The question is to be submitted in 24 hours. Quality work needed.

Melissa Mathews80

peer_review_3.pdf

Home >Literature homework help >The question is to be submitted in 24 hours. Quality work needed.

Educating the Educator: Creating Supportive School Personnel Through

Professional Development

EMILY A. GREYTAK, JOSEPH G. KOSCIW, and MADELYN J. BOESEN

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN), New York, New York, USA

Ensuring a safe and welcoming school environment for all students, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students, is an important responsibility of educators. Yet research indicates that educators regularly fail to take action in the face of anti-LGBT bias and are often not equipped to address these issues. Professional development training programs are becoming a popular method for developing educators’ capacity to support LGBT students and combat anti-LGBT bias. However, little is known about the effectiveness of these training programs. This article reviews the current literature on in-service professional devel- opment regarding LGBT issues and examines findings from an evaluation of a district-wide training program. Results suggest that a brief training can be effective in changing beliefs and self-efficacy. The findings also demonstrate the different needs and training effects for various groups of educators (teachers, admin- istrators, and school-based mental health providers). This article then provides recommendations for research and practice.

KEYWORDS LGBT youth, bullying and harassment, educators, professional development, training evaluation

School can be a hostile place for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth, as many LGBT students experience victimization, discrimi- nation, and marginalization on a regular basis (Bochenek & Brown, 2001;

Received May 7, 2012; accepted September 14, 2012. Address correspondence to Emily A. Greytak, GLSEN, 90 Broad St., 2nd Floor, New York,

NY 10004, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Supportive School Personnel 81

Kosciw, Greytak, Diaz, & Bartkiewicz, 2010). This hostile climate might have negative effects on LGBT students’ educational success (Murdock & Bolch, 2005; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001) and well-being (D’Augelli, Pilkington, & Hershberger, 2002; McGuire, Anderson, Toomey, & Russell, 2010). However, school personnel have an opportunity to positively affect LGBT youth’s school experience by taking action—both proactive and reactive—to create a school environment where LGBT youth are safe and respected. Research has demonstrated that having supportive educators can improve the school experience for LGBT students (Bochenek & Brown, 2001; Russell et al., 2001). Specifically, LGBT students who can identify supportive school staff have reported more positive mental wellbeing (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006) and better academic outcomes (Russell et al., 2001). Educators might not only provide needed support for LGBT students, but might also act in an advocacy capacity, intervening in instances of harass- ment and bullying of LGBT youth. LGBT students report that when school personnel effectively intervene in incidents of anti-LGBT bullying and harass- ment, they experience less harassment and assault at school and lower rates of absenteeism (Kosciw et al., 2010).

Unfortunately, many LGBT students lack such sources of support. Several studies have found that educators inconsistently or never intervene when hearing homophobic remarks and negative remarks about gender expression, and at times even remain silent in the face of actual harassment and assault of LGBT students (Harris Interactive & Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network [GLSEN], 2008; Sawyer, Porter, Lehman, Anderson, & Anderson, 2006; Sears, 1992; Smith & Smith, 1998). One of the most com- mon efforts to increase educators’ action in the face of anti-LGBT bias in schools and enhance their support of LGBT students is professional devel- opment (Kim, Sheridan, & Holcomb, 2009). Yet, many schools fail to provide professional development opportunities on these issues (Brener et al., 2011; Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2008). Some cross-sectional studies indicate that educators who have received professional development or training on LGBT issues are more likely to take action to create more inclusive environments (Harris Interactive & GLSEN, 2012), and that schools where this type of pro- fessional development is provided are safer and more welcoming to LGBT youth (Szalacha, 2003).

There has been limited research conducted on the actual effectiveness of educator training programs on LGBT student issues (Szalacha, 2004). Although some literature assesses preservice training on these issues (e.g., see Athanases & Larrabee, 2003; Riggs, Rosenthal, & Smith-Bonahue, 2010), the empirical research on inservice training, the focus of this article, is quite limited. Moreover, much of the existing literature on inservice train- ing is descriptive in nature. These articles either detail the content, purpose, and implementation of existing inservice training programs (e.g., Whitman, Horn, & Boyd, 2007), or provide a call to action, stressing the need for

82 E. A. Greytak et al.

educators to receive professional development on these issues (Hirschfeld, 2001). There has been some qualitative research on educators’ reflections on and satisfaction with the training programs that provide helpful insights into the mechanisms of the programs’ influence on participants (e.g., Payne & Smith, 2010).

