2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card

A Report from Equality California Institute

2024 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

Equality California Institute

1150 S. Olive Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90015 323-848-9801

safeschools@eqca.org schools.eqca.org ©2024 Equality California Institute

Equality California brings the voices of LGBTQ + people and allies to institutions of power in California and across the United States, striving to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ+ people. We advance civil rights and social justice by inspiring, advocating, and mobilizing through an inclusive movement that works tirelessly on behalf of those we serve.

Equality California is made up of Equality California and Equality California Institute. Equality California is an I.R.S. 501(c)(4) organization that utilizes electoral, advocacy, and mobilization programs to achieve its mission. Equality California Institute is an I.R.S. 501 (c)(3) organization that utilizes advocacy, education, and mobilization programs to achieve its mission.

Graphic design: Jesse Finley Reed

Electronic versions of this report are available at www.eqca.org/category/publications/

Suggested citation: Goff, J., Giang, A., Arendse E., Hernandez, D., Rosales, E. (2024). 2024 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card Los Angeles, CA: Equality California Institute.

A Report from

Equality

California Institute 2024 Safe & Supportive Schools Report Card

Acknowledgments

The work of the Safe and Supportive Schools program at Equality California Institute is guided and informed by our Safe and Supportive Schools Advisory Committee—a group of representatives from districts, teachers’ unions, and community organizations that provides feedback and assistance in our work. We acknowledge all the members of the Advisory Committee but are particularly indebted to our district representatives Erica Hasenbeck, Kena Hazelwood, Erik Martinez, and Dr. Angelov Farooq, as well as our organizational representatives Ariana Rodriguez, Gabby Doyle, Rick Oculto, Kim Westheimer, Lex Ortega, Vinnie Pompei, Stephanie Camacho-Van Dyke, Justin Tindall, and others. We are grateful for your time, support, expertise, and dedication to students.

We would also like to thank our pro bono partners, Latham & Watkins LLP, especially Amy Quartarolo, Micah Long, T (Teddy) Finneran, and Colleen Rico, for their guidance and support throughout this process. Their assistance with research, editing, technical support, and many other areas has been essential.

We are also deeply grateful for the testimonials contributed by district staff. These testimonials, along with the qualitative data we collected, expand our understanding of the survey results and the broader landscape of how unified school districts are creating safe and supportive school environments in a variety of circumstances.

Letter from the Executive Director

Every student deserves a safe and supportive learning environment.

This is especially the case for so many LGBTQ+ children, as school can offer a safe place to explore their identity.

I am proud to live in a state on the vanguard of creating inclusive learning environments because of a combination of protections for staff who support and nurture LGBTQ+ students, protections for students to be their full selves, free from harassment and bullying.

For 25 years, Equality California has partnered with legislators and the community to pass state laws aimed at that very end.

However, having a law on the books is one thing; ensuring meaningful implementation is another. This task falls to the collective work of district administrators, California’s Department of Education, teachers and school staff on the ground, and the communities where students and their families live.

The Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card is one tool that supports this collective work. The report card provides a platform for district administrators to offer transparency into the policies and best practices employed in their districts, while simultaneously giving students, parents, and educators a starting point for open dialogue about the limitations and opportunities for further campus and district support for LGBTQ+ students and staff.

Moreover, the report card offers community leaders in the LGBTQ+ movement the opportunity to assess the landscape of need—not just for new policy, but also for education on existing policy, budget advocacy, and the sharing of effective strategies across districts—all with the common goal of improving the climate in California’s schools for LGBTQ+ youth and all students.

The following report presents self-reported responses from 146 unified school districts to our Safe and Supportive Schools survey, a 34-question survey about school policies regarding student, staff, and community support for LGBTQ+ youth. We recognize that there are limitations to the data presented. Districts self-report their results, and the survey is not mandated. Nonetheless, it is notable that self-reported responses have increased from previous years, indicating a willingness and a desire to engage in open dialogue and efforts to improve school climates for LGBTQ+ youth.

We urge advocates, community stakeholders, and school district staff to use this report as a resource and a starting point for this work in their local communities.

Safe and supportive school climates are important for all students, especially for LGBTQ+ children and teens who continue to face bullying, harassment, discrimination, and assault at school—sometimes even by school staff— because of who they are. We believe that addressing these disparities is a collective responsibility and that, today, the vast majority of California’s parents, students, teachers, school leaders, and members of the general community are allies and partners in this effort. We hope that this report will prove to be a powerful tool in that work.

In Solidarity, Tony Hoang Executive Director Equality California Institute

Background

The Need

In recent years, California has made significant legislative strides toward enhancing the rights and well-being of LGBTQ+ students within the educational system. This ongoing progress reflects a broader commitment to civil rights and inclusivity, evident from major advancements such as robust anti-bullying initiatives specifically tailored for the educational sector and increased adoption of LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula in classes and libraries.

The last two years, however, have seen the passage of policies in some school districts that mandate the disclosure of a student’s transgender or gender-expansive identity to their parents or guardians, even without the student’s consent. These forced outing policies, coupled with the broader politicization of transgender youth— for example, through legislation affecting their participation in sports and access to appropriate health care— have significant impacts on student well-being.

