This advocacy plan seeks to address bullying of LGBTQ students in South Carolina public schools through a comprehensive training program for teachers and staff. The plan would train educators to build "safe spaces" for LGBTQ students and prevent bullying. The training program would be based on evidence that educator training can improve LGBTQ student outcomes and school climate. The author would advocate for implementing this program in the Richland County School District by gaining support from allied organizations, developing the training curriculum, and conducting trainings for all district schools from high school to elementary levels. The goal is to reduce bullying and create a more equitable educational experience for LGBTQ students.
This advocacy plan seeks to address bullying of LGBTQ students in South Carolina public schools through a comprehensive training program for teachers and staff. The plan would train educators to build "safe spaces" for LGBTQ students and prevent bullying. The training program would be based on evidence that educator training can improve LGBTQ student outcomes and school climate. The author would advocate for implementing this program in the Richland County School District by gaining support from allied organizations, developing the training curriculum, and conducting trainings for all district schools from high school to elementary levels. The goal is to reduce bullying and create a more equitable educational experience for LGBTQ students.
This advocacy plan seeks to address bullying of LGBTQ students in South Carolina public schools through a comprehensive training program for teachers and staff. The plan would train educators to build "safe spaces" for LGBTQ students and prevent bullying. The training program would be based on evidence that educator training can improve LGBTQ student outcomes and school climate. The author would advocate for implementing this program in the Richland County School District by gaining support from allied organizations, developing the training curriculum, and conducting trainings for all district schools from high school to elementary levels. The goal is to reduce bullying and create a more equitable educational experience for LGBTQ students.
Advocating for an End to Bullying Targeting LGBTQ Public School Students
Joseph. A. Cerniglia University of South Carolina
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 2
Abstract This advocacy plan seeks to address the problem of bullying targeting LGBTQ public school students through a comprehensive training program to build Safe Spaces for these students. Utilizing the professional knowledge base to, first, understand the issue, then evidence-based interventions to plan and advocate for the implementation of such a program within the Richland County School District Ones elementary, middle, and high schools. The evidence-base shows that teachers, staff, and administrators, when appropriately trained on bullying reduction practices, are able to improve the educational outcomes of LGBTQ students and, by proxy, overall school climate. Additionally, this paper will discuss the means by which the advocacy efforts and intervention approach would be evaluated and how this author can self-evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the authors conceptualization and professional development. The implications for future development of this advocacy plan express that it is both a plausible and realistic plan that could be implemented for the improvement of educational outcomes for LGBTQ students.
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 3
Advocating for an End to Bullying Targeting LGBTQ Public School Students Introduction For lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning (LGBTQ) students in public school settings, harassment and bullying can negatively impact several key facets of healthful functioning. This bullying can take the form of, but is not limited to, verbal harassment, physical harassment, and even physical violence. As this analysis will show, the evidence supports both the prevalence of this issue as well as the negative outcomes thereby resulting. The dominant hegemony is represented in heterosexism, which (James Madison University, n.d.) defines as the assumption that all people are heterosexual and that heterosexuality is superior and more desirable than homosexuality or bisexuality. Heterosexism is also the stigmatization, denial and/or denigration of anything non-heterosexual. As part of adolescent identity development between the ages of 12 and 18 (middle school and high school), and specifically ego identity versus role confusion (Erikson, 1963), youth who identify as LGBTQ receive mixed messages, feel confused, and guilty for not understanding (Adams, et al., 2013, p. 46) The perpetuation within the public educational institution create policies and codes of conduct that reinforce heterosexism and discrimination; these institutions, wielding significant social power and control, formed enforcements based on the historic cultural heterosexism perpetuated by evolutionary and religious development (Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1993). Cultural Imperialism, as defined by Young (1990, pp. 58-61), is to experience how the dominant meanings of a society render the particular perspective of ones own group invisible at the same time as they stereotype ones group and mark it as Other and violence is marked by the reality that members of some groups live with the knowledge that they must fear random,
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 4
unprovoked attacks on their persons or property, which have no motive but to damage, humiliate, or destroy the person. Public policy is oriented towards rewarding heterosexuality and creating conformity to heterosexist norms (Blumenfeld & Raymond, 1993). For example, marriage between same-sex couples, up until 2014, was limited to less than half of American states. Additionally, television and media portrayals normalize heterosexual relationships and disregard or misrepresent homosexual relationships. More specifically related to public educational policy affecting LGBTQ individuals, the policy has been remanded to individual states and the political will, or lack thereof, to identify and address LGBTQ issues. The two types of public policies are anti-bullying and/or antiharassment laws, for which only seventeen states and the District of Columbia (DC) have in place, and anti-discrimination laws, for which only fourteen states and DC have instituted. Furthermore, eight states have specific laws that expressly forbid teachers from discussing gay issues in a positive light-if at all (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, n.d.). Bullying and harassment represent the chief institutional structure of this cycle. These enforcements can be implemented directly by students, teachers, and administrators, but also are implicitly encouraged by an ignorance of student enforcement by inadequate institutional policy. In fact, despite 74.1% of LGBT students experiencing verbal harassment, 39.3% experiencing physical harassment, and 19% experiencing physical assault, 61.6% responded that staff did nothing/took no action and/or told the student to ignore it (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2013, pp. 22-34).
