K–12 Experiences of LGBTQ+ Students of Color: Findings From the First Focus Group Interview

Advocacy and Inclusivity

Few studies address the intersectional identities of K–12 students of color who are LGBTQ+. Advocacy for LGBTQ+ students of color is nuanced and necessary to equip students with the resources needed for success. Simons (2021) highlighted the importance of gender advocacy and how it can impact students across minority identities and noted that counselors who engage in advocacy for gender-expansive individuals engage in advocacy for students of color and sexual minority students at similar rates. Effective advocacy works toward inclusion for all youth and providing them with a space that is conducive to learning. Ching et al. (2022) made similar assertions and identified increased discrimination among Asian youth who were gender diverse compared to other racial and ethnic minority youth. Ratts and Greenleaf (2017) and Patel (2019) have suggested that school counselors need to increase their own awareness of unintentional harm to racial and ethnic minorities.

Patel (2019) found that Brown LGBTQ+ women had an increased feeling of isolation even in spaces that were affirming of their LGBTQ+ identity, and so emphasized the importance of incorporating spaces for those who are both people of color and LGBTQ+ due to the invisibility experienced by Brown women in LGBTQ+ spaces. Ching et al. (2022) recommended that counseling interventions address intersectional stresses and take a holistic approach when working with LGBTQ+ students of color. School counselors should also encourage building resilience and advocacy through modeling to better assist with experienced discrimination (Parmenter et al., 2021). Overall, school counselors have the duty to consider all the minority identities that students hold to provide better counseling services.

Advocacy Training and Interventions

Ratts and Greenleaf (2017) prescribed steps toward multicultural competency for White school counselors when working with students of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. Key parts of the process involve outlining social justice issues within the school, becoming aware of one’s own biases and values, understanding the client’s worldview by gaining insights into their culture, recognizing the dynamics of power and privilege within the counseling room, and incorporating advocacy within counseling interventions (Ratts & Greenleaf, 2017). Their model explains how school counselors can practice cultural humility to create an environment that uplifts and advocates for all students. Ratts and Greenleaf emphasized the need for training and active reflection into one’s thoughts and behaviors to provide a safe environment for students who are at increased risk of discrimination.

However, despite efforts to develop safe schools, statistics show that schools are not always safe for students of color, nor for LGBTQ+ students. For example, Asian students reported fear of being unsafe and facing physical violence due to their racial identity and immigration status (Maffini, 2016). Latino/a and Black students reported lower support from their teachers, fewer opportunities for class participation, and higher concerns about safety issues in school compared to their White counterparts (Voight et al., 2015), which may then lead to racial achievement gaps in school (Bottiani et al., 2016). LGBTQ+ students have a higher likelihood of being bullied (Blondeel et al., 2018), which is even more likely for transgender, gender-nonconforming, and gender-expansive students (Sterzing et al., 2019). Moreover, students with multiple marginalized identities reported higher rates of feeling being othered (Felner et al., 2018) and were exposed to multiple microaggressions in many different settings, including their schools, due to their racial/ethnic identity, sexual/affectional orientation, and gender identity/expression (Sadika et al., 2020). As a result, LGBTQ+ students of color were more likely to experience mental health issues.

Procedure

The first author received approval from their university’s institutional review board (IRB) to conduct this study, then proceeded to recruit participants for a focus group interview who met all of the following criteria: (a) aged 18 to 24; (b) self-identified sexual and/or gender-expansive individual; (c) self-identified racial, cultural, and/or ethnic minority; and (d) attended K–12 private or public schools in the United States. Rather than recruiting current K–12 students, we intentionally recruited young adults who could reflect and speak about their experiences in K–12 and provide their own consent.

Participants were recruited through flyers using a standardized recruitment script, which the IRB approved. Consent to the research participation and contact information was collected via Qualtrics. We then sent an email to set up individual orientation meetings to explain the group interview process and provide the list of questions that would be asked during the group interview. Finally, we sent the participants a HIPAA-compliant Zoom link and the final reminder on the morning of the scheduled interview day. All the conversations were video recorded as explained and consented to. The recorded conversations were transcribed, and then the recordings were destroyed. Any identifying information displayed in the transcription was removed.

The three authors of this study have experience in LGBTQ+-related research and advocacy and completed the required CITI ethical training. We all read through the Standards of Care for Research with Participants Who Identify as LGBTQ+ endorsed by the Society for Sexual, Affectional, Intersex, and Gender Expansive Identities (Griffith et al., 2017) to decrease any possible harm to the participants.