Research indicates that transgender students who face discrimination and lack support in school are at higher risk for mental health issues, absenteeism, and lower academic performance. Data from GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey shows that more than 80% of LGBTQ+ students nationwide regularly hear homophobic remarks and nearly 60% experience discriminatory policies or practices at school. Additionally, around 30% of LGBTQ+ students report being physically harassed or assaulted based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. These hostile environments contribute to increased absenteeism, with LGBTQ+ students being three times more likely to miss school due to feeling unsafe.

Conversely, supportive school environments that implement protective and affirming policies can significantly improve the mental health and academic outcomes of transgender students. Schools with comprehensive anti-bullying policies, LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula, and visible support from staff report significantly lower rates of depression and suicidality among LGBTQ+ students. The presence of supportive staff and LGBTQ+ affirming policies is associated with better academic performance and overall well-being. This underscores the need for schools to adopt and effectively implement protective laws and policies to ensure all students learn and thrive in safe and inclusive environments.

The recently passed Support Academic Futures and Educators for Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act represents a significant step forward in protecting the rights and well-being of LGBTQ+ students in California. This landmark legislation prohibits school districts from enacting or enforcing policies that forcibly disclose a student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression without their consent, safeguarding the privacy and dignity of LGBTQ+ youth. Additionally, the SAFETY Act mandates the provision of resources to parents and families of LGBTQ+ students to support them in their journey toward inclusion while offering protections for educators who provide safe and inclusive environments. The SAFETY Act strengthens California’s commitment to creating safe, supportive, and equitable educational settings for all students by addressing the harms of forced outings and reinforcing the importance of affirming school climates. The Act serves as a critical tool in combating the adverse effects of discrimination, ensuring that LGBTQ+ students can learn in environments that respect their identities and promote their academic and personal success.

Despite these legal frameworks aimed at fostering safer and more supportive learning environments, LGBTQ+ students continue to face substantial challenges. According to the California Healthy Kids Survey, approximately 5-10% of public middle and high school students in California identify as LGBTQ+. These students experience significantly higher rates of harassment, physical assault, and psychological distress than their non-LGBTQ+ peers.

The impact of such negative experiences is profound. Research suggests that LGBTQ+ students are more likely to have lower academic performance and expectations of finishing high school. For instance, GLSEN’s 2020 National Climate Survey has shown that LGBTQ+ youth are at a higher risk of dropping out, with nearly one in three LGBTQ+ students reporting they missed at least one entire day of school in the past month due to safety concerns.

One survey from the Trevor Project highlights that LGBTQ+ youth who have access to at least one supportive adult are up to 40% less likely to attempt suicide.

These disparities underscore the urgent need to effectively implement protective laws and policies. It is critical to have these frameworks in place and ensure they are actively enforced and integrated into educational institutions’ daily practices. By fostering a truly inclusive and supportive environment, schools can significantly mitigate the adverse experiences of LGBTQ+ students and promote their academic and personal success.

Existing State and Federal Policies

Recognizing the profound impact that school experiences have on the life trajectories of LGBTQ+ young people, Equality California, the partner organization to Equality California Institute, has sponsored a number of state laws in California.

As a result, California has enacted several key pieces of legislation aimed at safeguarding these students and ensuring their educational success:

Education Code Sections 234, 234.1, 234.2, 234.3, 234.5

Seth’s Law (2011)

These laws strengthen anti-bullying measures, mandating that schools adopt specific policies that address bullying based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and expression, and require school personnel to intervene if bullying occurs.

Education Code Sections 32261, 32282, 32283, 46600, 48900

Bullying and School Safety Plans (2011)

These provisions require the inclusion of anti-bullying procedures in school safety plans and mandate training for school personnel on bullying prevention. This includes provisions around interdistrict school transfers for students who have experienced bullying.

Education Code Sections 51204.5, 51500, 51501, 60040, 60044

Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education (FAIR) Act (2011)

This act mandates the inclusion of the historical contributions of LGBTQ+ Americans and other marginalized groups in school curricula, particularly within social sciences.

Education Code Section 221.5

School Success and Opportunity Act (2013)

This law ensures that all students have access to school facilities and programs that align with their gender identity.

Education Code Sections 51930-51939

California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA) (2015)

It enhances the sexual health curriculum to be inclusive of LGBTQ+ perspectives and mandates comprehensive HIV education.

Education Code Section 32283.5 and Education Code Section 215

Antibullying and Suicide Prevention Training in Schools (2018)

These laws focus on online anti-bullying training and suicide prevention training for teachers and school staff, emphasizing the dynamics of bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide prevention strategies tailored to high-risk groups, including LGBTQ+ students.

Education Code 218

Safe and Supportive Schools Act (2023)

This legislation creates a centralized resource for LGBTQ+ focused educational materials to support districts in enhancing school climates and to offer LGBTQ+ focused training for certificated school staff, grades 7-12.

