The Experiences of LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer) Youth in Urban Schools: Findings From a National Survey

• In Event: Roundtable Session 104
  In Roundtable Session: LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning) Bullying in Urban Schools: Creating Supportive School Climates to Help It Get Better

Abstract

Research on bullying and school violence often identifies schools in urban areas as being the most unsafe (Dinkes et al. 2007). Yet, research regarding both policies and attitudes towards lesbian, gay, and bisexual people has found urban areas to be more supportive than rural or suburban areas (Herek 2002; Klawitter, 2011). Given these competing ideas, the purpose of this paper is:

1) to examine the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) secondary school students in urban areas, documenting the prevalence of bias and victimization and both the existence and effectiveness of LGBTQ-related resources, and
2) to examine both similarities and differences between students in urban, suburban, and rural areas.

Methods

Data from a national survey of LGBTQ youth (N=7,261) examines climate in U.S. secondary schools. We conducted a series of one-way analyses of variance to examine differences in availability of two LGBTQ-related school resources – supportive student clubs and comprehensive anti-bullying policies – across locale (urban, suburban, rural). We conducted a series of 2 x 3 analyses of variance to examine the main effects of locale and resources on anti-LGBTQ victimization, as well as locale X resources interactions. Additional analyses of variance examined differences in hostile school climate across locale after accounting for differential availability of resources.

Results

Results indicated that LGBTQ students in urban schools were more likely than students in rural schools to have access to supportive student clubs, but less likely than those in suburban schools to have a comprehensive policy (see Table 1). Results also indicated that while students in urban schools experienced high levels of victimization, it was significantly less than those in rural schools, and marginally less than those in suburban schools (see Table 2). These locale differences held even after accounting for differential availability of resources.
Overall, the main effects of resources on victimization were significant, with the presence of resources related to less victimization (see Table 3). There were no significant locale X resource interactions, indicating that the effect of resources did not vary across locale (see also Table 3).

Significance
School climate for LGBTQ youth may differ significantly from that of their non-LGBTQ peers as LGBTQ youth in urban schools appear to face less victimization than those in rural and suburban schools. Urban youth also have greater access to supportive student clubs than rural youth, although they do not differ from suburban youth. In fact, urban youth are less likely than suburban youth to report having a comprehensive bullying policy. It is possible that more positive community attitudes towards LGBTQ people in urban areas (Herek 2002) may result in less bias and prejudice in schools, regardless of the resources that are available. It may also be that the increased diversity of urban schools may afford a wider array of social ‘‘niches’’ for students, providing LGBTQ youth more opportunities for social belonging (Goodenow et al., 2006). Further research should examine other possible mechanisms that serve to foster a safer school climate in urban schools for LGBTQ youth.

Author

• Emily Greytak, GLSEN:Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network