Participants

Out of 10 volunteers, six people met the study requirements. Among those six volunteers, five actively communicated with the first author on the morning of the interview day. However, only three attended the interview. The participants who were not present did not respond to follow-up emails from the researchers. All participants were college students who self-identified as LGBTQ+ people of color and graduated from high school in a southeastern state. Each participant still lived in the same state where they attended high school. The age range of the participants was 19–22 years. Participant sexual/affectional orientation and gender identity/expression were documented using self-report in Qualtrics Survey Software. One participant was bi-racial Black, one was Latine American, and one was Asian American. Regarding sexual/affectional orientation, one participant identified as lesbian, one identified as gay, and one identified as bisexual. Regarding gender identity and expression, to use participants’ self-descriptions, one participant was masculine-presenting transmale, one was feminine-presenting cisgender female, and one was androgyne and masculine-presenting genderqueer female. To avoid identifying participants, we do not include specific demographic information in the discussion.

Analysis

Given that the present study aimed to explore the common lived experiences of LGBTQ+ students of color in K–12 schools, we applied the phenomenological method (Flynn & Korcuska, 2018). The full research team included eight master’s and doctoral-level students who have experience in qualitative studies and LGBTQ+ research and advocacy activities. After the transcript of an interview was completed, each research team member read through it several times to gain familiarity. Then, each member independently reviewed the transcript and began line-by-line analysis (Larkin & Thompson, 2012). Initial codes were developed by making exploratory comments (Smith et al., 2022), which were developed into a list of primary domains; the lists of domains were then shared via a password-protected cloud platform. The research team met after reviewing each other’s domains independently. The team developed consensus domain lists then each member reviewed the transcription to ensure that it fit under the constructed domains. Next, the researchers discussed themes during coding meetings until reaching a consensus. The domains were merged into eight themes by focusing on the research questions and by data patterns, based on several in-depth collaborative meetings that happened synchronously and asynchronously (Smith et al., 2022).

To strengthen the study’s trustworthiness, the research team explored our biases, preconceptions, and any possible projections of the participants through several reflections and in-depth conversations with each other (Creswell & Poth, 2017). We collected team member feedback regarding the coding process, the development of themes, and the structure of the themes. Finally, one school counselor educator professor who was not on the research team reviewed the research process and provided feedback as an audit.

Research Question 1: Themes Related to Participants’ Identities

Research Question 2: Themes Related to Experiences With School Counselors

In the group interview, participants did not mention their school counseling experiences. Therefore, we inquired whether they had asked for help from school counselors in navigating their life in K–12 education. No one in this group voluntarily visited school counselors or asked for any help or mediation with their conflicts with peers, teachers, or school policy. The participants reported that they knew that they had school counselors; however, they were hesitant to meet and talk with school counselors because the counselors were always too busy. Participants felt their issues were complicated and needed time to address. The participants also were not sure they could trust their school counselors.

Implications for the Evidence-Based School Counseling Framework

Reviewing and using data to determine the needs of students and creating interventions and programs that can be implemented to address the needs are critical components of evidence-based school counseling (EBSC; Dimmitt et al., 2007; Hatch, 2013; Zyromski et al., 2018). EBSC also includes considering multiple intersectional identities of students and how contexts can impact students’ well-being when creating school counseling interventions (Zyromski et al., 2018), including counseling approaches, classroom curricula, and school climate intervention.

In this study, our findings that the participants experienced isolation, delayed identity development, peer pressure and aggression, teacher aggression, and non-inclusive curriculum and extracurricular activities are well aligned with previous literature. This preliminary data suggests that LGBTQ+ students of color need better support and advocacy by school counselors to navigate their issues. In our findings, the participants were hesitant to visit school counselors because school counselors were not available, not all the counselors actively presented that they were allies of LGBTQ+ students of color, and students were worried about confidentiality. The findings of this study bring the following implications.

First, more school counselors need to be hired to decrease the student-to-school-counselor ratio, so school counselors can be more available and can offer longer sessions to their students, including LGBTQ+ students of color. The literature also supports that a lower ratio would help school counselors reach more students and better perform their roles and responsibilities (Mullen et al., 2021). Moreover, lower student-to-school-counselor ratios decrease students’ disciplinary referrals (Lapan et al., 2012), increase attendance rates (Kearney et al., 2021), increase academic achievement outcomes and test scores (Donohue et al., 2022; Goodman-Scott et al., 2018), and increase graduation rates (Lapan et al., 2012). Having an appropriate ratio can increase school counselors’ ability to support and advocate for all students, including LGBTQ+ students of color. School counselors must have time to research the unique identities, needs, challenges, and strengths of the population they serve, and the specific needs of their school and community.

Second, school counselors are encouraged to actively express their allyship by displaying nonverbal cues such as safe zone symbols and/or diversity appreciation flags in their office, indicating a safe space for all students (Simons & Cuadrado, 2018). The participants of the study mentioned that not all the school counselors displayed those symbols, leading them to be unsure if the school counselor would be supportive enough of them as LGBTQ+ students of color. Because the participants already experienced teachers’ bias and aggression against their cultural, ethnic, and racial background and their sexual orientation and gender expression, they became more skeptical of other professionals in school. As stated above, displaying those symbols makes students feel more comfortable sharing their concerns with school counselors and teachers (Kosciw et al., 2022).