Assembly Bill 1955

The SAFETY Act (Goes into effect January 1, 2025)

Strengthens existing law against school policies that forcibly out LGBTQ+ students, provides critical resources to parents and families of LGBTQ+ students as they work towards acceptance on their own terms, and protects educators who face retaliatory actions from administrators and school boards for creating inclusive school environments.

These legislative measures, while foundational, require diligent implementation and consistent engagement from educational stakeholders to translate legal mandates into everyday practices that genuinely protect and empower LGBTQ+ students. By building upon these legal foundations with proactive district-level initiatives, schools can create environments where LGBTQ+ students not only survive but thrive, fostering a sense of belonging and pride in their identities.

Survey Development, Methodology, & Application

An estimated half-million LGBTQ+ students are learning and growing in California schools.12 Our schools must provide a safe and supportive environment for all students because all children deserve to learn in a place where they are respected and protected.

In the last decade, the state of California and many individual school districts have made significant strides toward ensuring that school environments are safe and nurturing for all.

Even so, there is significant evidence that LGBTQ+ children and teens in California and across the country continue to face disproportionately high rates of bullying, harassment, discrimination, and lack of acceptance at school. As a result, they are more likely than their non-LGBTQ+ peers to miss instruction, see their academic performance suffer, drop out, and consider self-harm or suicide.

A safe and supportive school environment allows LGBTQ+ students—and all students—to succeed academically and has a significant positive impact on their future prospects and well-being later in life.

In order to provide every California student with the safe and supportive learning environment they deserve, Equality California has sponsored a wide array of state laws aimed at protecting LGBTQ+ students, including requiring school staff suicide prevention training and mandating robust anti-bullying policies that require staff to intervene when they witness bullying. We have also supported best practices in schools, such as establishing school GSA clubs and allowing students to bring dates of their choice to school functions such as dances.

The evidence demonstrates that these individual laws and practices, in concert, make a difference in preventing bullying and harassment, keeping LGBTQ+ students in school, and reducing the rates of self-harm and suicide among LGBTQ+ children, teens, and young adults.

However, the work to improve school climate does not end with the passage of a law, and legal requirements are merely a foundation upon which to build comprehensive policies that protect and nurture LGBTQ+ students. Many school districts face political challenges that impede implementation (particularly in the face of the rising politicization of transgender children), lack the resources to implement these laws, or lack awareness regarding the laws’ requirements and the best way to meet them.

The function of this report is to provide those school districts, policymakers, and the general public with another tool to better address and close these gaps.

Safe & Supportive Schools Program

Equality California Institute developed the Safe and Supportive Schools program to help address the disparities in health and well-being faced by LGBTQ+ students. This critical program aligns with the organization’s mission to create a world that is healthy, just, and fully equal for all LGBTQ+ people. As part of this program, the Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card measures, assesses, and publicizes California school districts’ efforts in implementing policies and best practices that foster supportive and affirming learning environments for LGBTQ+ students. This initiative also aims to support the implementation of these policies and best practices in schools.

1 https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBTQ-Youth-CA-Public-Schools-Oct-2017.pdf

2 https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/ceffingertipfacts.asp

Program Evolution & Advisory Support

In 2016, Equality California Institute partnered with Latham & Watkins LLP to design the first iteration of the report card. Latham & Watkins LLP conducted initial research into laws relating to LGBTQ+ students in California. Equality California Institute then drafted the first iteration of the survey that informs this report. The work of Equality California Institute and Latham & Watkins LLP staff was also guided by an advisory committee composed of education experts, teachers, school board members, school district administrators, teachers’ union representatives, and LGBTQ+ and civil rights advocates.

The inaugural survey was sent to school districts in 2017, and 130 districts responded. The first report card, released in May 2019, presented results from these districts. A second round of the survey was distributed in 2021, with results published in 2022. During the intervening years, Equality California Institute discussed the results with representatives from more than 140 unified school districts across California.

Survey Focus

The survey asked school district officials to provide objective and verifiable information regarding their districts’ supports, policies, and practices for three stakeholder groups: students, staff, and the community. Questions in these domains address school climate, curriculum, supports for transgender, gender-expansive, and intersex (TGI) students, and suicide prevention.

Survey Distribution & Engagement

In November 2023, Equality California Institute staff distributed the third Safe and Supportive Schools survey, again with the support of Latham & Watkins LLP and the Safe and Supportive Schools Advisory Committee. The survey, accompanied by a glossary, FAQ, and letters from our Executive Director and California Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond, was sent to each unified school district in California. School districts were invited to respond through an online portal.

Throughout the 2023-24 school year, Equality California Institute staff conducted extensive outreach to support and encourage survey responses. This included thousands of emails, phone calls, and in-person and virtual meetings. During the six-month response window, the survey was sent to non-responding districts multiple times and redirected to key district staff when requested. The deadline was also extended multiple times to ensure maximum participation.

Of the 345 California unified school districts invited in 2023, 146 responded. Each response was scored.

Key Limitations

As with any survey of this kind, the application of the results is limited by a number of factors. It is important that we acknowledge these limitations so that local communities can apply the information in this report thoughtfully and appropriately.

