Perceptions of School Climate Among Students Self-Identifying as Lesbian,Gay,or Bisexual

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to examine perceptions of school climate among youth identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) using the Georgia Brief School Climate Inventory (GaBSCI). Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the one-factor school climate construct of the GaBSCI, and measurement invariance was established among LGB students and their counterparts. Students identifying as LGB reported significantly lower perceptions of school climate. Establishing valid and reliable tools that can be integrated within the School Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) framework to guide data-based decision making may enhance positive outcomes for students.

Keywords

school climate SWPBIS LGB

Students spend a majority of their day in an educational setting, making schools an important developmental context for adolescents. Growing attention is focused on understanding, supporting, and maintaining positive school climates because of data supporting the relationship between a positive school climate and student social, emotional, behavioral, and academic outcomes (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). Youth identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) have consistently been identified as a group at increased risk of being subjected to negative school experiences (Russell & McGuire, 2008), including poor academic performance, negative perceptions of school climate, and peer victimization (Russell & McGuire, 2008). In addition, sexual minority youth exhibit more discipline problems, are more likely to be absent from school because of feeling unsafe or uncomfortable, and report lower levels of school engagement and academic achievement (Kosciw, Palmer, Kull, & Greytak, 2013).

Negative and hostile school climates have a detrimental effect on LGB students and reduce their access to education. According to Russell and McGuire (2008), “at the school level, homophobia has been directly implicated in hostile school climates” (p. 136). In a study conducted with sexual minority youth, 73.6% of students reported hearing homophobic remarks on an ongoing basis, with less than one fifth reporting any adult interference during such incidents; furthermore, 86.2% of students reported verbal and physical harassment at school (Diaz, Kosciw, & Greytak, 2010; Harris Interactive and GLSEN, 2005). Challenges such as peer victimization and harassment make it difficult for all students, and specific to this study, LGB students, to benefit from their educational environments.

School Climate, Defined

School climate is a multidimensional construct based on the patterns of individuals’ experiences that reflect school norms, values, expectations for behaviors, and organizational structures (National School Climate Council, 2007; Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2013). School climate is positively associated with student achievement, school engagement, and social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes, and negatively associated with absenteeism, peer victimization, and engagement in risky youth behaviors (Cohen, McCabe, Michelli, & Pickeral, 2009; Kuperminc, Leadbeater, Emmons, & Blatt, 1997). A major component of adolescence is defining self or identity, as well as forming relationships with individuals outside of the family, including adults and peers; perceptions of school climate may reflect these aspects of school life. Adolescence is a difficult transition period for all students. Collecting data on school climate perceptions provides a valuable snapshot of how individuals feel, at any given time, about their school environment.

Perceptions of School Climate Among LGB Students

Research has established that minority students generally report lower perceptions of school climate than their White counterparts (Koth, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2008; White, La Salle, Ashby, & Meyers, 2014) and males report lower perceptions than females. However, there is limited research assessing perceptions of school climate among students identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. Research has shown that students identifying as LGB tend to report lower perceptions of school experiences, more school-related problems, and lower academic achievement (Elias et al., 1992). They are more likely to experience bullying and peer victimization, isolation, and harassment. Also, an average of 30% of students identifying as LGB end up dropping out of school (Birkett, Espelage, & Koenig, 2009; Russell, Seif, & Truong, 2001). In a 2009 study, researchers assessed differences in perceptions of school climate among 7,000 middle school students identifying as either heterosexual, LGB, or questioning. Findings indicated differences in perceptions of school climate between students identifying as questioning and heterosexual, with the former having lower perceptions. However, there was no difference in perceptions among students identifying as LGB and heterosexual (Birkett et al., 2009). Given previous research suggesting adverse school experiences for LGB students, further research is needed to examine perceptions of school climate for sexual minority youth in comparison to their counterpart. Using surveys demonstrating invariance across groups (i.e., LGB vs. Heterosexual) is an important factor in this process so that we are able to reliably interpret results and comparisons.

Fully supporting the range of needs for LGB students requires developing a continuum of proactive supports that are integrated with initiatives to promote positive behavior and reduce bullying. A multitiered framework can provide a way to organize these supports (McIntosh & Goodman, 2016). Measuring the perceptions of school climate using valid and reliable tools, particularly for LGB students, provides leadership teams with essential data to guide the development of this continuum of supports which, in turn, can improve supports for LGB students.

