Journal of Undergraduate Research
Volume 6, Issue 2 - October 2004

The Prevalence of Support and Counseling Services for Gay Youth
in American Schools

Brett Weingold

INTRODUCTION

On July 27th, 2003, President George W. Bush announced that the institution of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples only. President Bush then vowed that he would defend “the sanctity of marriage” and stated that he would support a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage (i). The President made this statement during an interview unrelated to the topic of gay marriage, surprising many of the reporters that recorded his statement.

What Bush’s comments and the more recent debates over gay marriage most clearly indicate is that the issue of sexual orientation continues to be one of the most controversial topics in both American politics and in the more general discourse of our nation. Although there appears to be growing acceptance of gays in the United States, there is still much opposition to guaranteeing gays rights equal to those of the heterosexual populace. Despite the strides made by gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) activists, little has been done to address the needs of youths who are confused about their sexual identity. Particularly within American public schools, GLBT youth find themselves ostracized and abused by their peers and many find it impossible to complete high school. Most go through the entirety of their teenage years with no one to talk to talk to about their problems and without anyone to provide them with support.

THE NEED FOR SUPPORT SERVICES FOR GAY YOUTH

Sexual orientation is one of the most controversial issues in the United States at this time. Because of this fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that society must address the needs of gay youth. When most people think of gays, they tend to think of “merely an adult minority,” and few support groups are targeted towards gay youth (ii). Even in large cities such as New York, gay youths often complain about the lack of adequate services and support groups available to them (iii). This lack of support is a major problem, as the number of youth identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender is estimated as high as two million in the United States (iv).

Not only are gay youth present in large numbers, they tend to be in dire need of support groups. Recent studies have shown that as many as 30 percent of teens who commit suicide are gay, and almost half of all gay youth have attempted to commit suicide at least once during their middle and high school years (v). Further, gay youth are more likely than heterosexual youth to be depressed, alienated from their peers, and engaged in substance abuse (vi). Young lesbians in particular are highly likely to engage in self-mutilation as a form of control over their lives (vii). The reason for such high numbers of gay youth engaging in self-damaging behavior is because of the extreme stress and anxiety they feel due to the negative feelings projected by their peers, teachers, school administrators, and parents. It would seem that schools, as places of education, would be an ideal place to offer support and counseling services to gay youth. Unfortunately, little to no research has been done to determine what schools are currently doing (and not doing) to help support GLBT students. Further, there is not a body of knowledge to draw upon to determine whether schools are offering enough education about sexual orientation issues. Answering these questions is the primary purpose of this study.

METHODOLOGY

Using a survey developed by Drs. James Button and Barbara Rienzo (see Appendix A), a random sample of four hundred school districts was created. The survey was designed to question respondents about whether there were programs within their districts designed to provide education about sexual orientation and support for gay students. Further, the survey was also designed to give some indication of the success of any such programs. If the district had no such programs, questions on the survey were then targeted toward discovering whether the district had had to deal with the issue of gay students in the past, and how the district had responded. Further questions attempted to determine if the districts had openly gay teachers and administrators and whether school officials received training in dealing with the issue of sexual orientation.

The sampled districts were randomly selected from school districts within each of the fifty states. School districts with fewer than two hundred students enrolled were eliminated from the random sample as it was thought that there would be very little chance of programs designed to address the needs of gay students within such districts. Further, the sample was slightly skewed towards a higher number of larger districts, as such districts were more likely to have programs targeting gay students, or simply to have had experience dealing with issues of sexual orientation in the past.

Having identified the districts to be surveyed, efforts were undertaken to identify an individual in each district qualified to answer the survey. Once identified, they were sent a link through e-mail that would take them to a website where the respondent would be able to fill out the survey. Obtaining the four hundred e-mail addresses necessary for the study took an unexpectedly enormous effort. Calls to districts to identify qualified personnel began in July of 2003 and continued well into 2004. The primary difficulty in obtaining the contacts was simply the necessary time and manpower it took to call each district to identify the individual most qualified in the district to answer the survey, with the additional labor of contacting the individuals in question to obtain their agreement to participate. Further difficulties arose from at least fifty school districts where qualified individuals refused to take part in the study despite reassurances of anonymity, either out of fear of involving their district in such a hot-button issue, or simply because administrators believed that sexual orientation was not an issue within their district. In addition, some respondents had to be reminded to take the survey. Despite the difficulties, at the time of the writing of this report 125 completed surveys had been received, making the response rate 31.25 percent, particularly respectable given the sensitivity of the issues studied.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the survey were revealing; while it seems that some progress has been made in providing and implementing programs designed to support gay students and provide education about sexual orientation, there is room for a great deal of improvement. Perhaps most striking was the response received to the basic question “Does your district currently include sexual orientation anywhere in your curriculum?” Sixty-four districts (49.6 percent) responded “not at all,” an incredible statistic given the attention that sexual orientation has garnered lately in the media. Given that almost every American parent and student has been hearing discussion about sexual orientation in the news, it would seem logical that schools, as centers for learning, would also be taking up this issue, but it is obvious that they are lagging behind in this area. Of the remaining districts, 36.4 percent said their districts offered “a little” curriculum involving sexual orientation, 4.7 percent said that their districts offered “quite a lot” of curriculum discussing sexual orientation, and 6.2 percent did not know. If nothing else is done to aid gay youth, frank and educational curriculum addressing sexual orientation is needed to educate students, both to help GLBT youth understand themselves in the context of gay issues in general and also to help combat prejudice among the general student population.