» Due to the sheer number of school districts in California, the distribution of the Safe and Supportive Schools Survey was limited specifically to the 345 unified school districts in California. Of the 345 unified school districts, 146 completed the survey (42.57%). We hope to include other types of school districts in future rounds to make the survey more representative of all schools in California.

» The data gathered for this report card relies on self-reported data from unified school districts through a voluntary survey focused on district policy (rather than student experiences). To validate a segment of the self-reported responses, we cross-checked 10% of each type of district policy that was uploaded. However, those who consult the report results may want to request a copy of a given policy from their school district to confirm further and account for potential policy updates.

» While the Safe and Supportive Schools Survey assesses the reported presence or absence of districtwide policies, it does not fully capture the extent to which the laws and policies are actively implemented and enforced at the district level or in individual campuses or classrooms. We continue to seek qualitative reports on the implementation of the policies we survey and share implementation practices. Community members can direct testimonials or qualitative observations to the “share your story” form at schools.eqca.org.

Moving Forward

This report provides objective and verifiable information from school district records and official policies. However, it is just the beginning. Equality California Institute encourages parents, students, teachers, staff, and advocates to use this material as a starting point for conversations with their local school districts. Improvement in school climate for LGBTQ+ students will require strengthened relationships with school districts and continued advocacy for increased funding and resources at the state and local levels. Creating safe and supportive school climates takes a communal effort, and this report is just one part of a much larger landscape.

For more information, please visit schools.eqca.org.

How to Use This Report

At its core, the Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card is two things: a transparency tool for district administrators and an advocacy tool for student, staff, and parent stakeholders.

The report provides data on policies and best practices to support a positive school climate for all students in unified (K-12) school districts in California, with a particular focus on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) students.3

We encourage its use for self-evaluation, sharing best practices, identifying gaps in policy and implementation, celebrating progress, and advocating for further change. It should serve as a conversation starter about specific, concrete actions that districts can take to improve the school climate for LGBTQ+ and all students.

3 Due to capacity limitations, only unified school districts in California — school districts that generally include and operate primary schools (kindergarten through middle school or junior high) and high schools under the same district control — were invited to complete the inaugural Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. We hope to expand to additional types of school districts in the future. The full survey is attached as an appendix to this report so that community members can conduct an independent evaluation of their district’s policies.

How can this report card support my leadership as a district administrator?

The survey can provide a number of useful starting points for district and campus leadership.

1. Use the report card to measure district progress year on year in establishing best practices and policies that build a safe and supportive school climate. Set benchmarks and district goals for growth, and celebrate successes over prior cycles.

2. Reach out to districts that share similar student population sizes and demographics to share best practices and strategies for campus buy-in on policy creation and implementation. This can be particularly helpful where a district has successfully created a policy that your own district is still in the process of developing.

3. Consider engaging your local teachers’ union, parent-teacher (or parent-teacher-student) association, LGBTQ+ student-led organization, and other stakeholders to construct a district-specific plan of action, using the survey criteria as a starting point.

4. Consider conducting a district climate survey to determine the effectiveness of your current policies and practices. Ask students, staff, and parents about their day-to-day experiences with regard to the implementation and application of district policies.

How can I use this report card as an advocacy tool in my local district?

Local stakeholders, such as staff, parents, and students, can use the report card to start conversations with their district and campus leadership about policy implementation and gaps in support.

1. Closely examine what your unified school district has shared in terms of policies and best practices for creating a safe school climate, and work with the district to address any discrepancies or concerns between the Safe and Supportive Schools Report Card and the actual experiences of staff and students on campus.

2. Compare your district to neighboring districts and/or districts that are similar to your own in size, demographics, and resources, and create a benchmark, identifying both positive practices and areas for improvement. For instance, if your unified school district lacks funding for all-gender bathrooms, consider sharing this report to engage stakeholders in dialogue and encourage feedback on potential infrastructure changes that could be implemented. Reach out to other districts that have successfully implemented such facilities to learn from their experiences and approaches in supporting LGBTQ+ students.

3. If your district declined or was not eligible to participate in the survey, use this report and the attached sample survey to complete the survey on behalf of your district. Districts are required to make their policies available to the public, and community members should be able to find all of the available data on their local school district’s website. Once the survey is completed, you can use it as an advocacy tool, just as if the district had submitted the information.

Should you set a meeting with your district to discuss the report, reach out to our team for support at safeschools@eqca.org.

Please refer to the full survey reports that are available online at schools.eqca.org for details regarding survey questions and how your unified school district responded.

Key Findings

Statewide Data Points

Student Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

School Climate

» 81% of responding districts (118/146) reported that they require schools to track complaints related to violations of their anti-bullying policy.

» 71% of responding districts (103/146) have translated their anti-bullying policy and made it publicly available in more than one language.

» 29% of responding districts (43/146) track the number of incidents of formal discipline (i.e., detention, suspension, expulsion) of LGBTQ+ students; of those 43 districts, 23 (63%) also track both the number of incidents and the reason for discipline.

» 67% of responding districts (98/146) recognize and observe specific days or events related to LGBTQ+ contributions, people, or themes, such as Pride Month, Harvey Milk Day, Trangender Day of Visibility, and Day of Silence.