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 5
Recognizing the overwhelming service need: only [50.3%] of students said their school had a Gay-Straight Allianceonly 18.5% of LGBT students were taught positive representations about LGBT people [only 26.1%] had seen at least one Safe Space sticker or posterand only 10.1% of students reported that their school had a comprehensive policy (Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2013, pp. xix-xxi). These staggering statistics indicate rampant bullying and harassment and represent an ethical imperative on the part of, especially, social workers, as demanded by the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics (2008) calling for commitment to clients, cultural competence and social diversity and the core value of the dignity and worth of the person. In a Human Rights Campaign/Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll (2011, p. 2), 76% of adult respondents would favor a law to prohibit bullying and harassment against minority groups in schools, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students and for individuals who identified as Christian, the responses were similar with 74% in favor. Overview The most effective approach to addressing the issue of bullying targeting LGBTQ public school students is to utilize the influence and power of teachers, staff and administration to prevent bullying, intervene when bullying is occurring, and offer opportunities to rectify the damages when bullying has occurred. The overwhelming literature supports advocacy for this intervention approach (Byrd, 2014; Fredman, et al., 2015; Hatzenbuehler, et al., 2014; Hillard, et al., 2014; Mayberry, et al., 2011; Poynter & Tubbs, 2008; Ratts, et al., 2013;). According to Ratts, Kaloper, McReady, Tighe, Butler, Dempsey, and McCullough (2013, p. 388) Principals can use their power to ensure school policies do not become unnecessary barriers for LGBTQ
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 6
youth. Teachers can integrate LGBTQ related topics into their curriculum. School counselors can deliver guidance lessons on the harmful effects of bullying in classrooms. School psychologists are advocates when they consider how an unsafe school environment influences testing results. Therefore, a comprehensive safe schools training program would tap in to this power and influence. This training program would follow the model established by Poynter and Tubbs (2008, p.125) which: may consist of a number of elements including: panels of LGBT students, staff, and employees; referral guidelines for counseling and harassment reporting; role plays; information about identity development; resources available on and off the campus; and general LGBT information. At the conclusion of training, participants are then asked to sign a contract or values statement affirming their participation in the program. Working with organizations vested in the planned outcomes for this advocacy effort would meet with the National Association of Social Workers (2008) ethical demand of empowerment. For example, South Carolina Equality, a statewide advocacy organization focused on LGBTQ issues, the Harriet Hancock LGBT Center, a community center for LGBTQ individuals, and LGBT Programs at the University of South Carolina, a campus awareness and support organization, would be targeted for inclusion in the advocacy efforts. Specifically LGBT Programs at the University of South Carolina has an established Safe Zone Ally Training Program which could be instrumental in the development of a similar program more appropriate for elementary, middle, and high schools (Office of Multicultural Student Affairs, n.d.). The desired outcome of these efforts would be to implement a district-wide safe schools program and reduce experiences of bullying in schools within Richland County School District
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 7
One. With the reduction in experiences of bullying, LGBTQ students would be relieved of at least one barrier to educational achievement and, in terms of social justice, more full and more equal participation in the educational institution. Project Activities Therefore, the project activities are as follows 1) seek cooperation and support from allied organizations working with LGBTQ populations; 2) seek cooperation and support from teachers, staff, and/or administrators 3) send a proposal of the planned training program to the Richland County School District One Board; 4) attend a school board meeting to speak on proposal; 5) develop a training program, with allied organizations, teachers, staff, and administrators, that meets with the evidence base; 6) train trainers to conduct the trainings at the schools within the district; and, finally, 7) conduct the trainings in phases beginning with high schools, then middle schools, then elementary schools, 8) continue the advocacy efforts in other districts. Each of these processes would require advocacy through educationbringing a new issue to the targetnegotiationpositions are stated to find one that everyone can accept[and] persuasionframing a decision [to] make people more likely to act in a certain manner (Hoefer, 2012, pp. 105-111). For the purposes of this project, persuasion will be primarily focused on school board members for approval; negotiation will take place at the school district level for implementation of the project; and education will be oriented towards those staff members receiving the training. There could be significant resistance on the part of board members, district representatives, school staff, and even allied organizations. This resistance will require careful and tactful education, negotiation, and persuasion.