School Climate and School Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS)

SWPBIS is a multitiered data-based decision-making framework used to improve the selection, organization, and implementation of evidence-based practices for enhancing student outcomes including school climate, especially among groups of students that may be most marginalized, such as LGB students (Lewis & Sugai, 1999). SWPBIS is how we organize what we do to improve teaching and learning in classroom and school environments to ultimately impact student outcomes. School climate is how people report feeling and perceiving the school environment and their experiences in classrooms and school, which is the direct and indirect natural effect of school improvement efforts. School improvement initiatives increasingly include perceptions of school climate as a way to evaluate the outcomes of evidence-based school improvement practices (e.g., teaching and acknowledging social skills, preventive active supervision) and systems (e.g., SWPBIS). However, to rely on school climate data, it is important that we use scales with sound psychometric properties that can support reliable and valid cross-group comparisons.

Researchers have documented the positive impact of SWPBIS on student outcomes across grade levels, for example, (a) reduction in problem behavior, (b) increased academic performance, (c) improved perception of school safety, (d) enhanced staff retention, (e) improved organizational health of schools, (f) reduction in bullying behaviors, and (g) increased social emotional competence of students (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010). High-fidelity implementation of the SWPBIS framework creates a predictable, positive, safe, and consistent school environment that is associated with an enhanced and safer learning environment, more positive relationships between students and adults, and improved overall perceptions of school climate for all students (Horner et al., 2010). In a study conducted by Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, and Leaf (2009), SWPBIS had a positive impact on the work environment and staff perceptions of school climate when SWPBIS was implemented with fidelity, and may have been linked to staff members’ capacity to implement other preventive interventions for students requiring additional supports. Together, these initial findings suggest that gathering student perceptions of school climate data and using it as a resource to guide data-based decision making within the SWPBIS framework may be a logical and effective means for enhancing classroom and school teaching and learning environments that, in turn, may be experienced and reported by students identifying as gay or straight as more positive school climates.

School Climate Measurement

A plethora of school climate scales have been used to examine student perceptions of school climate ranging in items from around 25 to more than 100 (e.g., California Healthy Students Survey: Furlong, Greif, Bates, Whipple, & Jimenez, 2005; Comer Development Program Climate Survey: Haynes, Emmons, Ben-Avie, & Comer, 2001; Comprehensive School Climate Survey: Stamler, Scheer, & Cohen, 2009; Delaware School Climate Survey: Bear, Gaskins, Blank, & Chen, 2011). Researchers have recommended the development of brief measures of school climate as a way to assess school climate over time in a way that is efficient and meaningful. Researchers also suggested the use of a general school climate survey to examine overall perceptions of the school environment and relationships with variables such as peer victimization or high school completion (Bandyopadhyay, Cornell, & Konold, 2009; Furlong et al., 2005; White et al., 2014).

Georgia Brief School Climate Inventory (GaBSCI)

The GaBSCI was developed to provide schools with an overall snapshot of how students perceive their school environment. The scale is brief with only nine items, allowing for it to be administered on an ongoing basis. Prior research established the GaBSCI as a one-factor school climate tool with adequate psychometric properties: root mean square error approximation (RMSEA) = .035, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = .023 and Cronbach’s alpha = .71 (White et al., 2014). Measurement invariance across the five ethnic groups has previously been established (see La Salle, Wang, Parris, & Brown, 2017, for a full review). However, to date, measurement invariance across sexual orientation has not previously been established and, as such, is part of the aim of the current study.

Purpose

This study had two primary purposes. First, we sought to confirm the one factor structure of the GaBSCI among a large and diverse middle and high school sample, and specifically across sexual orientation groups (i.e., heterosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual). Second, once the measurement structure of the tool was established for use across groups, we examined the average perceptions of school climate reported by two groups of students in Grades 6 to 12, those identifying as heterosexual and those identifying as LGB.

Method

Participants

Participants included 22,949 students who completed the GaBSCI in the spring of 2017, representing 113 schools, 50 districts, and 19 states. For the purposes of this study, researchers considered two broad categories for sexual orientation: “Heterosexual/Straight” (heterosexual) and “Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual” (LGB). Of the survey respondents, 20,765 (90.5%) reported that they identify as heterosexual, while 2,184 (9.5%) reported an LGB sexual orientation. In the original sample, 26,617 participants completed the survey; however, some participants did not answer the optional demographic questions and their sexuality and grade level could not be determined in the analyses. Thus, we excluded 2,411 participants who provided invalid responses for grade level, and 3,668 participants who did not report their sexual orientation. The final sample for analysis included 13,784 middle and 9,165 high school students, and descriptive characteristics are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Student Demographic Information.

