Chris Ruby
HDF 110H
4/18/17
Research Proposal
GSAs and Their Impact on Rural School Environments
Introduction:
High rates of school-based victimization, which includes, but is not limited to, bullying and harassment, is becoming an immense problem in American society. Nearly 1 in 5 students in high school have reported being victimized while on school grounds at least once during the prior 12 months (Kann et al. 2014, as cited in Marx, 2016). This problem becomes more serious once the connection is made to immediate, as well as long-term side effects, such as increased suicidality (Rigby and Slee 1999, as cited in Marx, 2016), poor physical health (Nishina et al. 2005, as cited in Marx, 2016), poor academic success (Schwartz et al. 2005, as cited in Marx, 2016), and substance use behaviors (Greytak, Parsons, Reisner, Ybarra, 2014).
These serious issues can affect all types of students. However, some students may be more likely to fall victim to bullying and harassment. Students who are or are perceived to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or gender non-conforming (LGBTQ+) are more likely to be victimized (Hillard, Love, Franks, Laris, Coyle, 2013). This has also been found to be the case for students who specifically identify as gender minority (Greytak, 2014). Not only are LGBTQ+ students more likely to be victimized, but it is also more likely for those victimized students to suffer from depression or suicidal thoughts than a non-LGBTQ+ victim (Patrick et al. 2013, as cited in Marx, 2016).
Another problem arises inside the LGBTQ+ community. Non-white GSA students throughout middle and high schools within Seattle Public Schools are significantly more likely to endure harassment than their White counterparts (Hillard, 2013). Most harassment seen from the Seattle study came in the verbal form, while physical harassment was more occasional.
While all of these issues arise on school grounds, the way these problems are handled by school staff and faculty do not always make the situations better. In one study it was found that 9/10 surveyed students reported hearing at least one homophobic statement in front of a teacher. That same research found that 31% of surveyed teachers had no intentions of intervening once hearing the remark (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2005, as seen in Dragowski, 2013).
In the Seattle study, it was found from a survey that the students who participated only rated the effectiveness of their teachers with a mean of 2.52 and 2.71 out of 4 when dealing with verbal and physical harassment respectively. It was a general consensus that the teachers did not know how to intervene properly. While these scores are low, there were some teachers in the district that were seen to go above and beyond when it came to advocating and putting an end to harassment directed at LGBTQ+ students. However, a few teachers cannot fix the problem for an entire district (Hillard, 2013).
Noticing that problem, studies have been conducted to look solely on the behavior of the teachers, and how they handle harassment situations in school. In a study analyzing the theory of behavior, multiple variables were identified to have an impact on determining the final behavior of an educational professional in a harassment situation. These variables included attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intention. It was found that attitude ultimately had the greatest impact on the outcome of situations (Dragowski, Elizalde-Utnick, McCabe, Rubinson, 2013).
This framework was found valid and can be particularly useful when it comes to training educational professionals. If it is known what factors within a person will influence them the most in aiding or advocating for the LGBTQ+ community, these factors can be targeted during training. This training would then benefit the LGBTQ+ community within schools by providing them teachers that will be more willing to stand up for them when needed. This ability to properly handle tough situations has a great impact on how LGBTQ+ students view their school in terms of a safe and welcoming place (Hillard, 2013).
Other than teachers making schools safer for LGBTQ+ students, a few other factors have been found to play a role in perceived safety. One of these elements is purely a visual one, in that of a rainbow. It was discovered that the use of rainbow stickers or flags was helpful and supportive of LGBTQ+ youth. In most cases it made places seem more welcoming and accepting, as well as supportive. Some LGBTQ+ youth were more likely to trust someone who was affiliated with a rainbow sign in some way, in comparison to someone who was not. However, the display of such signs do need to be backed up by people who are sincere and knowledgeable about the LGBTQ+ community (Eisenberg, Heston, Porta, Saewyc, Wolowic, 2016).
In addition to the symbol of a rainbow, student-led groups known as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) have been increasing the acceptance and support for LGBTQ+ students in school (Marx & Kettrey, 2016). These groups can vary in how they function, where some may focus on individual level support, while others may try and focus on large political issues. However, they tend to have the same key roles, being providing individual counseling and support, proving a safe place for LGBTQ+ students, making LGBTQ+ issues more prominent, and making the school safer in general for LGBTQ+ students (Griffin et al. 2004, as cited in Marx). This extra support from GSAs in schools has indeed been linked to lower levels of victimization of LGBTQ+ students (Marx & Kettrey, 2016). On top of that, aiding in the establishment of a GSA group is much cheaper than providing training or seminars to staff addressing LGBTQ+ issues and support methods (Marx & Kettrey, 2016).
