important, this article aims to provide a working vocabulary to address this population of youth discussed here. This article also aligns its terminology with the content of articles. In other words, if an article examines only transgender students, then the full LGBT acronym is not used when writing about that article. Research on LGBT youth in schools is substantial, given the growth of research studying related issues during the late 20th and early 21st centuries. This expanding research on LGBT youth in schools has spanned topics beyond their school experiences to include myriad issues such as their identity development within the school context; school-based policies, practices, and supports such as inclusive nondiscrimination policies; teacher practices that foster welcoming and inclusive school settings, and the benefits of safe spaces and targeted supports for LGBT students; and how school administrator and teacher preparation programs can lead to better school practice and outcomes for LGBT students. Other areas of research on LGBT youth in schools continue to emerge as the field’s understanding about diverse sexual orientation and gender identities expands, and as there is more attention given to the complexity of identity and expression including intersectionality (e.g., youth in schools who are LGBT and of color, or LGBT and immigrants).


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-166
Author(s):  
Stephen T. Russell ◽  
Meg D. Bishop ◽  
Victoria C. Saba ◽  
Isaac James ◽  
Salvatore Ioverno

Schools are often unsafe for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) students; they frequently experience negative or hostile school climates, including bullying and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity at school. Negative school climates and discriminatory experiences can threaten LGBTQ students’ well-being. Simultaneously, a consistent body of research identifies strategies to support LGBTQ and all students to be safe and thrive at school. First, policies that specifically identify or enumerate protected groups such as LGBTQ students create supportive contexts for all youth. Second, professional development prepares educators and other school personnel with tools to support and protect all students. Third, access to information and support related to sexual orientation and gender identity or expression (SOGIE), including curricula that is SOGIE-inclusive, provides students with resources, support, and inclusion, creating school climate. Fourth, the presence of student-led clubs or organizations such as gender-sexuality alliances (i.e., GSAs) improve students’ school experiences and well-being, and contribute to positive school climate. This article reviews the research foundations of each of these strategies and concludes with recommendations for multiple audiences: policymakers, school personnel, parents, and students.


2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (11) ◽  
pp. 4001-4014
Author(s):  
Melanie Weirich ◽  
Adrian Simpson

Purpose The study sets out to investigate inter- and intraspeaker variation in German infant-directed speech (IDS) and considers the potential impact that the factors gender, parental involvement, and speech material (read vs. spontaneous speech) may have. In addition, we analyze data from 3 time points prior to and after the birth of the child to examine potential changes in the features of IDS and, particularly also, of adult-directed speech (ADS). Here, the gender identity of a speaker is considered as an additional factor. Method IDS and ADS data from 34 participants (15 mothers, 19 fathers) is gathered by means of a reading and a picture description task. For IDS, 2 recordings were made when the baby was approximately 6 and 9 months old, respectively. For ADS, an additional recording was made before the baby was born. Phonetic analyses comprise mean fundamental frequency (f0), variation in f0, the 1st 2 formants measured in /i: ɛ a u:/, and the vowel space size. Moreover, social and behavioral data were gathered regarding parental involvement and gender identity. Results German IDS is characterized by an increase in mean f0, a larger variation in f0, vowel- and formant-specific differences, and a larger acoustic vowel space. No effect of gender or parental involvement was found. Also, the phonetic features of IDS were found in both spontaneous and read speech. Regarding ADS, changes in vowel space size in some of the fathers and in mean f0 in mothers were found. Conclusion Phonetic features of German IDS are robust with respect to the factors gender, parental involvement, speech material (read vs. spontaneous speech), and time. Some phonetic features of ADS changed within the child's first year depending on gender and parental involvement/gender identity. Thus, further research on IDS needs to address also potential changes in ADS.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisha Thompson ◽  
Talisha Lee ◽  
Dewey G. Cornell

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document