These descriptive and qualitative studies provide valuable information into training content and participant experience; however, the actual impact, particularly long-term impact, of inservice professional development pro- gram has gone relatively unexamined. No relevant published research utilizes experimental design, and only a few evaluations utilize a quasiexperimen- tal design. In one quasiexperimental design study, Horn and Sullivan (2012) report on a training program designed to affect Illinois middle and high school educators’ knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes related to LGBT youth and safe school climate for these students. Analyses of pre- and post-surveys (administered one month prior to and 6 months following the training) indi- cated that participants changed in the expected direction with regard to their awareness of school climate for LGBT youth, attitudes towards homosexual- ity, sense of obligation to create safe schools for LGBT youth, and intention to intervene in anti-LGBT violence and discrimination.

The authors of this article conducted another study that used a quasiex- perimental design (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010). We evaluated a 2-day training in the New York City public schools, focusing on the experiences of LGBT youth at school and the actions educators could take to create safer and more welcoming environments for these students. Participants completed surveys three times: before the training, 6 weeks after, and 6 months after. We also compared responses from educators who had completed the training with those who had not yet completed the training (i.e., responses from training participants’ pretests were compared to those from the posttests of other participants taken during the same month).

Findings from both the over-time analyses and comparison group anal- yses indicated that the training increased participants’: (a) knowledge of appropriate terminology, (b) empathy for LGBT students, (c) communication with both students and other staff about LGBT issues, and (d) engagement in activities to create safer schools for LGBT students (i.e., supporting gay– straight alliances, including LGBT content in curriculum). Results from the over-time analyses also suggested other training effects, such as increased frequency of intervention in anti-LGBT remarks, but these findings were not replicated in the comparison group analyses. In addition, although it was hypothesized that the training would increase participants’ self-efficacy related to a variety to activities (e.g., intervention in anti-LGBT language), none of the analyses suggested that the training had any effect on educators’ self-efficacy.

The two evaluations summarized previously (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Horn & Sullivan, 2012) assessed professional development sessions of

Supportive School Personnel 83

substantive length—2 full, consecutive days and three separate sessions (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Horn & Sullivan, 2012, respectively)—and found that the trainings had significant positive effects on educators’ beliefs and behaviors. However, with the immense competition for professional devel- opment time in schools, LGBT issues may receive only brief attention, if at all. Thus, it is important to consider the potential effects of an inservice train- ing on LGBT issues that is perhaps more typical (i.e., one shorter in duration than those previously evaluated). This current study builds upon the exist- ing literature with a quasiexperimental design evaluation of a district-wide, mandatory 2-hour educator-training program.

METHOD

Setting

Two-hour training workshops on bullying and harassment of LGBT youth were provided to all certified staff (i.e., teachers, mental health providers, school building and district administrators) working in the secondary schools of a large urban school district in the northeastern United States. The school district requested and organized the trainings, and staff members were mandated to attend. The training curriculum was developed and deliv- ered by a local affiliate of a national organization focusing on LGBT issues in education. The objectives of the training were to: (a) increase partici- pants’ understanding of how bullying, harassment, and name-calling impact the school climate; (b) increase participants’ knowledge about how bul- lying, harassment, and name-calling impact LGBT students and staff; and (c) develop participants’ skills in creating a safer school climate for all, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. The workshop included both didactic and interactive components, including minilectures, discussions, a reflection activity, a video documentary made by and about local LGBT youth, and role plays about how to address anti- LGBT behaviors. Separate trainings were provided for the mental health professional staff (e.g., school psychologists), building administrators (e.g., principals), and district office staff during the fall and early spring semesters of the 2008–2009 school year. Trainings were then provided for teachers on- site in groups of approximately 20–40 participants throughout 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 school years. In total, 88 trainings were conducted, attended by 2,042 staff members representing 37 schools, 13 special programs (e.g., a young parents’ program), and the district office.

Procedures

Training participants completed a Pre-training Questionnaire administered by the workshop facilitators at the beginning of the training workshop.

84 E. A. Greytak et al.

Following the training, the district contacted all certified secondary school staff members to complete a Post-training Questionnaire. The Post-training Questionnaires were administered in two ways: most mental health profes- sional staff and some building administrators completed the questionnaire in-person during regularly scheduled meetings in the spring of 2009, and all other school staff were contacted via e-mail and directed to an online version of the Post-training Questionnaire in the beginning of the 2010– 2011 school year. Although district office staff received the training, they were not included in the evaluation study because too few completed the Post-training Questionnaires.

Sample

A total of 1,647 educators completed usable Pre-training Questionnaires and 459 completed usable Post-training Questionnaires. Both Pre-training and Post-training Questionnaires were considered usable if they included responses to the question about their position in the district (e.g., teacher). To be considered usable, Post-training Questionnaires also had to include responses that indicated that the educator had received the training. Table 1 displays the sample characteristics. Approximately three quarters of the study participants were teachers, less than 20% were school mental health profes- sionals, such as school counselors or psychologists, and 10% were school building administrators, such as principals or assistant principals. There was a range of years of experience—with over a quarter having 16 years or more experience. Slightly less than half reported having had previous professional development on this topic (not including the current training).

