LGBTQIA Issues in Schools

Introduction 

LGBTQIA is an abbreviation that stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender. The abbreviation is an umbrella term that is typically employed in reference to the entire community of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender people. When the term is used as LGBTQIA it is done in an effort to include, as well as raise awareness of Queer, Intersex and Asexual without forgetting myriad other communities under the community (Schulman, 2013). The members of the LGBTQIA community vary in age as they can be as young as 7 years old, which is why some of its members are in high school as well as college. 

Based on various studies conducted on the issues facing members of the LGBTQIA community, it is evident that they experience hardships (In Wimberly, 2015). In addition to experiencing the typical hardships of being students, members of the LGBTQIA community in schools face a myriad of issues that have had negative implications on their well-being thus life in general. In order to understand the issues of members of the LGBTQIA community in schools, it is paramount to look into the factors surrounding the very issues. 

The issues that members of the LGBTQ community face while in the school setting have been there even before the visibility of such a community began and continue even with its visibility. LGBTQIA issues in schools affect both students and teachers who belong to the LGBTQ community and have had negative implications on those individuals owing to the discriminatory, exclusive and violent nature of those issues. As a result, this paper will discuss and examine those factors including the issues themselves. The paper will also discuss, in an effort to describe the context within which the issues of LGBTQIA students arise, the policy environment outlining the socioeconomic context. It is also important to establish how education policies established and implemented to protect and support LGBTQ students came into being. Therefore, in response to that, the paper will also look into the Historical development of the education policies to address the issues. 

The Policy Environment Outlining the Socioeconomic Context 

The school environment can be a difficult space for any student irrespective of their gender identity, as well as their sexual orientation. However, the school environment has often been seen as an unwelcoming environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students, who in addition to going through the difficulty of typically being in school, face numerous socio-economic issues such as discrimination and violence. The lack of practices, as well as policies that would result in the affirmation and support of students belonging to the LGBTQIA community, have contributed to the issues these youth face. Failure to implement policies and forms of protection that are already in existence has led to the bullying, discrimination, violence, as well as exclusion of LGBTQIA students in schools across the nation (Mayo, 2014). Undergoing such treatment in schools has put LGBTQIA students at both physical and psychological risk, which affects not only the quality of the education they attain, but also how their performance is bound to have negative implications on their futures (Graham, Berkowitz, Blum, Bockting, Bradford, de Vries, & Makadon, 2011). 

Owing to the many adversities experienced by LGBTQIA school-going members various articles, reports, as well as publications, have been written in an effort to contribute to the policy environment meant to address the socio-economic issues resulting from the adversities. For instance, in the year 2001, there was a publication by the Human Rights Watch titled Hatred in the Hallways: Violence and Discrimination against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students in U.S. Schools. In the report was information on the on-going rampant discrimination and violence in the form of bullying against LGBT students nationwide. The report, as a result, urged the various policymakers and officials in schools to address the issue by taking steps that are concrete enough to ensure protection as well as respect for the rights of students belonging to the LGBTQ community (Thomas & Levin, 1999). Over the last decade and a half policy-makers, as well as administrators in a majority of the schools in the United States, have shown increased recognition with regards to the vulnerability of LGBTQ students within the school environment. In response to that, the school officials and lawmakers have facilitated and ensured the implementation of policies that are designed to protect against discrimination, exclusion, bullying, and violence against LGBTQ students in the school setting. 

However, the progress with regards to the implementation of protection policies for LGBTQ youth in school settings is still uneven. In many of the district and state schools, students, as well as teachers belonging to the LGBTQ community do not enjoy or receive protection against discrimination owing to their gender identity or sexual orientation. Similarly, the policies that do exist in an effort to protect the rights of members of the LGBT in school settings are unreinforced or inadequate with regards to protecting against violence, discrimination as well as exclusion, thus negatively affecting the quality of education of LGBTQ youth (Mayo, 2014). As a result, students belonging to the LGBTQ community face socioeconomic afflictions such as discrimination and exclusion due to the lack of provisions that ensure they too enjoy the same extra-curricular and academic benefits as students not belonging to that community. 