» 18% of responding districts (27/146) indicated that there are no high schools in their district with a GSA or similar affinity club for students.4

» 34% of responding districts (49/146) indicated that there are no middle schools in their district with a GSA or similar affinity club for students.

Transgender, Gender Expansive, and Intersex (TGI) Students

» 68% of responding districts (100/146) indicate they have an accessible and compliant gender neutral bathroom.5

» 86% of responding districts (126/146) indicated at least one district-wide policy that establishes protections for the privacy of transgender or gender non-conforming students’ birth names and assigned sexes.

» 82% of responding districts (122/146) indicated at least one district-wide policy that supports a student’s right to engage in their education in a way that affirms their gender.6

Curriculum

» 94% of responding districts (137/146) had both California Healthy Youth Act (CHYA) compliant opt-out procedures and inclusive sexual health education curriculum.

» 59% of responding districts (86/146) reported that they had adopted FAIR Act compliant instructional materials in social studies and history for at least one age cohort (elementary, middle, or high school).

» 37% of responding districts (54/146) reported that they had adopted FAIR Act compliant instructional materials in social studies and history for all grades (elementary, middle, & high school).

» 31% of responding districts (45/146) reported that they had adopted FAIR Act compliant instructional materials in all four minimum required topics: History, Government, Social Studies, and English Language Arts.

4 The survey did not collect data on GSA or affinity clubs in elementary schools.

5 Gender neutral restrooms should be in an accessible location relative to other restrooms, rather than, for example across campus in a nurses’ office. This limits learning disruptions caused by inaccessible gender neutral restrooms.

6 This data point includes policies that require staff to refer to TGI students by their asserted name and pronouns, allow students to use facilities (bathrooms, locker rooms) aligned with their gender identity, and/or allow students to participate in sex-segregated classes, elective programs, and sports that correspond with the student’s gender identity.

Staff Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

» 82% of responding districts (119/146) have a staff anti-discrimination policy that explicitly prohibits bullying based on of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression

» 46% of responding districts (67/146) require staff to take at least one hour of LGBTQ+ specific training every 24 months.

» 23% of responding districts (33/146) reported having either a district-wide or campus-specific affinity group for LGBTQ+ staff.

» 53% of responding districts (78/146) have explicitly informed staff that they are allowed to publicly display LGBTQ+ symbols such as safe space stickers and rainbow flags in the classroom.

Community Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

» 66% of responding districts (90/146) have established a suicide and prevention training that is mandatory and completed by all staff.

» 62% of responding districts (91/146) specifically address the needs of LGBTQ+ children, teens, or young adults in their suicide prevention policy.

» 74% of responding districts (108/146) don’t include LGBTQ+ specific training among its Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) goals and activities.

Data Points by District Size

For the first time this year, Equality California Institute also analyzed responses by district size, allowing for more nuanced recommendations. Districts were divided into categories based on their student population: small districts (fewer than 1,000 students), medium districts (1,000-4,999 students), large districts (5000-19,999 students), and extra large districts (20,000+ students).

Student Supports, Policies, and Best Practices School Climate

» 85% of responding medium districts (44/52), 84% of responding extra large districts (21/25), 78% of large districts (46/59), and 71% of small districts (10/14) reported that they require schools to track complaints related to violations of the Anti-Bullying Policy.

» 76% of responding large districts (45/59) and extra large districts (19/25) have translated their antibullying policy and made it publicly available in more than one language, compared with 69% in medium districts (36/52) and 43% in small districts (6/14).

» 92% of extra large districts (23/25) recognize and observe specific days or events related to LGBTQ+ contributions, people, or themes such as Pride Month, Harvey Milk Day, Transgender Day of Visibility, and Day of Silence. Followed by 75% in large districts (44/59) , 60% in medium districts (31/52) and 21% in small districts (3/14).

» Districts reporting middle schools that have NO GSA or student affinity groups were common in small districts, with 79% of responding small districts (11/14) indicating that none of their middle schools had GSAs or student affinity groups. Followed by 46% in medium districts (24/52), 24% in large districts (14/59), and 4% in very large districts (1/25).

» Districts reporting high schools that have NO GSA or student affinity groups were common in small districts, with 79% of responding small districts (11/14) indicating that none of their middle schools had GSAs or student affinity groups. Followed by 23% in medium districts (12/52), 7% in large districts (4/59), and 0% in very large districts (0/25).

Curriculum

» 58% of responding large districts (30/52) review their textbooks and curricular materials every 24 months or more frequently. Fewer than half of districts in the other size categories review their textbooks and curricular materials every 24 months or more frequently, with 46% of responding medium districts (24/52), 38% of responding extra large districts (9/25), and 36% of responding small districts (5/14).

Transgender, Gender Expansive, and Intersex (TGI) Students

» 74% of responding districts with fewer than 20,000 students (92/125) indicated that they had at least one bathroom in every school designated as all-gender or non-gendered that is located in an easily-accessible area. This can be broken down to 75% in large districts (44/59), 73% in medium districts (38/52), and 71% in small districts (10/14).