TABLE 1 Respondents’ Characteristics in Pre-training (N = 1,647) and Post-training Samples (N = 459)

Pre-training Post-training Characteristic % (n) % (n)

Position at school Teacher 77.0 (1,268) 72.8 (334) Administrator 10.0 (165) 10.5 (48) Mental health professional 13.0 (214) 16.8 (77)

Years of experience 1–5 26.6 (438) 19.2 (88) 6–10 21.8 (359) 25.1 (115) 11–15 14.1 (233) 24.4 (112) 16 or more 29.2 (481) 29.0 (133)

Previous professional development on topic

40.3 (663) 48.6 (223)

Year participated 2008/2009 61.2 (1,008) 48.1 (221) 2009/2010 38.8 (639) 43.1 (198) Not sure — 8.5 (39)

Supportive School Personnel 85

Measures

The district research staff with input from the authors and the educa- tors’ union in the district developed the Pre-training and Post-training Questionnaires. Both questionnaires included the same items, with the exception of items that asked specifically about participants’ opinions of the training, which were only included in the post questionnaire. Questionnaires were designed to assess whether the training met its objectives, specifi- cally whether the training increased participants’: (a) awareness of anti-LGBT bullying, harassment, and name-calling and anti-LGBT language in school; (b) empathy toward LGBT students; (c) belief in the importance of inter- vention in anti-LGBT behaviors; and (d) self-efficacy regarding intervention and regarding their ability to promote an inclusive environment for LGBT students. The questionnaires also included information about participants’ professional characteristics and prior professional development.

PROFESSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The questionnaires included items asking about position and years of experience. Participants were also asked whether they had ever received any professional development on harassment or bullying based on sexual orientation or gender identity or on improving school climate for LGBT students.

AWARENESS

Participants’ awareness of their school climate as related to anti-LGBT behaviors was measured by four items that assessed frequencies of vari- ous anti-LGBT behaviors, including: bullying, name-calling, and harassment because the student is or appears to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual; bullying, name-calling, and harassment based on a student’s gender expression (i.e., how masculine or feminine a student appears to be); homophobic language from students; and negative comments about a student’s gender expression from students (all items used a 5-point response scale ranging from 1 [never] to 5 [very often]).

EMPATHY

Participants’ sense of empathy toward LGBT students was measured through one item: “To what extent do you believe you have an understanding as to what some gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students go through related to your school’s climate?” (the 4-point scale ranged from 1 [poor] to 4 [excellent] understanding).

86 E. A. Greytak et al.

IMPORTANCE OF INTERVENTION

The importance of intervention in anti-LGBT behaviors was assessed through two items: one item regarding level of importance of intervening when students use homophobic language, and another item regarding the impor- tance of intervention when students make negative comments about gender expression (both items used a 5-point scale ranging from 1 [minimally important] to 5 [extremely important]).

SELF-EFFICACY

Participants’ self-efficacy regarding inclusive environments was assessed through one item: “To what extent to you feel confident in your ability to pro- mote an inclusive environment in your building so that all students, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender students, feel safe, respected, and nurtured?” (the 4-point scale ranged from 1 [poor] to 4 [excellent] level of confidence). Self-efficacy regarding intervention in anti-LGBT behaviors was measured by four items. Two items assessed perceived competence in their skills regarding intervention in incidents of bullying or harassment: one item regarding bullying or harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation and one item regarding bullying or harassment based on gen- der expression (both items used a 4-point scale ranging from 1 [not very competent] to 4 [high competence]). Two items assessed comfort level inter- vening when hearing students make biased remarks: one item regarding homophobic remarks and one item regarding negative remarks about gen- der expression (both items used a 4-point scale ranging from 1 [poor] to 4 [excellent] level of comfort).

Data Analysis

There were differences between the pre-training and post-training samples in the year participants attended the training, χ 2 = 1.52, df = 2, p = .000, and in their reports of prior professional development, χ 2 = 9.86, df = 1, p = .002; these variables were treated as controls and included as covariates in the analyses. In addition, years of experience was significantly correlated at p < .05 with the majority of the outcome variables (r ranges −.23 to .08), and, therefore, was also included as a covariate.

Differences between three groups of educators: teachers, mental health professionals, and building administrators, were examined at baseline (Pre-training Questionnaire) through a series of analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs), controlling for years of experience, prior professional devel- opment, and year of training attendance. Results indicated that the three groups of educators differed in their responses at baseline, therefore dif- ferences between Pre-training and Post-training Questionnaires responses

Supportive School Personnel 87

were assessed separately for the three types of educators through a series of ANCOVAs.