Characteristic	Students
Characteristic	Heterosexual/straightn (%)	Lesbian/gay/bisexualn (%)	Full samplen (%)
Gender	20,765 (90.5%)	2,184 (9.5%)	22,949
Males	10,384 (50.5%)	406 (19.6%)	10,790 (47.7%)
Females	10,122 (49.2%)	1,391 (67.2%)	11,513 (50.9%)
Missing/I prefer not to answer^a			3,668
Race/ethnicity
White or Caucasian	5,888 (29.7%)	668 (31.9%)	6,556 (29.9%)
Black/African American	2,737 (13.8%)	250 (11.9%)	2,987 (13.6%)
Hispanic or Latino	8,575 (43.3%%)	787 (37.6%)	9,362 (42.7%)
Asian	638 (3.2%)	75 (3.6%)	713 (3.3%)
American Indian/Alaska Native	314 (1.6%)	37 (1.8%)	351 (1.6%)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	84 (0.4%)	17 (0.8%)	101 (0.5%)
Multiracial	1,579 (8.0%)	260 (12.4%)	1,839 (8.4%)
Missing/I prefer not to answer^a			NA
Grade
6	3,190 (15.4%)	256 (11.7%)	3,446 (15.0%)
7	4,873 (23.5%)	376 (17.2%)	5,249 (22.9%)
8	4,626 (22.3%)	463 (21.2%)	5,089 (22.2%)
9	2,557 (12.3%)	292 (13.4%)	2,849 (12.4%)
10	1,889 (9.1%)	255 (11.7%)	2,144 (9.3%)
11	2,033 (9.8%)	283 (13.0%)	2,316 (10.1%)
12	1,597 (7.7%)	259 (11.9%)	1,856 (8.1%)
Missing/I prefer not to answer^a			NA

Missing/I prefer not to answer were excluded from the database and not calculated as part of the demographic percentage representation.

GaBSCI

The GaBSCI is a computerized school climate rating scale that was developed as part of the Georgia School Climate Survey Suite (White et al., 2014). The purpose of the GaBSCI is to obtain middle and high school student perception ratings of school climate, and it provides a composite rating that represents the nine items within the GaBSCI. Respondents use a 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree. To compute the overall school climate score, item responses are summed and then divided by the total number of items. Higher overall scores reflect a positive sense of the school environment with respect to (a) interpersonal relations among and between peers and adults, (b) learning environment, and (c) feelings of belonging and acceptance. Lower perceptions reflect a negative perception in one or more of the aforementioned areas.

Sexual orientation

Within the section of optional demographic questions, participants were asked to describe their sexual orientation (“Which of the following best describes you?”) by indicating one the following responses: “Heterosexual (straight),” “Gay or Lesbian,” “Bisexual,” or “I prefer not to answer.” For the purposes of this study, we included only students who selected “Heterosexual (straight)” in the heterosexual group, and any student who selected “Gay or Lesbian” or “Bisexual” in the GLB overall group, as has been done in prior studies focusing on sexual minority youth (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Poteat, Sinclair, DiGiovanni, Koenig, & Russell, 2013).

Procedures

The GaBSCI is administered in an online format, and students take the survey during school hours using school-based technology (e.g., computer, iPad). Through an online portal (www.pbisapps.org), individual students enter their item responses, which are stored in a confidential and private site managed by the National PBIS Technical Assistance Center at the University of Oregon.

Students are exempted from participation if their parent or guardian returned a signed refusal to participate form. In addition, students may opt out of the survey at any point before or during the survey. Students are permitted to skip demographic questions that they prefer not to answer. As students must select an answer for each school climate item to proceed to the next item, there are no missing data for school climate survey items.

School sites had no associated costs to complete the survey or obtain their data. Institutional review board (IRB) safeguards with respect to confidentiality, privacy, and informed consent were secured for conducting this study (University of Connecticut) and collecting, maintaining, and accessing the data (University of Oregon). Date were de-identified at the individual level and considered extant; as such, the study was approved as IRB exempt.