Current Study:
While there is no doubt that the LGBTQ+ community suffers from increased amounts of in-school harassment, there is no data that is based upon low-income, rural community schools. The proposed study will be based on the Mount Pleasant School District. The median income in Mount Pleasant is $30,833, while nearly 45% of its 26,000 population is in poverty, based on 2015 statistics (US Census Bureau, 2015). There is also a lack of longitudinal study about these topics. This proposed research will last four years, gathering data each year. The goal is to examine the high school and middle school levels, where GSA groups do not exist. The initial data will be gathered, then GSA groups would be put into place. During the following three years, data will be collected to see how these GSA groups improve LGBTQ+ morale and feeling of safety within their schools. GSAs are linked to lower levels of LGBTQ+ victimization, however, there were never studies done before and after GSAs were put into place to see if the lower levels of victimization existed before GSAs came around.
Methods:
Questionnaires and focus groups will be administered to both the middle school and high school. Questionnaires will be used to gather quantitative data, measuring the frequency of victimization, how often victimization is seen, how well teachers handle such situations, and an overall rating of school safety. All questions will be on a 5-point scale. These questionnaires will be anonymous, and will also ask students to identify their sexuality, as well as their gender. This will allow for separating data from LGBTQ+ students and the rest of the population. There will be a separate questionnaire administered for the sole purpose of picking focus groups. This form will have a place for their name, and if they would be willing to participate in a focus group.
Focus groups held in the middle school will be small groups of around five same-sex students. These groups will have a purpose of general discussion of what the LGBTQ+ community means to them, and how they think students who belong to this group feel inside the school. The participants of these groups will be randomly selected from the population that was willing to participate as marked by the survey, and placed randomly in equal sized groups. For the high school, groups will discuss the same topics and get picked in the same manner. Ideally, there will be at least three focus groups from each grade level (7-12).
The questionnaire and focus groups will be administered towards the end of the school year so students can get a good understanding of how their school operates and handles situations for that given year. The first year, there will be no GSA groups. At the beginning of the second year, GSA groups will be implemented at both the high school and middle school. Data will then be collected at the end of that year, as well as the two following years, for a total of four data collections.
Once the GSA groups have been started, the second questionnaire will be made to allow students to mark if they are GSA members or not. This will allow for additional focus groups to be all GSA members, to be able to get their specific thoughts on the effects of the new GSA group, as well as a count of how many GSA members there are in the schools, year to year. There will also be additional questions on the questionnaire about noticing change related to the GSA group, as well as open response questions regarding why or why not they participated in the group.
Results:
The data from the questionnaire would be sorted initially based on sexuality and gender, to see if there is any correlation with LGBTQ+ status and harassment. Assuming there would be a correlation, based on previous studies, it would then be compared to the previous years’ data, to see if a downward trend of victimization has occurred. Also, an upward trend of safety and comfort as seen by LGBTQ+ students within the school would be looked for as the years progressed. The focus group data is harder to find trends and changes, but there ideally will be a change in attitude when discussing the LGBTQ+ community throughout the four years.
Discussion:
The findings from this research will be important to schools all over America. The effects a GSA program or group can have on a student population will be great evidence to support policy, both state and federal, to mandate such groups to be in place. Even if a policy does not get created, it will still be proof that such programs do work, and may be enough to inspire other students or teachers at other schools to start their own.
Limitations:
This study does not include many students, as well as not many diverse students. It also is based upon a population that lives in a rural area and does not focus on suburban or urban communities. Besides issues of who was in the population, the kids that were a part of the focus groups may skew the type of data collected from them. Students had to volunteer or make themselves willing to participate, and these students would likely be students who were already aware of such issues and may be more willing to help. Students who are homophobic and part of the problem would not likely want to participate in such a study. There may also be a problem of implementing the GSA groups. Since there is only one middle school and high school, with not very large populations, there may not be enough students willing to be a part of the group. In school districts with multiple high schools, it would be more likely for more students to come together and form these groups. Teachers may have to step in and advocate for or lead these groups at the beginning or the whole way through this study.
Reference list for Final Project
Coyle, K, Franks, H, Hillard, P, Laris, B.A., & Love, L. (2013). “They were only jokingâ€:
efforts to decrease LGBTQ bullying and harassment in Seattle Public Schools. Journal
of School Health, 84, 1-9. doi:10.1111/josh.12120.
Dragowski, E, Elizalde-Utnick, G, McCabe, P.C., Rubinson, F. (2013). Behavioral intention of
teachers, school psychologists, and counselors, to intervene and prevent harassment of
LGBTQ youth. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 676-688. doi: 10.1002/pits.21702.
Eisenberg, M, Heston, L, Porta, C, Saewyc, E, & Wolowic, J.M. (2016). Embracing the
rainbow: LGBTQ youth navigating “safe†spaces and belonging in North America.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 58, S1-S1. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.10.018
Greytak, E, Parsons, J, Reisner, S, & Ybarra, M. (2014). Gender minority social stress in
adolescence: Disparities in adolescent bullying and substance use by gender identity.
The Journal of Sex Research, 3, 243-256. doi: 10.1080%2F00224499.2014.886321
Marx, R.A. & Kettrey, H.H. (2016). Gay-Straight Alliances are associated with lower levels of
school-based victimization of LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45,1269-1282. doi:10.1007/s10964-016-0501-7.
United States Census Bureau. (2015). Mount Pleasant city Michigan QuickFacts. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/2656020