RESULTS

Group Differences at Baseline

Results from ANCOVAs revealed differences between educator groups on a number of the variables assessed at baseline through Pre-training Questionnaires (see Table 2). Overall, administrators demonstrated a distinct

TABLE 2 Differences Between Educator Groups Before Training

Teachers Building

administrators Mental health professionals

Variable M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F

Bullying, name-calling, and harassment Frequency of LGB-based 3.29 (0.03)b 2.76 (0.09)a,c 3.16 (0.07)b 15.67∗∗

Frequency of gender expression-based

3.28 (0.91)b,c 2.76 (0.87)a,c 3.13 (0.87)a,b 16.56∗∗

Hearing anti-LGBT language from students Homophobic remarks 2.53 (1.34)b,c 1.71 (0.86)a 1.99 (1.14)a 31.18∗∗

Negative comments about gender expression

3.04 (0.99)b 2.49 (0.81)a,c 2.93 (0.91)b 15.67∗∗

Understanding of LGBT students’ experiences

2.19 (0.87) 2.24 (0.87) 2.34 (0.74) 2.73

Importance of intervention regarding: Homophobic remarks 4.17 (0.93)b,c 4.52 (0.72)a 4.35 (0.79)a 9.19∗∗

Comments about gender expression

3.99 (0.99)b 4.37 (0.78)a,c 4.13 (0.97)b 7.08∗∗

Comfort intervening regarding: Homophobic remarks 3.27 (0.77)b 3.48 (0.69)a,c 3.27 (0.74)b 3.72∗

Comments about gender expression

3.17 (0.79)b 3.44 (0.68)a,c 3.14 (0.79)b 6.33∗∗

Competence addressing bullying/harassment based on: Sexual orientation 2.90 (0.75)b 3.17 (0.70)a,c 2.86 (0.78)b 7.26∗∗

Gender expression 2.85 (0.76)b 3.20 (0.65)a,c 2.87 (0.80)b 8.60∗∗

Confidence in promoting an inclusive environment

2.86 (0.84)c 2.90 (0.76)c 2.71 (0.82)a,b 3.07∗

Note. All ANCOVA analyses controlled for variables: year of training, previous professional development in this area, and years of experience. LGB = lesbian, gay, and bisexual. LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. Significant differences at p < .05 between groups are indicated for ateachers, bbuilding administrators, and cmental health professionals. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

88 E. A. Greytak et al.

pattern of responses, compared to teachers and mental health providers. They were less aware of anti-LGBT bullying, harassment, name-calling, and biased language. Yet, they were more likely to rate intervention in anti- LGBT remarks as important and had higher levels of self-efficacy related to both intervening in biased remarks and addressing anti-LGBT bullying and harassment.

Changes Over Time in Reports of Teachers

Differences between teachers’ mean responses (controlling for covariates) to items on the Pre-training and Post-training Questionnaires are shown in Table 3. There were no differences in any of the items assessing teachers’ awareness of school climate. Teachers had a significant increase in their empathy for LGBT youth (i.e., level of understanding of LGBT students’ experience) and in their assessment of the importance of intervening in both homophobic remarks and negative remarks about gender expression. They also increased their self-efficacy regarding intervention in homophobic

TABLE 3 Teachers’ ANCOVA Results for Responses to Questionnaire Items Before and After Training

Pre-training Post-training

Variable M (SD) M (SD) F

Bullying, name-calling, and harassment Frequency of LGB-based 3.27 (0.94) 3.36 (0.92) 2.28 Frequency of gender expression-based 3.26 (0.91) 3.19 (0.91) 1.21

Hearing anti-LGBT language Homophobic remarks 2.49 (1.34) 2.59 (1.36) 1.33 Negative comments about gender expression 3.02 (0.99) 3.02 (1.01) 0.00

Understanding of LGBT students’ experiences 2.17 (0.87) 2.72 (0.81) 100.84∗

Importance of intervention regarding: Homophobic remarks 4.17 (0.93) 4.43 (0.79) 18.96∗∗

Comments about gender expression 3.98 (0.99) 4.23 (0.90) 15.54∗∗

Comfort intervening regarding: Homophobic remarks 3.26 (0.77) 3.38 (0.77) 5.86∗

Comments about gender expression 3.16 (0.79) 3.24 (0.79) 2.17

Competence in addressing bullying/harassment based on: Sexual orientation 2.90 (0.75) 3.03 (0.72) 7.60∗∗

Gender expression 2.85 (0.76) 3.03 (0.73) 13.56∗∗

Confidence in promoting an inclusive environment

2.85 (0.84) 3.03 (0.77) 11.02∗∗

Note. All ANCOVA analyses controlled for variables: year of training, previous professional devel- opment in this area, and years of experience. LGB = lesbian, gay, and bisexual. LGBT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

Supportive School Personnel 89

remarks, addressing anti-LGBT bullying and harassment, and in their ability to promote an inclusive environment for LGBT students.