Analyses

Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using Mplus 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012) to account for the nested nature of the data (i.e., students nested within schools) and standard error. Maximum Likelihood Estimation was used. To conduct the measurement invariance analyses, the 4-point Likert-type scale was treated as categorical and was estimated using weighted least squares (WLSMV). In WLSMV, missing data are accommodated by using an analog of full information maximum likelihood (FIML) with the WLSMV estimation as categorical.

The model included nine school climate items (see Figure 1) represented by one overall school climate factor. Several model fit indices were examined. Given that the chi-square test of model fit is sensitive to large sample sizes, we did not rely solely on the significance of the chi-square tests to evaluate model fit. To assess model fit, three additional common fit indices were examined: comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), RMSEA. The CFI and TLI are measures of the incremental fit index to assess relative improvement in the fit of the model relative to the baseline model. Ideally, CFI and TLI should be at or above .90 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA is an absolute fit index that evaluates the relationship between the observed data and the data pattern that would be expected based on the estimated model. Generally, RMSEA values less than .08 are considered indicative of adequate model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Pendergast, Von der Embse, Kilgus, & Eklund, 2017).

Figure 1.

School climate survey items.

To establish that school climate is measured consistently across both groups, three types of measurement invariance were examined. Configural variance is used to assess whether the factor structure is equivalent across groups. Metric invariance permits determination of whether the items are equally discriminating across groups. Finally, scalar invariance is examined to assess whether item difficulty (or level of endorsement) varies across groups, holding constant the level of the overall factor. Scalar invariance is assessed by constraining both the factor loadings and the intercepts to be equal across groups. To evaluate change in model fit for measurement invariance analyses, changes in TLI and RMSEA were evaluated. Pendergast et al. (2017) suggest that a ΔRMSEA change of ⩽–0.015 and a ΔCFI ⩽–0.01 from the metric to the scalar model, would indicate invariance; Chen (2007) also recommends a ΔCFI ⩾ –.01 or for sample sizes larger than 300 (Pendergast et al., 2017). Following factor analyses, ANOVA was conducted with the final model to examine school climate means for both samples (heterosexual and LGB).

Results

Measure Validity

The CFA examined a single factor model labeled School Climate that was represented by nine first-order items (see Figure 1). The model yielded good fit statistics and formed the factor structure of a one-factor school climate model with nine first-order items with factor loadings greater than .4 (see Table 2) and adequate model fit indices after the error for Item 1 “I like school” and Item 2 “I feel successful at school” were correlated; χ²(26) = 1,647.735, p < .001, TLI = .93, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .31. Scale reliability for the model was .81. The error terms for the two items were correlated because it is likely that some of the variance in the indicators is not explained by the latent variable and is accounted for by an outside cause; this is likely because the items are similarly worded or interpreted and/or prone to social desirable responses (Brown, 2014).

Table 2.

Factor Loadings for School Climate Items.

School climate items	Factor loading	SE
1. I like school	.54	.007
2. I feel successful at school	.54	.007
3. I feel my school has high standards for achievement	.59	.007
4. My school sets clear rules for behavior	.6	.006
5. The behaviors in my classroom allow the teacher to teach so I can learn	.62	.006
6. Students are frequently recognized for good behavior	.45	.007
7. I know an adult at school that I can talk with if I need help	.56	.006
8. School is a place at which I feel safe	.66	.005
9. Teachers treat me with respect	.47	.008

Measurement invariance indices indicated that the change in model fit from the configural to metric and metric to scalar models were not significantly worse (see Table 3); for each model the change in CFI and RMSEA was <.01. As such, the model demonstrated full configural, metric, and scalar invariance. These data support the GaBSCI as a tool that measures the construct of school climate similarly across groups, with items being equally discriminated and level of endorsement for each item being relatively consistent among students identifying as heterosexual and LGB.

Table 3.

Measurement Invariance Results.

Model	χ²	df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA
Configural	3,299.06*	54	.97	.96	.05
Metric	3,495.01*	62	.96	.96	.04
Scalar	3,706*	70	.96	.96	.04

Note. CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean square error approximation.

p < .01.

Across-Group Means

Results from ANOVA indicated that the means of the two groups were significantly different from one another F(27, 22921) = 18.852, p < .001. Perceptions of school climate among students identifying as LGB were significantly lower than students identifying as heterosexual. The mean school climate for students identifying as heterosexual was 2.9 (SD = .56), and the mean for students identifying as LGB was 2.65 (SD = .066). The effect size, calculated as Cohen’s d was moderate (.041).