Historical Development of the Education Policies to Address the Issues 

The onset of education policies put in place to protect students belonging to the LGBTQ community can be traced to the 1960’s irrespective of the slow manner in which the same is implemented and reinforced. The 1969 Stonewall riots marked the on-set of the celebration of the culture and history of the LGBTQ community, which occurs annually in the month of June (Gelus & Kraft, 2006). Five decades ago, LGBTQ students did not enjoy any form of public support or protection from discrimination, inequality, violence or exclusion. LGBTQ students besides from belonging on the minorities group had been for the longest time the most underserved demographics irrespective of the fact that their visibility has grown in recent years. 

However, the past decade there has been both a significant and effective push with regards to advocacy at both the local and state levels for enumerated or comprehensive policies against bullying in K-12 schools. As a result, in the United States, there are eighteen states have established and implemented enumerated policies that protect LGBT students owing to their gender identity or sexual orientation. In addition to that, the District of Columbia alongside thirteen states has laws of anti-discrimination against LGBTQ students (Thoreson, & Human Rights Watch, 2016). More states are also following suit, which is attributed to the establishment of the need for protection and support for such students by state legislatures. 

Numerous surveys have shown that LGBTQ youth undergo on close to a daily basis, high rates of harassment, exclusion, as well as discrimination, while at school (Sear, 2003). One, in particular, found that out of every 10 LGBTQ students, 8 had reported to their schools was involved in the cases concerning discriminatory practices or policies that were LGBTQ-related. Many students also reported having personally experienced discrimination owing to their gender identity, as well as sexual orientation. A survey by the HRC in collaboration with the University of Connecticut reported that over 17,000 LGBTQ students, especially the transgender ones, are vulnerable to discrimination (McBride, 2018). Certain instances where transgender students are denied the chance to use restrooms that are in correspondence to the gender with which they identify with called for action thus the creation and implementation of policies to protect LGBTQ students. This is owing to the history of the implications of discrimination on such students such as health complications, dropping out of school, and poor performance in school. 

The lives of students belonging to the LGBTQ community have been characterized y numerous issues that have in the past developed into more serious issues, thus the need for educational policies to address the same. For instance, history shows that students belonging to the LGBTQ have in the past experienced vulnerabilities in the school setting, which have negatively influenced their education. Among those vulnerabilities was that LGBTQ students were treated as invisible with regards to school curricula. Historically, LGBTQ issues in school were characterized by the peer, as well as staff rejection in addition to the violence and harassment directed towards students belonging to the LGBTQ community. In the past, institutions of learning were characterized by ill-equipped staff members who were unable to effectively foster inclusive educational activities and exercise, as well as address bias with the school environment (Lindsey & Lindsey, 2013). As a result, students in the LGBTQ community experienced difficulty engaging in school activities, which had implications on the social lives as well as their performance and success in and out of school. 

However, currently, milestones have been made with regards to protection and support towards LGBTQ issues in schools with the introduction of education policies such as the Student Non-Discriminatory Act (Lindsey & Lindsey, 2013). The Student Non-Discriminatory Act was created and implemented owing to the fact that LGBTQ students have been and are susceptible to intimidation, violence, harassment, as well as bullying. Studies in the past as well as currently indicate that school-related discrimination has resulted in negative implication on students including adverse health consequences, high rates of frequent absenteeism, dropping out of school, as well as academic underachievement among LGBTQ students. As a result, recent state legislatures developed ways of addressing LGBTQ issues in schools through Acts such as Student Non-Discriminatory Act (SNDA), which prohibits public K-12 schools from engaging in discriminatory conduct against students irrespective of whether or not they belong to the LGBTQ community (In Russell, & In Horn, 2017). 