Changes Over Time in Reports of Building Administrators

Differences between building administrators’ mean responses (controlling for covariates) to items on the Pre-training and Post-training Questionnaires are shown in Table 4. Contrary to the findings for teachers, administrators showed significant increases on most indicators of awareness of the school climate: frequency of bullying and harassment of actual or perceived lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) students; bullying and harassment based on gender expression; and the frequency of hearing homophobic remarks and hearing negative remarks about gender expression. In addition to this greater aware- ness, administrators also increased in their assessment of the importance of intervening in both homophobic remarks and negative remarks about gender expression.

The findings were mixed with regard to improvements in self-efficacy for administrators. There was a significant increase in their confidence in

TABLE 4 Building Administrators’ ANCOVA Results for Responses to Questionnaire Items Before and After Training

Pre-training Post-training

Variable M (SD) M (SD) F

Bullying, name-calling, and harassment Frequency of LGB-based 2.78 (0.97) 3.42 (1.07) 10.37∗

Frequency of gender expression-based 2.77 (0.87) 3.29 (1.01) 8.08∗∗

Hearing anti-LGBT language Homophobic remarks 1.68 (0.86) 2.40 (1.52) 11.30∗∗

Negative comments about gender expression 2.48 (0.81) 3.22 (1.21) 16.12∗∗

Understanding of LGBT students’ experiences 2.34 (0.87) 2.67 (0.70) 3.40∗

Importance of intervention regarding: Homophobic remarks 4.50 (0.72) 4.79 (0.50) 5.69∗

Comments about gender expression 4.34 (0.78) 4.67 (0.58) 5.25∗

Comfort intervening regarding: Homophobic remarks 3.48 (0.69) 3.43 (0.70) 0.13 Comments about gender expression 3.45 (0.68) 3.45 (0.68) 0.00

Competence in addressing bullying/harassment based on: Sexual orientation 3.21 (0.70) 3.19 (0.71) 0.01 Gender expression 3.24 (0.65) 3.23 (0.70) 0.01

Confidence in promoting an inclusive environment

2.90 (0.76) 3.19 (0.60) 4.37∗

90 E. A. Greytak et al.

TABLE 5 Mental Health Professionals’ ANCOVA Results for Responses to Questionnaire Items Before and After Training

Pre-training Post-training

Variable M (SD) M (SD) F

Bullying, name-calling, and harassment Frequency of LGB-based 3.25 (0.90) 3.06 (0.77) 2.47 Frequency of gender expression-based 3.20 (0.87) 3.10 (0.69) 0.81

Hearing anti-LGBT language Homophobic remarks 2.09 (1.14) 1.94 (0.98) 0.85 Negative comments about gender expression 2.99 (0.91) 2.91 (0.77) 0.43

Understanding of LGBT students’ experiences 2.41 (0.78) 2.58 (0.71) 3.12

Importance of intervention regarding: Homophobic remarks 4.39 (0.78) 4.52 (0.69) 1.80 Comments about gender expression 4.17 (0.97) 4.41 (0.78) 3.61

Comfort intervening regarding: Homophobic remarks 3.30 (0.74) 3.31 (0.78) 0.01 Comments about gender expression 3.17 (0.79) 3.25 (0.79) 0.41

Competence in addressing bullying/harassment based on: Sexual orientation 2.89 (0.78) 3.15 (0.78) 6.03∗

Gender expression 2.91 (0.80) 3.13 (0.78) 4.35∗

Confidence in promoting an inclusive environment

2.74 (0.82) 2.84 (0.76) 0.77

their ability to promote an inclusive environment for LGBT students, but no differences in the other types of self-efficacy: intervening in biased language and addressing bullying.

Changes Over Time in Reports of Mental Health Professionals

Differences between mental health professionals’ mean responses (con- trolling for covariates) to items on the Pre-training and Post-training Questionnaires are shown in Table 5. The only difference was an increase in their perceived competence in addressing bullying/harassment based on both sexual orientation and gender expression.

DISCUSSION

Results of this evaluation study suggested that professional development could affect educators’ beliefs about school climate for LGBT youth and their own self-efficacy in addressing anti-LGBT behaviors and creating inclusive school environments. Previous evaluation studies have illustrated the positive

Supportive School Personnel 91

effects of longer, more extensive trainings on these issues (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Horn & Sullivan, 2012), but this is the first to demonstrate the bene- fits of a briefer training, the type of which is more commonly available to educators.