Discussion

The two purposes of this study were to (a) establish the validity and measurement invariance of the GaBSCI for use with students who identify as LGB and (b) examine school climate perceptions among students identifying as LGB and heterosexual. CFA results supported a one-factor school climate model with nine items, and measurement invariance among students identifying as heterosexual and LGB was established.

These overall findings are important because having a reliable and valid measure of the way students identifying as heterosexual and LGB perceive their environment provides important insight into how groups of students might participate in and benefit from supports provided within a multitiered framework, especially for students identifying as LGB. An overall school climate score indicates how all students generally report their experiences in classrooms and schools. In the current study, students identifying as LGB reported significantly lower perceptions of school climate than heterosexual students; the ability to examine overall perceptions across demographic groups (i.e., LGB) can inform the provision of targeted supports for these student groups.

Specific adjustments can be made to improve student interactions and experiences. The current national focus on multitiered systems of support (i.e., Tier 1—universal for all students, Tier 2—targeted for some students, Tier 3—indicated for a few students) provides a framework for organizing and implementing these adjustments. For example, at the school-wide level (Tier 1), all students might benefit from a reteaching and increased focus on respect, equity, and diversity. A subset of all students (Tier 2) may require additional supports (e.g., group discussions, counseling, skill practice) to enhance their personal and interpersonal success. A few students (Tier 3) might need more individualized and specialized supports (e.g., function-based intervention plans, cognitive behavior therapies, intensive personal skill development and training).

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths

This study has several strengths that contribute to the research literature and advance our classroom and school practices. First, the national sample of nearly 23,000 students from 112 schools and 19 states across the United States provided a sizable sample and data set for analysis using a multilevel framework. As a result, we were able to conduct a multilevel CFA and take advantage of the nested nature of the data, specifically, to compare heterosexual and LGB student school climate perceptions.

Second, having a large and diverse sample and using a technically adequate school climate instrument increase the generalizability of our results to comparable locations and contexts, and similar samples of students, classrooms, and schools. Finally, the results from this study enhance opportunities and efforts related to developing, integrating, and studying school climate and tiered systems of support.

Limitations

However, this study is not without limitations and cautions. The GaBSCI is based on student self-report data which reflects their perceptions of their past learning experiences and how they verbally describe their experiences in classroom and school settings. Although research supports the association between self-report school climate survey data and other data sources (e.g., observational information, extant discipline data, environmental assessments; Bradshaw et al., 2009), what students are actually experiencing and observing should be cautiously inferred.

Also, this study focused on students in Grades 6 to 12. Generalizations should not be extended to elementary students and schools. Finally, although our results suggest that LGB students generally have different perceptions of school climate than heterosexual students, generalizations about their actual and specific experiences should not be inferred. Within the LGB sample, determination of subgroup differences (e.g., high vs. middle school, lesbian vs. gay vs. bisexual) will require further study. Furthermore, other sexual and gender minority subgroups (e.g., transgender, queer) were not included in this study.

Implications for Research

The limitations noted above also represent opportunities for future research (e.g., categorical vs. continuous ratings, extending to elementary grade students). In addition, a number of other research opportunities are indicated. First, although the GaBSCI is a technically sound school climate survey, further research should investigate its potential for supporting LGB student populations, for example, (a) in international sites (e.g., European, Asian, South and Central American), (b) by including family and staff reported perceptions, and (c) with other combinations of characteristics (e.g., disability, race, academic achievement).

Second, although self-report data are proving to be informative, future research might examine how survey self-report data relate to other forms of school climate measures (e.g., focus groups, direct observations, disciplinary actions, counseling, and nursing referrals) from students and staff and family members.

Third, given the response variation found within large-group research, future research might focus on case study and single-subject research designs that would permit examination of how individual student needs can be addressed with individualized supports (i.e., Tier 2/3; for example, victimization, trauma, suicidal ideation).

Fourth, future research should use school climate information to identify and test effective school climate practices that align with the multitiered continuum logic. This research should focus on how the needs, strengths, and supports for LGB students can be enhanced at the school-wide, classroom, small group, and individual student level.