» Only 44% of responding extra large districts (11/25) indicated that they had at least one bathroom in every school designated as all-gender or non-gendered that is located in an easily-accessible area.

Staff Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

» 78% of responding extra large districts (18/25) have explicitly informed staff that they are allowed to publicly display LGBTQ+ symbols such as safe space stickers and rainbow flags, followed by 51% of large (30/59), 50% of medium (26/52), and 36% of small districts (5/14).

Community Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

» 31% of responding large districts (17/59) and 29% of responding extra large districts (7/25) districts included LGBTQ+ training in their LCAP goals, compared with 10% in medium districts (5/52) and 14% in small districts (2/14).

Data Points by Region Assessment Network

The California Department of Education separates the state into eleven regions, to develop assessment and accountability systems in California school districts. These are known as the Regional Assessment Network (RAN). This year’s report card examined data points within these twelve regions, to determine any relevant patterns or findings for recommendation.

Region 1: Sonoma, Lake, Humboldt, Del Norte, and Mendocino Counties

Eight (of 24 districts invited) districts in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 33.9/62.

Region 2: Butte, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity Counties

Five districts (of 24 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey.The average score for this region is 29.9/62.

Region 3: Alpine, Colusa, El Dorado, Nevada,Placer, Sacramento, Sierra, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba Counties

Thirteen districts(of 28 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 41.9/62.

Region 4: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Solano Counties

Seventeen districts (of 42 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 43.4/62.

Region 5: Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz Counties

Ten districts (of 11 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 40.4/62.

Region 6: Amador, Calaveras, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties

Eleven districts (of 21 districts invited)in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 39.8/62.

Region 7: Fresno, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, and Tulare Counties

Seventeen districts (of 38 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 38.1/62.

Region 8: San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and Kern Counties

Nine districts (of 33 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 36.6/62.

Region 9: Imperial, Orange, and San Diego Counties

Sixteen districts (of 30 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 42.8/62.

Region 10: San Bernardino, Inyo, Riverside, and Mono Counties

Fourteen districts (of 45 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey.The average score for this region is 35.8/62.

Region 11: Los Angeles County

Twenty-six districts (of 49 districts invited) in this region responded to the 2024 Safe and Supportive Schools Survey. The average score for this region is 40.9/62.

Analysis

Statewide Analysis

Several key themes emerged from the statewide analysis. These themes informed the recommendations outlined in this report card.

School Climate

Tracking and Effectively Responding to Bullying

While nearly all responding districts report having comprehensive anti-bullying policies, more than a quarter indicated they do not track bullying reports. A lack of tracking impedes accountability and can result in unresolved bullying incidents. Work must be done to improve tracking systems so districts can better stop cycles of victimization on campus.

Anti-bullying policies and practices are very common, and the majority of districts translate their policies into more than one language. Accessibility of these policies for all parents, caregivers, and students is a key way California unified school districts are working to be inclusive of English learners and diverse student and parent populations.

In addressing bullying, it’s important to look at discipline and work to break cycles of bullying. While a large majority of districts track bullying incidents, tracking of discipline for LGBTQ+ students and the reasons for that discipline is less common. This is an integral piece of the puzzle to understanding bullying as it exists within a school climate. Detailed tracking illuminates where students acted in a retaliatory manner in the face of bullying and provides an opportunity to better resolve ongoing bullying.

Days of Cultural Significance

A majority of responding districts recognize specific days or events related to LGBTQ+ contributions, people, or themes. Districts listed a number of ways these events were organized, commonly either district-wide through a board-approved calendar of events or school-specific when organized by students involved in affinity groups such as a GSA.

Peer Affinity Groups

GSAs and affinity groups, key supports for young LGBTQ+ students, are not available to every student. These are student-run clubs, but students may encounter barriers to starting a club, such as concerns for privacy or an inability to find staff who can facilitate the club. LGBTQ+ staff are often expected to take on this role, but a GSA or affinity group can be run by anyone willing to facilitate students in building their own goals and plans around LGBTQ+ identity.

Inclusive Curriculum

Comprehensive Sexual Health Curriculum

Responding districts scored high for having inclusive and compliant sexual health curriculum. For the districts that do not, there is room for clarity on what qualifies as a mandatory/opt-out curriculum versus a non-mandatory opt-in curriculum. It is important that parents and caregivers have access to the curriculum and can opt out if that is what is best for their family. However, requiring a parental signature to engage in sexual health curriculum, which some districts do in response to concerned caregivers, is definitionally opt-in and therefore non-compliant.

FAIR Act Curriculum

When looking at inclusive curriculum in other areas of study, the results are underwhelming, with many districts still struggling to meet the requirements of the FAIR Act. Accessibility of inclusive curricula in all subjects will require further collaboration and resource sharing.

Adoption of LGBTQ+ inclusive textbooks and educational materials must be more consistent across districts. Ensuring that all students learn about the contributions and history of LGBTQ+ people is vital. Increasing shared resources on LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum and instructional materials will facilitate continual improvement of these materials.

