Which LGBTQ+ Inclusive School Strategies Support LGBTQ+ Student, Staff and Parent Perceptions of School Climate? A Latent Class Analysis.

IF 2.4 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Trent Mann, Emma Burns, Penny Van Bergen, Tiffany Jones
{"title":"Which LGBTQ+ Inclusive School Strategies Support LGBTQ+ Student, Staff and Parent Perceptions of School Climate? A Latent Class Analysis.","authors":"Trent Mann, Emma Burns, Penny Van Bergen, Tiffany Jones","doi":"10.1080/00918369.2024.2384933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents report schools can be unsafe and unwelcoming environments. Yet few studies have explored LGBTQ+ student, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of the school climate simultaneously or adopted person-centered perspectives. The present study sought to identify LGBTQ+ related strategies adopted by schools, and whether these were differentially related to perceptions of school safety and community. Data were collected in 2021 via online sampling of the current Australian school (1,937) students, (124) staff and (75) parents. Four distinct inclusion strategy profiles were identified via latent class analysis: <i>Comprehensive Inclusion</i>, <i>Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusion</i>, <i>Extracurricular Inclusion</i> and <i>Limited Inclusion</i>. Just under half (48.2%) of schools lacked LGBTQ+ strategies, with participants from these schools reporting greater safety concerns. Our findings suggest that curriculum and pedagogical strategies are likely the most effective and should be a key focus for improving the school climate. Schools that employed LGBTQ+ affirming practices and included LGBTQ+ resources and activities, like Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), saw improved perceptions of safety and community.</p>","PeriodicalId":48221,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Homosexuality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Homosexuality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2384933","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) students, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parents report schools can be unsafe and unwelcoming environments. Yet few studies have explored LGBTQ+ student, LGBTQ+ staff and LGBTQ+ parent perceptions of the school climate simultaneously or adopted person-centered perspectives. The present study sought to identify LGBTQ+ related strategies adopted by schools, and whether these were differentially related to perceptions of school safety and community. Data were collected in 2021 via online sampling of the current Australian school (1,937) students, (124) staff and (75) parents. Four distinct inclusion strategy profiles were identified via latent class analysis: Comprehensive Inclusion, Curriculum & Pedagogical Inclusion, Extracurricular Inclusion and Limited Inclusion. Just under half (48.2%) of schools lacked LGBTQ+ strategies, with participants from these schools reporting greater safety concerns. Our findings suggest that curriculum and pedagogical strategies are likely the most effective and should be a key focus for improving the school climate. Schools that employed LGBTQ+ affirming practices and included LGBTQ+ resources and activities, like Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs), saw improved perceptions of safety and community.

哪些 LGBTQ+ 全纳学校策略支持 LGBTQ+ 学生、教职员工和家长对学校氛围的看法?潜类分析》。
女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者和同性恋(LGBTQ+)学生、LGBTQ+ 教职员工和 LGBTQ+ 家长都表示,学校可能是不安全、不受欢迎的环境。然而,很少有研究同时探讨 LGBTQ+ 学生、LGBTQ+ 教职员工和 LGBTQ+ 家长对学校氛围的看法,也很少有研究采用以人为本的视角。本研究旨在确定学校采取的 LGBTQ+ 相关策略,以及这些策略是否与学校安全和社区感知存在不同关系。本研究于 2021 年通过在线抽样的方式收集了当前澳大利亚学校(1937 名)学生、(124 名)教职员工和(75 名)家长的数据。通过潜类分析,确定了四种不同的全纳策略:全面全纳、课程与教学全纳、课外全纳和有限全纳。略低于半数(48.2%)的学校缺乏 LGBTQ+ 策略,这些学校的参与者报告了更多的安全问题。我们的研究结果表明,课程和教学策略可能是最有效的,应该成为改善学校氛围的重点。那些采用了肯定 LGBTQ+ 的做法并纳入了 LGBTQ+ 资源和活动(如同性恋--异性恋联盟 (GSA))的学校,对安全和社区的看法都有所改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
164
期刊介绍: The Journal of Homosexuality is an internationally acclaimed, peer-reviewed publication devoted to publishing a wide variety of disciplinary and interdisciplinary scholarship to foster a thorough understanding of the complexities, nuances, and the multifaceted aspects of sexuality and gender. The chief aim of the journal is to publish thought-provoking scholarship by researchers, community activists, and scholars who employ a range of research methodologies and who offer a variety of perspectives to continue shaping knowledge production in the arenas of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) studies and queer studies. The Journal of Homosexuality is committed to offering substantive, accessible reading to researchers and general readers alike in the hope of: spurring additional research, offering ideas to integrate into educational programs at schools, colleges & universities, or community-based organizations, and manifesting activism against sexual and gender prejudice (e.g., homophobia, biphobia and transphobia), including the promotion of sexual and gender justice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信