Finally, The GaBSCI is one of a small number of surveys that assesses perceptions of school climate and also includes demographic questions specific to student sexual orientation (GLSEN National School Climate Survey; Kosciw, Greytak, Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012; National School Climate Survey Youth Risk Behavior Survey; Grunbaum et al., 2004). School climate is an important factor in student outcomes, and more research should focus on examining the experiences of students identifying as LGB within the school context. Tools like the GaBSCI provide great value to the multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) frameworks, like SWPBIS, because increased access to data reported by students about their school experiences can enhance the school’s capacity to meet the needs of students.

Implications for Policy

As the amount research from studies like this one increases, individuals in leadership (e.g., school boards, superintendents and commissioners, legislators, principals) must develop new and modified policies that specifically reflect what and how data are collected, and what and how practices and systems are enacted for LGB students. These efforts should look at how LGB students fare within, for example, disciplinary systems, zero tolerance rules, access to counseling and mental health supports, incident investigations, referral processes, and so on.

Implications for Practice

A majority of the research related to experiences of students identifying as LGB is gathered from specific advocacy organizations, such as GLSEN or gay-straight alliances (Goodenow et al., 2006). Students considered sexual minorities represent a notable portion of the U.S. public school enrollment. Although these specific advocacy organizations represent important resources, formal and systemic supports for all students within classrooms and schools are lacking.

At best, students and staff receive exposure and awareness information about sexual orientation, but few LGB-specific strategies. Because our data suggest that LGB students describe school climate more negatively, an integrated continuum of supports may be suggested. An MTSS approach would provide increased attention to students and staff who might require more intensive supports (Tiers 2/3) that would enhance their school climate experiences. Data from the GaBSCI can be a constructive tool in guiding such efforts by providing aggregated (whole-school; White et al., 2014) and disaggregated (e.g., LGB students) data to identify how and where to deploy school-wide, targeted, and indicated resources, specifically for students identifying as LGB. For example, research results have shown that in schools with gay–straight alliances and positive representations of LGB people in curriculum, LGB students are less likely to experience threats of violence, miss school because of fear of feeling unsafe, and engage in suicidal thoughts and behaviors, in comparison to schools that do not have such supports (Goodenow, Szalacha, & Westheimer, 2006; Poteat et al., 2015). Research-supported practices such as these should be integrated into the overall SWPBIS framework ensuring that all students have access to effective supports.

Conclusion

Students who identify as LGB have been particularly marginalized in education settings, so identifying tools that can capture their experiences can enhance schools’ ability to better understand, make decisions, and support all students (Goodenow et al., 2006; Poteat et al., 2013). These tools, however, must be psychometrically sound to ensure that schools make decisions that are accurate, valid, relevant, and useful for their intended populations and settings. The GaBSCI is such a tool and can be used to support short, efficient, and valid progress-monitoring decisions based on student reported perceptions about the climate of their classrooms and schools.

The purpose and findings of this study are both unique and important in that we learned that GaBSCI data can be used to examine the reported experiences of LGB students, especially those who may be at risk of being marginalized and within the context of school climate. Furthermore, when paired with existing school level data including achievement, discipline, and safety data, these forms of school climate data can enhance the capacity of schools to develop and use a multitiered continuum of supports, like SWPBIS, to enhance the selection and fidelity implementation of effective and equitable practices and interventions for all students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Bandyopadhyay

S. C.

Cornell

D. G.

Konold

T. R.

(2009). Validity of three school climate scales to assess bullying, aggressive attitudes, and help seeking. School Psychology Review, 38, 338–355.

Bear

G. G.

Gaskins

Blank

Chen

F. F.

(2011). Delaware school climate survey–student: Its factor structure, concurrent validity, and reliability. Journal of School Psychology, 49, 157–174. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.01.001

Birkett

Espelage

D. L.

Koenig

(2009). LGB and questioning students in schools: The moderating effects of homophobic bullying and school climate on negative outcomes. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 989–1000. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9389-1

Bradshaw

C. P.

Koth

C. W.

Thornton

L. A.

Leaf

P. J.

(2009). Altering school climate through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100–115. doi:10.1007/s11121-008-0114-9

Bradshaw

C. P.

Mitchell

M. M.

Leaf

P. J.

(2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148. doi:10.1177/1098300709334798

Brown

T. A.

(2014). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.

Cohen

McCabe

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213. doi:10.4236/sm.2013.34041

Diaz

E. M.

Kosciw

J. G.

Greytak

E. A.

(2010). School connectedness for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: In-school victimization and institutional supports. The Prevention Researcher, 17(3), 15–18.

10.