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 8
Project Evaluation The efficacy of this advocacy effort will be measured in two key ways: First, participants in the training will be given a pre-test and a post-test to determine understanding and appreciation of the training materials; and second, a survey will be distributed to students to determine the prevalence of self-reported bullying experienced by students identifying as LGBTQ at key points, before training, and each subsequent grading period. This evaluative process would allow for a progression through time and may indicate other factors that could be included in future trainings. For future efforts of advocacy, and building on the success of these efforts, an inclusivecurriculum could be developed for proposed inclusion in district curricula. Additionally, the training program could be extended to surrounding districts and, eventually, the entire state. Other advocacy efforts in this arena could focus on the other educational barriers such as family instability or rejection, and societal antagonism. The primary ethical issue to this advocacy plan is the reality that sexuality is not a topic integrated into many school curricula and some school staff may have religious objections to the discussion of sexuality in any other terms than as fundamentally immoral. It will be vital, therefore, to remain clear that the purposes of this training is not relevant to ones personal or religious view of sexuality, rather the damaging effect of bullying targeting LGBTQ students and the professional obligation to provide a safe space to these students. According to Fredman, Schultz, and Hoffman (2015, p. 78): By emphasizing the contributions that education about LGBTQ issues make to student safety, advocates may be able to transcend the division surrounding the immediate issue and appeal to a value (student safety) held by a wide range of
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 9
individuals on conflicting sides of the issue. Once opponents have accepted the basic value of safety, it becomes more challenging for them to dispute the means by which that safety could be accomplished. Personal and Process Evaluation In self-reflecting, I learned that mitigating the unconscionable damages perpetrated against LGBTQ students, leading to poor educational outcomes, can be advocated for in a constructive and effective way. This newfound knowledge represents the first steps in the Unified Model of Advocacy (Hoefer, 2012): Getting Involved, Understanding the Issue, and Planning. Furthermore, in any future practice with which I engage, I commit to being more responsive to the areas of oppression perpetrated within agencies, for which I am involved, institutions, and society at large, especially those areas of oppression perpetrated against LGBTQ individuals. Overall, the lesson learned include an appreciation for the vital role advocacy plays in the practice of social work, at a micro or a macro level. It is the responsibility of individuals, especially social workers, to speak truth to power, call out injustice, and advocate on both a case and a cause level. Further contributions to my professional development include a greater appreciation for the process of advocacy and an ability to integrate advocacy into my practice with any vulnerable and/or oppressed population.
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 10
References Adams, M., Blumenfeld, W., Castaneda, C., Hackman, H., Peters, M., & Zuniga, X. (Eds.). (2013). Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Blumenfeld, W., & Raymond, D. (1993). Looking at gay and lesbian life. Boston: Beacon Press. Byrd, R. (2014). Evaluating Safe Space Training for School Counselors and Trainees Using a Randomized Control Group Design. Professional School Counseling, 17(1), 20-31. Erikson, E. H. (Ed.). (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. Basic books. Fredman, A., Schultz, N., & Hoffman, M. (2015). Youre Moving a Frickin Big Ship: The Challenges of Addressing LGBTQ Topics in Public Schools. Education and Urban Society, 47(1), 56-85. Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. (n.d.). State Maps. Retrieved February 11, 2015, from Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network: http://glsen.org/article/state-maps Hatzenbuehler, M., Birkett, M., Van Wagenen, A., & Meyer, I. (2014). Protective School Climates and Reduced Risk for Suicide Ideation in Sexual Minority Youths. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 279-286. Hillard, P., Love, L., Franks, H., Laris, B. & Coyle, K. (2014). They were only joking: Efforts to decrease LGBTQ bullying and harassment in Seattle Public Schools. Journal of School Health, 84, 1-9. Hoefer, R. (2012). Advocacy Practice for Social Justice. Chicago, IL: Lyceum. Human Rights Campaign. (2011). Beyond the top lines: Studying the cross-tabs. Washington, DC: Human Rights Campaign.
lgbTq anti-bullying advocacy 11
James Madison University. (n.d.). Fact and information sheet about: Heterosexism. Retrieved February 11, 2015, from Educate Yourself: http://www.jmu.edu/safezone/wm_library/Heterosexism%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf Kosciw, J., Greytak, E., Palmer, N., & Boesen, M. (2013). The 2013 national school climate survey. Washington, DC: Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network. Mayberry, M., Chenneville, T., & Currie, S. (2011). Challenging the Sounds of Silence: A Qualitative Study of Gay-Straight Alliances and School Reform Efforts. Education and Urban Society, 45(3), 307-339. National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: NASW Press. Office of Multicultural Student Affairs at the University of South Carolina. (n.d.). Safe Zone Program. Retrieved from: http://www.sa.sc.edu/omsa/safezone/ Poynter, K. & Tubbs, N. (2008). Safe Zones. Journal of LGBT Youth, 5(1), 121-132. Ratts, M., Kaloper, M., McReady, C., Tighe, L., Butler, S., Dempsey, K., & McCullough, J. (2013). Safe Space Programs in K-12 Schools: Creating a Visible Presence of LGBTQ Allies. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7:4, 387-404. Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Magara - The Influence of Single Parenting On Students' Academic Achievement in Selected Secondary Schools in Taveta Sub-County, Taita Taveta County, Kenya.