This training was specifically focused on the educators’ role in address- ing anti-LGBT bullying, harassment, name-calling, and remarks. It provided opportunities for both modeling and practicing of actual responses to anti- LGBT behaviors, and, therefore, it is not surprising that teachers and mental health professionals increased their self-efficacy regarding intervention in these types of incidents. In contrast, we did not find increases in partici- pants’ self-efficacy in our previous evaluation study of the New York City training (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010). The New York City training was designed not only to increase intervention in anti-LGBT behaviors, but also to build the capacity of participants to serve as a point person in their school on LGBT student issues. As such, the role play aspect of the New York City training focused mostly on the inclusion of LGBT issues in the curriculum or school policy, whereas the role plays in the shorter training detailed in this article focused solely on intervention in anti-LGBT behaviors. In addition to highlighting the importance of including opportunities for skill building, such as direct instruction, modeling, and practice, in order to successfully increase self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977), these differences in findings between the two trainings demonstrated the various possibilities offered by different training models. A more limited and focused approach may be successful in meeting a small number of defined objectives, such as increasing interven- tion when witnessing anti-LGBT bullying, harassment, or biased language. A longer, broader training might be more successful in equipping partici- pants to engage in a wider array of activities, including educating other staff, incorporating issues into the curriculum, and advocating for policy change.

Findings also suggested that the training had the desired effect of devel- oping empathy for LGBT youth, in that teachers and administrators increased their self-reported understanding of what LGBT youth experience in school. A significant component of the training was the viewing and discussion of a video specifically developed for this training featuring local LGBT youth sharing their experiences in the school system. This personal and customized approach may account for the apparent success of the training in fostering educators’ empathy. In contrast, in the New York City training initiative, we did not find sustained changes in empathy, perhaps because the empathy components were addressed through vignettes, minilectures, and discussion, which were neither localized nor presented through video. Future trainings may benefit from incorporating experiences of LGBT students from the local school or district whenever possible.

The effects on the training vary by professional position and by edu- cators’ beliefs before the training. The results illustrated different patterns of awareness, empathy, and self-efficacy among building administrators,

92 E. A. Greytak et al.

teachers, and school-based mental health professionals. Administrators’ awareness of anti-LGBT bullying, harassment, and biased remarks was lower at baseline, before the training, than both teachers and mental health profes- sionals. Given their role in the school, administrators are probably less likely to witness bullying and biased language first-hand, compared to teachers and counselors who have more direct daily contact with students; thus, it may be that the training opened administrators’ eyes to what students were actu- ally experiencing. Following the training, school administrators demonstrated significant increases in their awareness, whereas teachers and mental health professionals did not. Teachers and mental health staff may have already been aware of the prevalence of bullying, harassment, and biased language in their schools prior to the training and thus the training might not have provided any new information in this regard.

Whereas building administrators exhibited lower awareness of anti- LGBT behaviors at baseline than teachers or mental health professionals— and then subsequently increased their awareness after the training—they were more certain of their abilities to address these anti-LGBT behaviors, as demonstrated by higher baseline levels of self-efficacy related to interven- ing in anti-LGBT remarks and addressing anti-LGBT bullying/harassment. The higher levels of administrators’ initial self-efficacy may explain why they exhibited no change in self-efficacy after the training, although both teach- ers and mental health professionals did increase their perceived competence addressing bullying and harassment based on both sexual orientation and gender expression, and teachers also increased their comfort level inter- vening in homophobic remarks. One might believe that this difference is related to the more years of experience that administrators may be likely to have, however, we did control for years of experience in our analyses. Perhaps administrators, given their more limited direct contact with students, might have less opportunity to intervene and thus underestimate the diffi- culties associated with such intervention. This stands in contrast to teachers and mental health professionals who are more regularly faced with deci- sions about whether and how to intervene and might be more sensitive to the potential challenges involved. Further research on the factors related to educators’ assessments of their own abilities and comfort level is warranted. Alternatively, administrators might be more confident in their abilities overall, regardless of the topic.

With regard to both empathy for LGBT students and importance of inter- vention in anti-LGBT remarks, both teachers and administrators increased in these areas after the training, whereas mental health professionals did not. This lack of increase for mental health professionals cannot be explained by baseline differences, as mental health professionals were not significantly higher than both other groups in these areas. More research is needed to understand why the training failed to increase mental health professionals’ empathy and belief in the importance of intervention in anti-LGBT remarks.

Supportive School Personnel 93

Given that the different types of school personnel differed so greatly at baseline and showed varying patterns of change over time, our findings point to the importance of having training curriculum tailored to the needs of each specific group. For example, awareness-raising might neither be necessary nor effective for “front-line educators” who have more direct contact with students, but might be critical for administrators who have less exposure to the realities of daily student experiences. Given the limited amount of time available for professional development, recognition of school personnel’s differential roles and familiarity with bullying and harassment should factor into the design and delivery of training.