Elias

Ubriaco

Reese

Gara

Rothbaum

Haviland

(1992). A measure of adaptation to problematic academic and interpersonal tasks of middle school. Journal of School Psychology, 30, 41–57. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(92)90019-2

11.

Furlong

M. J.

Greif

J. L.

Bates

M. P.

Whipple

A. D.

Jimenez

T. C.

(2005). Development of the California school climate and safety survey–short form. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 137–149. doi:10.1002/pits.20053

12.

Goodenow

Szalacha

Westheimer

(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

13.

Grunbaum

J. A.

Kann

Kinchen

Ross

Hawkins

Lowry

. . . Collins

(2004). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2003 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 53(2), 1-96.

14.

Harris Interactive and GLSEN. (2005). From teasing to torment: School climate in America, A survey of students and teachers. New York, NY: GLSEN.

15.

Haynes

N. M.

Emmons

C. L.

Ben-Avie

Comer

J. P.

(2001). The school development program student, staff, and parent school climate surveys. New Haven, CT: Yale Child Study Center.

16.

Horner

R. H.

Sugai

Anderson

(2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Exceptional Children, 42, 1–16.

17.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

18.

Kosciw

J. G.

Greytak

E. A.

Bartkiewicz

M. J.

Boesen

M. J.

Palmer

N. A.

(2012). The 2011 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. New York, NY: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

19.

Kosciw

J. G.

Palmer

N. A.

Kull

R. M.

Greytak

E. A.

(2013). The effect of negative school climate on academic outcomes for LGBT youth and the role of in-school supports. Journal of School Violence, 12, 45–63. doi:10.1080/15388220.2012.732546

20.

Koth

C. W.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Leaf

P. J.

(2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 96–104. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.1.96

21.

Kuperminc

G. P.

Leadbeater

B. J.

Emmons

Blatt

S. J.

(1997). Perceived school climate and difficulties in the social adjustment of middle school students. Applied Developmental Science, 1(2), 76–88. doi:10.1207/s1532480xads0102_2

22.

La Salle

T. P.

Wang

Parris

Brown

J. A

. (2017). Associations between school climate, suicidal thoughts, and behaviors and ethnicity among middle school students. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 1294–1301. doi:10.1002/pits.22078

23.

Lewis

T. J.

Sugai

(1999). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive school wide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1–24.

24.

McIntosh

Goodman

(2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS. New York, NY: Guilford.

25.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2012). Mplus user’s guide, 2012. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

26.

National School Climate Council. (2007). The school climate challenge: Narrowing the gap between school climate research and school climate policy, practice guidelines and teacher education policy. Retrieved from https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/policy/school-climate-challenge-web.pdf

27.

Pendergast

L. L.

von der Embse

Kilgus

S. P.

Eklund

K. R.

(2017). Measurement equivalence: A non-technical primer on categorical multi-group confirmatory factor analysis in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 65–82. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2016.11.002

28.

Poteat

V. P.

Sinclair

K. O.

DiGiovanni

C. D.

Koenig

B. W.

Russell

S. T.

(2013). Gay-straight alliances are associated with student health: A multischool comparison of LGBTQ and heterosexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 319–330. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00832.x

29.

Poteat

V. P.

Yoshikawa

Calzo

J. P.

Gray

M. L.

DiGiovanni

C. D.

Lipkin

. . . Shaw

M. P.

(2015). Contextualizing gay-straight alliances: Student, advisor, and structural factors related to positive youth development among members. Child Development, 86, 176–193. doi:10.1111/cdev.12289

30.

Russell

S. T.

McGuire

J. K.

(2008). The school climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. In Shinn

Yoshikawa

(Eds.), Toward positive youth development: Transforming schools and community programs (pp. 133–149). doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327892.003.0008

31.

Russell

S. T.

Seif

Truong

(2001). School outcomes of sexual minority youth in the United States: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 111–127. doi:10.1006/jado.2000.0365

32.

Stamler

J. K.

Scheer

D. C.

Cohen

(2009). Assessing school climate for school I improvement: Development, validation and implications of the Student School Climate Survey. New York, NY: Center for Social Emotional Education.

33.

Thapa

Cohen

Guffey

Higgins-D’Alessandro

(2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83, 357–385. doi:10.3102/0034654313483907

34.

White

La Salle

Ashby

J. S.

Meyers

(2014). A brief measure of adolescent perception of school climate. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 349–359. doi:10.1037/spq0000075