Major Arguments from the Proponents and Opponents of the Current Policy 

Proponents of the student non-discrimination act have presented various arguments in favor of the policy. One of the arguments presented is based on the basis of the extension of protection to LGBTQ students since children are already protected with regards to race, disability, gender, as well as national origin. Therefore, if there is legislation to protect kids from racism, discrimination based on gender, disability, and nationality, then the same should be extended to LGBTQ students. Arguments in support of the SNDA also argue that the policy increases the chances of LGBTQ students attaining academic success owing to the elimination of the implications of discrimination, violence, and exclusion attributed to their gender identity or sexual orientation (Thoreson, & Human Rights Watch, 2016). Most LGBTQ issues in school affect the respective students’ mental as well as physical health with negatively influences their performance, thus academic success (Graham, Berkowitz, Blum, Bockting, Bradford, de Vries, & Makadon, 2011). Therefore, with policies such as the SNDA, LGBTQ students can pursue their studies without the challenges associated with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Others argue that protection from discrimination violence or harassment is a basic human right irrespective of one’s gender identity or sexual orientation thus support for SNDA. 

Opponents of the Student non-discriminatory Act have also presented their arguments in an effort to oppose the policy. Among the reasons for opposing the SNDA is because the idea of supporting and protecting LGBTQ members is deemed as immoral and wrong based on religious notions. Others argue that by supporting and protecting LGBTQ youth through the current policy, this would send a message of acceptance, which may encourage more school going children to explore being gay or lesbian. Many parents are opposed to the idea because they argue some of their children are too young to be involved in the matters of LGBTQ students, thus having such policies may lead o the need to explain the same. Others argue that the policy aims at forcing the idea of acceptance and tolerance of homosexuality on people who do not believe in the same, thus oppose the current policy, especially since it involves the youth. 

The Impact of the Current Policy on the Environment for Teaching and Learning in Local Schools 

The current policy SNDA has had an impact that is characterized by both positive and negative attributes, depending on various aspects such as personal beliefs and practices. The environment for teaching and learning has been made safer for LGBTQ students as they are protected from discrimination, which typically makes their lives in school harder (Thoreson, Lee, & Human Rights Watch, 2017). This is beneficial because it has a positive implication on the academic fulfillment of such students, which contributes to their educational success. As a result, schools remain institutions of imparting knowledge, supporting and nurturing talent without discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation. Similarly, the school environment has been made more diverse with the acceptance and interaction of all students in an equal manner despite the differences between LGBTQ students and the rest of the students. However, the protection and support of the LGBTQ student community, attributed to the current policy, has also had negative implications for the learning and teaching environment. For instance, certain parents are deterred from enrolling their students in a school where such policies are upheld owing to personal, as well as religious beliefs. In other incidences, it may contribute to the pulling out of children from school by parents who do not propose the upholding of such policies. This may have indirect negative implications on the students lacking an opportunity to attend certain schools due to the policies upheld in the schools, such as access to quality education. Therefore, some could also argue that upholding of policies such as the SNDA could make the school and learning environment undesirable for other people denying them certain rights and opportunities such as conducive school environment. 

The Political, Social, Ethical and Financial Implications of Adhering to the Current Policy at the District and Local Levels 

Adhering to the current policy, SNDA has had both positive and negative implications attributed to political, social, ethical as well as financial aspects. The political implications of adhering to the current policy include steering clear of legal issues as schools are not sued for discriminating against LGBTQ students, as well as receiving the government’s support for school programs such as Arts program. The social implications of adhering to the current policy are characterized by the creation of an enabling environment where LGBTQ students interact freely with other students, thus the creation of an environment for socialization (Picksone-Taylor, 2015). However, adhering to the current policy has also made the school environment socially uncomfortable for students who do not particularly understand or accept the idea of having equal opportunity with transgender students. As a result, some deem the upholding of such as causing unfair competition especially in extracurricular activities and increasing incidences of exclusion as a social implication. Regarding ethical implication on district and local levels, adhering to the current policy is being seen as a show of good-faith and acceptance, thus fostering a tolerant environment as is deemed right (Picksone-Taylor, 2015). However, the adherence to the current policy has also resulted in a debate on whether it should exist or not causing there to be concerns and uncertainty with regards to how right the policy truly is. A financial implication is associated with avoidance of losing money over cases against schools at both the local and district level owing to adhering to the current policy. Similarly, schools that adhere to the policy also receive funding that promotes the schools’ ability to uphold the policy, thus improving the financial position of such schools. 