Given that we saw positive changes in awareness, empathy, self- efficacy, and beliefs about the importance of intervention; we would expect from prior research that these changes would be, in turn, related to increased levels of intervention (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Greytak, Kosciw, & Fisher, 2007). In the current evaluation, we did not directly assess educators’ actual intervention. Future evaluation research is needed that can assess educators’ actual intervention behaviors—either through observations or reports from students or other staff.

The main purpose of providing professional development activities regarding LGBT students is to help schools create safer and more affirm- ing learning environments for this population. It is important that future research on professional development go beyond evaluating the changes within the training participants to explore how such professional develop- ment programs affect the experiences of students. There is little research on the direct effects of educator trainings on school climate (Goodenow et al., 2006; Szalacha, 2003), yet even these few studies have not matched the effectiveness of the training on the educators with how those within-person changes affect the school environment.

Limitations

One of the benefits of conducting evaluation research in a real world set- ting, as opposed to a laboratory environment, is that it reflects the reality in which trainings are conducted and thus the findings tend to be more appli- cable to real world circumstances. However, conducting evaluation research in a community setting also has some limitations. Often, as in this study, it is not possible to use an experimental design or even have a compari- son group that did not attend the training. Thus, we cannot know for sure whether the changes over time found in this study can be attributed to the training, or whether training participants’ responses to questionnaires would have changed over time even if they had not attended the training. We were also unable to match training participants’ responses from Pre-training to Post-training Questionnaires, preventing us from modeling growth trajecto- ries over time. Future efforts that would strengthen these findings might

94 E. A. Greytak et al.

include identifying a school district that would permit a randomized and/or delayed-treatment design. Alternatively, confidence in the positive effects of educator trainings could be increased through replication of findings in both other community settings using quasiexperimental design studies and experimental designs in laboratory setting.

Another limitation imposed by the setting and constraints in which this study was conducted is the variation in questionnaire administration. The mode of administration and timeframe for the Post-training Questionnaire varied by year of training and educator type due to district staff turnover and resource limitations (see Method section for details). Thus, we controlled for year of training and conducted analyses separately for each educator group. However, it is still possible that there were some unaccounted variations within groups related to timeframe or mode of questionnaire completion. Future evaluations of training programs should strive to standardize question- naire administration method and conduct post assessments in a consistent and timely fashion (i.e., 6 weeks following the training) in order to best ascertain the training effects.

The Post-training Questionnaire sample was just over a quarter (28%) of the size of the Pre-training Questionnaire sample. Although this attri- tion is not atypical of evaluation studies of this kind, it potentially limits the generalizability of the findings. We cannot assume that the participants who completed the Post-training Questionnaires are representative of the larger group of training participants, for example, perhaps they looked more favorably upon the training and thus were more willing to complete the ques- tionnaire. However, an open-ended item asking for general comments on the Post-training Questionnaires yielded some negative feedback about the training (e.g., “[the] workshop at [school] was not helpful . . . needed more local resources and a more current curriculum”). Clearly not all Post-training Questionnaire respondents felt positively about the training. Nevertheless, it is important to consider how potential response bias may have affected the assessment of training effectiveness.

It may be that those who benefited most from the training were more likely to complete the Post-training Questionnaire. It could also be that those who were already invested in the issue prior to the training and perhaps thus had higher levels of the desired outcomes to begin with were more likely to complete the Post-training Questionnaires. These participants may have been less likely to benefit from the training because of ceiling effects, and if this were the case, our findings may have actually underestimated the training effects. However, it is possible that those who had the greatest possibility for experiencing training effects (i.e., those who were low on the desired outcomes prior to the training) were less likely to complete the Post-training Questionnaire, perhaps resulting an overestimation of the training effects. As an attempt to partially account for potential differences in presamples and postsamples, we included individual characteristics that varied between the

Supportive School Personnel 95

two samples (e.g., years of experience, having prior training) as covariates in the analysis of training effects. However, because the questionnaires were not matched, we cannot know the nature of the self-selection response bias, or if there was any systematic response bias at all. Regardless, evaluations of similar training programs might benefit from matching Pre-training and Post-training Questionnaire responses and making specific efforts to increase the response rate for Post-training Questionnaires, for example, by offering incentives for completing questionnaires.

This study focused on training at one urban school district in the Northeast, and thus the findings cannot necessarily be generalized to trainings in other districts. Future research should explore effects of sim- ilar trainings in diverse array of districts (e.g., suburban or rural districts, districts in the South, West, and Midwest).

Conclusion

This study made a unique contribution to the research literature in its assess- ment of a brief (2 hour) in-service training on school climate for LGBT students. Findings from the evaluation suggest that professional develop- ment can be an effective tool for preparing educators to address anti-LGBT bias and ensure safe school environments for LGBT youth. Findings also provide some insights into best practices for future trainings, including the potential benefits of tailoring trainings to specific types of educators.