Transgender, Gender Expansive, and Intersex Students

All-Gender Restrooms

Districts that reported non-compliance and inaccessible all-gender restrooms in all schools cited funding as the top reason for non-compliance. Retrofitting bathrooms on older campuses continues to prove challenging for districts around the state.

Given the challenges faced by TGI students in accessing safe restroom facilities, districts must prioritize creating inclusive environments even without significant funding. Advocating statewide for an increased budget and educating locally on the importance of all-gender restrooms is key in the long term, while finding temporary solutions to ensure student safety is urgent.

Name Changes and Pronouns

Protections for TGI students are common, with over 80% of districts reporting both a policy that establishes protections for the privacy of TGI students’ birth names and assigned sexes, and a policy that supports a student’s right to engage in their education in a way that affirms their gender, such as having pronouns respected and the ability to use facilities that align with their gender identity. Continuing to enshrine these protections into district policy further bolsters a TGI student and their family’s ability to thrive in school.

Keeping LGBTQ+ Educators in Schools

Staff support is crucial to maintaining a diverse and inclusive teaching workforce. Supports such as affinity groups and cultural competency training are essential but need improvement. While not always possible on a district level, union-run or regional affinity groups may help LGBTQ+ educators feel a stronger sense of belonging in their field of work. Cultural competency training should acknowledge the undue burden many LGBTQ+ educators face when expected to be experts on LGBTQ+ issues and encourage a collaborative effort from all staff to understand their own role in supporting LGBTQ+ youth.

Anti-discrimination policies for staff support the retention of LGBTQ+ educators, but this is just the beginning. District-wide and school-specific affinity groups, which are not very common, will allow LGBTQ+ educators to find peers with common experiences and feel more comfortable in their roles as educators.

Staff support also includes supporting other educators in their role to provide safe and supportive learning environments. Only 46% of responding districts require LGBTQ+ competency training at least every 24 months. However, following revisions to The Safe and Supportive Schools Act (2023), certificated staff will now be required to take at least one hour of LGBTQ+ cultural competency training every year. Giving all staff explicit

permission to display LGBTQ+ symbols reinforces their understanding that bringing diverse identities to the classroom and being proud of those identities is valuable to students.

LGBTQ+ students are four times more likely to attempt suicide than non-LGBTQ+ students. Safe and supportive school environments reduce absenteeism, mental health concerns, and other negative outcomes for LGBTQ+ students, but staff must continue to learn their role in suicide prevention, intervention, and postvention.

The Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) is a tool that allows local education agencies to set goals, plan actions, and leverage resources to improve student outcomes.7 Currently, it is very uncommon to include LGBTQ+ training or activities in LCAP goals, but this tool is an excellent opportunity to build cultural competency into the goals of local education agencies.

Analysis Based on District Size

Small Districts (<1,000 students, 14 districts)

Responses show that small districts are least likely to translate district policies into other languages, with fewer than half of these districts translating their anti-bullying or complaint policy forms. The lack of translated materials may be due to capacity issues related to the size of the district, but it may also result from a perceived lack of need for additional language resources. When a small district has a large number of English learners, policy translation is more likely.

Small districts reported no campus-specific staff affinity groups for teachers or staff. This is likely due to the size of the district, which makes it difficult to form affinity groups within a smaller population of teachers and staff. District-wide or regional affinity groups could help close this gap.

On three key questions about CHYA compliance, small districts scored 100%. All districts in this cohort have mandatory/opt-out policies for sexual health and HIV education, and the curriculum discusses a variety of body types and relationships, beyond those of people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth and relationships that are heterosexual.

Medium Districts (1,000 - 4,999 students, 52 districts)

The medium districts performed especially well regarding the tracking of bullying incidents. Eighty-five percent of districts of this size reported that they track complaints related to the Anti-Bullying policy, more than any other size cohort. With 87% of districts reporting that they track incidents of discipline for LGBTQ+ students, this size district also tracks these incidents more than each of the other size cohorts.

This size district was the least likely, but still very likely (81%), to report a sexual health curriculum that discusses a variety of body types and relationships beyond those of people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth and relationships that are heterosexual.

7 https://www.cde.ca.gov/re/lc/

Large Districts (5,000-20,000 students, 59 districts)

This district size demonstrates its effectiveness in two key areas. It is most likely to include LGBTQ+ training in its Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). This size district may strike the right balance of resources and students, making this more likely for districts of this size.

Similarly, this cohort is the most likely to have at least one bathroom designated as all-gender or non-gendered and located in an easily accessible area. When it comes to overcoming the budget and facilities challenges many districts face, this size district performs well.

Extra Large Districts (20,000+ students, 25 districts)

It is notable that extra-large districts are less likely to have certain protections on a district-wide basis; specifically, these large districts are less likely to track bullying incidents or be fully compliant regarding gender-neutral restrooms. This may indicate that these districts have more trouble implementing these measures district-wide due to their sheer size.

However, these districts have certain protections that are more easily afforded by a larger district. The largest districts are most likely to have district-wide affinity groups, which we anticipate is easier to maintain with a larger staff population.