Further evidence of a lack of education on the topic of sexual orientation is obtained from results to the question of whether the school districts surveyed have offered in-service education to teachers discussing how to deal with sexual orientation issues. Only 27.1 percent of districts surveyed responded that their districts had offered “a little” education concerning sexual orientation, while an even smaller 2.3 percent responded that their district had offered “a lot” of education. Even more telling, only 6.2 percent of districts were planning to offer an educational program about sexual orientation in the future, perhaps indicating the increased volatility of sexual orientation issues, or simply that many of the school districts that plan to offer any sort of education on the subject feel that they have already adequately covered the issue.

Another area of interest in the survey involved questions relating to the support services and groups available to gay students. Approximately 41 percent of school districts indicated that at least one school (and occasionally more than one school) provided some sort of counseling services about sexual orientation for GLBT students, although it was not possible to determine the extent or focus of such services. As far as support groups, only 15.5 percent of school districts indicated that they had a Gay-Straight Alliance or similar group operating within their districts. In addition, approximately 30 percent of districts indicated that there was some sort of support group for GLBT students within their districts or community. While it is positive that some districts offer counseling and support to their students, the sheer number of districts that do not offer counseling, support groups, or both ranges from 60-70 percent, meaning most GLBT students are left without much support during very important years of their lives. Clearly, a great deal more work needs to be done to provide these services given the difficulties that many gay students face.

A final area of interest is the administrative aspect of the sexual orientation issue within school districts. Perhaps most surprising was the percentage of districts that had enacted some sort of policy prohibiting discrimination against a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation. Some 59.7 percent of districts responded that they did have such a policy in place, which is surprising given that at least some of the districts in question must be small or rural school districts. Often such districts will quietly introduce such a policy “under the radar,” which may explain the high number of positive responses to this question. 46.5 percent of districts also offered protection against discrimination in the hiring and promotion of teachers based on sexual orientation. Such a policy is especially important given that 27.1 percent of districts indicated that there were openly GLBT individuals who held teaching positions within their district.

CONCLUSION

Clearly, there is still a great need to increase awareness and education about sexual orientation issues. While some districts attempt to address the needs of gay students and supportive programs and counseling services do exist, the needs of gay students are still neglected in the vast majority of school districts. At the same time, there are excellent examples of how schools and communities can provide education and support for gay students. Perhaps the best example involves the Harvey Milk School in New York City, which provides schooling and support to GLBT students while freeing them from worries of harassment or assault by their peers. New York City also provides a myriad of support groups for GLBT individuals, such as at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center (the Center), which provides a wide range of services from advice on gay parenting to mental health counseling, and even a Youth Pride Chorus for GLBT youth “and their allies (viii).” Not all cities or school districts will be able to offer as many services to GLBT youth as New York, but a great deal more can still be done to provide a safe and educational atmosphere for all students in the United States.

NOTES

  1. Elisabeth Bumiller, “President Steps into Toxic Campaign Debate on Gay Marriage,” New York Times 2 Aug. 2003, late ed.: A9.

  2. Gerald Unks, ed., The Gay Teen (New York: Routledge, 1995) 3

  3. Anonymous Gay Teen, personal interview, New York City, 27 December 2003.

  4. Human Rights Watch, Hatred in the Hallways (New York: Human Rights Watch, 2001) 3

  5. Unks 13

  6. Unks 33

  7. Sue Rochman, “The Cutting Edge: Anxious About Their Sexuality Young Lesbians Sometimes Turn to Self-Mutilation.” The Advocate 23 May 2000, The Advocate Online, online, 16 Aug. 2003.

  8. “The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center Departments and Programs,” The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center, flier, 28 December 2003.

--top--

Back to the Journal of Undergraduate Research