COMPETING INTERESTS

The authors have no competing interests to disclose.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the school district partner for its support of the evaluation study and the local GLSEN chapter affiliate for providing support in data collection.

REFERENCES

Athanases, S. Z., & Larrabee, T. G. (2003). Toward a consistent stance in teaching for equity: Learning to advocate for lesbian- and gay-identified youth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 237–261. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00098-7

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

96 E. A. Greytak et al.

Bochenek, M., & Brown, A. W. (2001). Hatred in the hallways: Violence and discrim- ination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students in U.S. schools. New York, NY: Human Rights Watch.

Brener, N. D., Demissie, Z., Foti, K., McManus, T., Shanklin, S. L., & Hawkins, J. (2011). School health profiles 2010: Characteristics of health programs among secondary schools. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

D’Augelli, A. R., Pilkington, N. W., & Hershberger, S. L. (2002). Incidence and mental health impact of sexual orientation victimization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths in high school. School Psychology Quarterly, 17 , 148–167. doi:10.1521/scpq.17.2.148.20854

Goodenow, C., Szalacha, L., & Westheimer, K. (2006). School support groups, other school factors, and the safety of sexual minority adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 573–589. doi:10.1002/pits.20173

Greytak, E. A., & Kosciw, J. G. (2010). Year one evaluation of the New York City Department of Education Respect for All training program. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., & Fischer, S. (2007, April 12). Who wouldn’t want to make schools safer for LGBT students?: An examination of teachers’ beliefs about LGBT students and school climate. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

Harris Interactive & Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate in America, a survey of students and teachers. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

Hirschfeld, S. (2001). Moving beyond the safety zone: A staff development approach to anti-heterosexist education. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 29, 611–640.

Horn, S., & Sullivan, S. (2012, April). Addressing anti-LGBT bias in schools: Changing educators’ knowledge, beliefs, and behaviors through professional development. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Vancouver, BC.

Kim, R., Sheridan, D., & Holcomb, S. (2009). A report on the status of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in education: Stepping out of the closet, into the light. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Kosciw, J., Greytak, E., Diaz, E., & Barkiewicz, M. J. (2010). The 2009 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network.

McGuire, J. K., Anderson, C. R., Toomey, R. B., & Russell, S. T. (2010). School climate for transgender youth: A mixed method investigation of student experi- ences and school responses. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1175–1188. doi:10.1007%2Fs10964-010-9540-7

Murdock, T. B., & Bolch, M. B. (2005). Risk and protective factors for poor school adjustment in lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) high school youth: Variable and person-centered analyses. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 159–172. doi:10.1002/pits.20054

Payne, E., & Smith, S. (2010). Reduction of stigma in schools: An evalu- ation of the first three years. Issues in Teacher Education, 19, 11–36. doi:10.1080/19361653.2011.563183

Supportive School Personnel 97

Riggs, A. D., Rosenthal, A. R., & Smith-Bonahue, T. (2011). The impact of a combined cognitive-affective intervention on pre-service teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and anticipated professional behaviors regarding homosexuality and gay and lesbian issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27 , 201–209.

Russell, S. T., Seif, H., & Truong, N. L. (2001). School outcomes of sexual minor- ity youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 111–127.

Sawyer, R., Porter, J., Lehman, T., Anderson, C., & Anderson, K. (2006). Education and training needs of school staff relevant to preventing risk behaviors and pro- moting health behaviors among gay, lesbian, bisexual, and questioning youth. Journal of HIV/AIDS Prevention in Children & Youth, 7 (1), 37–53.

Sears, J. T. (1992). Educators, homosexuality, and homosexual students: Are personal feelings related to professional beliefs? In K. M. Harbeck (Ed.), Coming out of the classroom closet: Gay and lesbian students, teachers and curricula (pp. 29–79). New York, NY: Harrigton Park.

Smith, G. W., & Smith, D. E. (1998). The ideology of “fag”: The school experience of gay students. The Sociological Quarterly, 39, 309–335.

Szalacha, L. A. (2003). Safer sexual diversity climates: Lessons learned from an eval- uation of Massachusetts Safe Schools Program for Gay and Lesbian Students. American Journal of Education, 110, 58–88. doi:10.1086/377673

Szalacha, L. A. (2004). Educating teachers on LGBTQ issues: A review of research and program evaluations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, 1(4), 67–79. doi:10.1300/J367v01n04_07

Whitman, J. S., Horn, S., & Boyd, C. J. (2007). Activism in the schools: Providing LGBTQ affirmative training to school counselors. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11(3/4), 143–154. doi:10.1300/J236v11n03_08

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.