Third, confidentiality in school counseling needs to be discussed more in school and professional associations, and the parameters need to be stated clearly for students in schools. The participants of this study shared that their concerns about confidentiality hindered them from seeking school counseling because they did not want their information to be relayed to their family, where they already experienced a lack of representation and homophobia; this also occurred in their cultural and religious communities. Scholars have addressed LGBTQ+ students’ concerns about confidentiality and fear of being outed in school counseling and discussed in the literature the necessity of open communication about it (Earnshaw et al., 2020; Reisner et al., 2020). Moreover, some states have adopted or discussed laws and bills expanding parental rights. This brings about debates and concerns that minors, especially LGBTQ+ minors who have not come out to their family, cannot access school counseling services when they need to (Singh & Drabiak, 2023). An active discussion needs to raise the ethical challenges school counselors face in safeguarding the identities of these students while adhering to legal mandates (Simons & Cuadrado, 2018; Uttamchandani, 2021) and what kinds of further action school counselors can take to advocate for clarity about their professionalism and ethical guidelines. Disclosing a student’s LGBTQ+ identity to parents/guardians goes directly against ASCA’s Ethical Standards for School Counselors (ASCA, 2022a). Previous research has highlighted the potential harm that can occur from disclosing youth’s LGBTQ+ identity, including increased risk of sexual and physical abuse, neglect, and homelessness (Mallon et al., 2022) and heightened risk of suicidality and self-harm (Grafsky & Gary, 2018). At the school level, transparent communication with students regarding confidentiality and limits of confidentiality is recommended so that students have the opportunity to provide their full consent.

Paired with educating teachers and the school community (Mitton-Kukner et al., 2016; Roberts & Marx, 2018), we recommend that school counselors offer ways to provide support to parents/guardians. Moreover, the findings of the study provide various recommendations for improving school climate and enacting systemic intervention in school policies. Such policies may include addressing dress codes to allow queer students to express themselves in a gender-affirming manner without consequence. Gendered language can also be revised in materials (e.g., handbooks, forms) to acknowledge that not all students subscribe to a gender binary. Further, administrators can adjust class lists to ensure that students may opt to use preferred names, pronouns, restrooms, and locker rooms in the way they feel the most comfortable. Such restrooms and locker rooms may include single-use stalls and rooms to provide LGBTQ+ student safety.

In terms of curriculum, sex education pedagogy should feature age-appropriate modules on sexuality and gender fluidity. Such curriculums should include information to address intersectionality. In particular, lessons on intersectionality can be used to prevent bullying of LGBTQ+ students of color. Inclusive curriculums may also incorporate information and history from people of different identities. Such history can be incorporated into all subjects and be a form of providing students with role models who made a positive impact on society and promoted queer joy (Persaud & Crawley, 2022).

Unfortunately, in the state from which we drew our study participants, current legislative barriers limit how school professionals can integrate content relevant to LGBTQ+ students of color into the curriculum. These policies also limit the resources available to the population (e.g., library resources, sex education/general curriculum changes).

Limitations and Future Directions

Although our study presents valuable findings, it has limitations. First, our focus group only had three participants. Although smaller sample sizes are appropriate for qualitative methods, having additional participants would have allowed for more nuanced perspectives and enriching crosstalk. Due to our small sample size, we did not have access to narratives from individuals who identified as monoracial Black or Native American. Similarly, we had limited accounts of unisexual identities (aside from our one bisexual participant) and did not interview anyone who identified as a transwoman, cisgender male, or genderqueer male.

Our sample is not representative of all LGBTQ+ adolescents of color, who may experience different levels of family support. According to HRC’s (2018) survey, 30% of AAPI LGBTQ+ youth, 72% of Latine LGBTQ+ youth, and 77% of Black and Brown LGBTQ+ youth have heard family members make negative comments against LGBTQ+ people.

Recognizing the diversity within the community of LGBTQ+ people of color, the school counseling profession must comprehend both shared and divergent experiences across racial/ethnic/cultural identities and in terms of sexuality and gender. Counseling interventions that prove effective for some LGBTQ+ youth of color may not be universally applicable, dependent on the intersections of their identities. To address these concerns, future research could employ enhanced recruitment methods to include a more diverse range of participants.

Our study’s expansion is planned to involve conducting additional focus groups and revisiting the current themes. We anticipate discovering new themes that contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences of LGBTQ+ students of color. This iterative process aims to capture a broader spectrum of voices and perspectives, refining our insights into the nuanced challenges and strengths within this diverse demographic.