Perceptions or related issues at the local, State or national levels that may influence public opinion on the policy 

LGBTQ students are perceived as not being normal or having the ability to handle life as straight students since people assume they have a mental problem. This results in unfair treatment, discrimination, exclusion, as well as violence against them. However, people support the policy since there are adult members of the LGBTQ community who have passed through schools and become contributing members of the society (In Orel & In Fruhauf, 2015). The opinion of others on the policy being unfair is attributed to the instances of unfair opportunity. For instance in sports, a transgender student, one who transitioned from boy to girl, competing with other girls may have added advantage owing to their initial genetic makeup. Therefore, depending on how the policy is perceived, as well as the implications it has, people may have a different opinion on the policy. 

My Views on the Current Policy and if there are Changes I would Recommend 

The current policy is quite reasonable and I think that it is quite fair as it ensures LGBTQ students are treated the way every human being should be treated. Irrespective of someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, they should be treated equally and with respect just like any other human being as it is their right (Thomas & Levin, 1999). The issue of belonging to the LGBTQ community should not be an excuse for anyone to be treated unfairly, hence my view on the policy is fair and just. Owing to the fact that the policy protects and supports LGBTQ students, I think that it should be given a chance and should be upheld for the same purpose. It is hard enough being a student because the school environment is characterized by diverse people. It is therefore not fair to subject LGBTQ students to unfair treatment, harassment, as well as discrimination since they already face the hardships of being students, to begin with. Therefore, if the current policy ensures the protection of LGBTQ students from unfair treatment, violence, harassment, as well as exclusion is a good thing (Picksone-Taylor, 2015). With regards to changes, I think it should include more than just a ban on discrimination since LGBTQ students go through more than just that. The current policy may be limited but it is a step towards ensuring the rights of LGBTQ students are protected just like those of any other student. The current policy is also relevant owing to the visibility of the LGBTQ community and it would be rather redundant to keep arguing in opposition o the same. The current policy should more inclusive of the other issues that LGBTQ students face to actively ensure they have a conducive learning environment. Another change to the policy is that it should be adequately enforced within the K-12 education system in the United States. 

References 

Gelus, M., & Kraft, H. (2006).  Women in German yearbook: Feminist studies in German literature & culture . Lincoln, Neb: University of Nebraska Press. 

Graham, R., Berkowitz, B., Blum, R., Bockting, W., Bradford, J., de Vries, B., ... & Makadon, 

H. (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding.  Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine . 

In Orel, N. A., & In Fruhauf, C. A. (2015).  The lives of LGBT older adults: Understanding challenges and resilience . 

In Russell, S. T., & In Horn, S. S. (2017).  Sexual orientation, gender identity, and schooling: The nexus of research, practice, and policy . 

In Wimberly, G. L. (2015).  LGBTQ issues in education: Advancing a research agenda . 

Lindsey, R. B., & Lindsey, R. B. (2013).  A culturally proficient response to LGBT communities: A guide for educators . Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin. 

Mayo, C. (2014).  LGBTQ youth and education: Policies and practices . 

McBride, S. (2018, May 15). HRC Survey Finds Anti-LGBTQ Bias Overwhelmingly Affects Health and Well-being of LGBTQ Teens. Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved September 15, 2018, from https://www.hrc.org/blog/hrc-uconn-survey-finds-anti-lgbtq-bias-overwhelmingly-affects-LGBTQ-teens 

Pickstone-Taylor, S. (2015). Creating safe and supportive learning environments. 

Sears, J. T. (2003).  Gay, lesbian, and transgender issues in education: Programs, policies, and practices . Routledge. 

Schulman, M. (2013). Generation LGBTQIA.  The New York Times ,  9 . 

Thomas, L., & Levin, M. E. (1999).  Sexual orientation and human rights . Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield. 

Thoreson, R., Lee, D., & Human Rights Watch (HRW). (2017).  "Just let us be": Discrimination against LGBT students in the Philippines . New York: Human Rights Watch. 

Thoreson, R. R., & Human Rights Watch (Organization),. (2016).  "Like walking through a hailstorm": Discrimination against LGBT youth in US schools .