When it comes to GSA availability at schools, all of the extra-large districts reported having GSAs or affinity groups in high schools, and all but one district reported having middle school GSAs. Additionally, 72% of these districts report having a GSA at 50% or more of all schools in the district, and all 25 districts in this category indicated that at least 50% of their schools had a high school GSA.

Recommendations

This report highlights the significant gains districts have made and the substantial gaps remaining in several key areas. Responding districts report widespread implementation of favorable school climate policies and practices, such as robust anti-bullying policies and suicide prevention training. However, survey results also reveal gaps in areas such as accountability, data collection regarding bullying incident resolutions, the availability of accessible restroom facilities for TGI students, and the adoption of LGBTQ+ inclusive textbooks.

Equality California envisions a future where districts actively identify areas for growth, share successes and challenges, and make constructive changes to better support LGBTQ+ students and all students.

To that end, this report outlines three recommendations in each of five categories.

Better Support Districts in Tracking and Effectively Responding to Bullying

While nearly all responding districts report having comprehensive anti-bullying policies, more than a quarter indicated that they do not track reports of bullying. A lack of tracking impedes accountability and can result in unresolved bullying incidents.

» Improve Tracking Systems: Districts should be supported in updating their data collection and tracking procedures to ensure that all bullying reports are documented and resolved promptly.

» Specific Protections: Anti-bullying policies should explicitly mention sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories. Clear definitions help prevent the dismissal of incidents related to these aspects and provide clarity for administrators, teachers, and students.

» Ongoing Monitoring: It’s essential to implement regular reviews of bullying data. This is a critical tool in ensuring that policies are effective and incidents are handled appropriately.

Increasing Staff Support to Keep LGBTQ+ Educators in the Field

Support for staff is crucial to maintaining a diverse and inclusive teaching workforce. Supports such as affinity groups and cultural competency training are essential, and need improvement.

» Affinity Groups: Establish and support affinity groups for LGBTQ+ educators to provide a space for networking, mentorship, and professional development. Direct staff to union affinity groups to expand the network without exhausting internal resources.

» Cultural Competency Training: Mandate ongoing cultural competency training for all staff, focusing on LGBTQ+ issues to foster a more inclusive school environment. This training should go beyond the bare minimum required by state law, which is one hour of training every 12 months. More robust training programs will increase staff confidence in creating and uplifting supportive environments.

» Mental Health Resources: Provide accessible mental health resources tailored to the needs of LGBTQ+ educators, ensuring they have the support needed to thrive in their roles.

Supporting Students (Especially TGI) Without a Bathroom Budget

All-gender restrooms that are accessible8 to students continues to be a barrier to establishing school environments that are safe for TGI students. Given the challenges faced by transgender and gender expansive students in accessing safe restroom facilities, districts must prioritize creating inclusive environments even without significant funding.

» Uplift Updates to Ed. Code Section 35292.5: CA K-12 schools are required to fulfill requirements of all-gender restrooms by July 1, 2025. Advocate for budgets that allow compliance by this deadline.

» Temporary Solutions: Until permanent all-gender restrooms can be established, districts should provide clear guidance on using existing facilities and ensure that all students feel safe and supported.

» Community and Staff Training: Enhance training for staff and students on the importance of allgender restrooms and the rights of transgender and gender expansive students.

Promoting LGBTQ+ Inclusive Curriculum and Resources

Adoption of LGBTQ+ inclusive textbooks and educational materials must be more consistent across districts. Ensuring that all students learn about the contributions and history of LGBTQ+ people is vital.

» Inclusive Curriculum: Adopt textbooks and materials that include LGBTQ+ contributions in various subjects to ensure compliance with the FAIR Education Act.

» Resource Accessibility: Develop and disseminate resource lists and provide access to LGBTQ+ inclusive materials for teachers and students.

» Community Engagement: Work with local LGBTQ+ organizations to support curriculum development and provide additional educational resources.

Monitoring & Accountability

Continuous monitoring and accountability mechanisms are necessary to ensure the effectiveness of policies and practices.

» Regular Reporting: Establish regular reporting mechanisms to track the implementation of LGBTQ+ inclusive policies and practices.

» Feedback Loops: Create feedback loops that allow staff, students, and community members to report on policies’ effectiveness and suggest improvement areas.

» Policy Reviews: Conduct periodic reviews of district policies to ensure they align with best practices and legal requirements.

8 An accessible bathroom in this case not includes not only ADA requirements, but also a bathroom that is unlocked and close enough to classrooms and other restrooms that it does not cause excess learning disruption for students.

District Response Summaries

District Results

The Equality California team reached out to all 345 unified school districts in the state of California to offer them an opportunity to submit responses. 146 unified school districts responded. 198 unified school districts did not respond.

District scores are separated into the three domains: Student Supports, Staff Supports, and Community Supports. A weighted score and whether the district uploaded policies are also indicated.

Unresponsive Districts

26. Capistrano Unified School District

Carpinteria Unified School District 28. Caruthers Unified School District 29. Center Joint Unified School District

30. Chawanakee Unified School District

31. Chico Unified School District 32. Chino Valley Unified School District 33. Clovis Unified School District

Coast Unified School District 35. Colusa Unified School District 36. Conejo Valley Unified School District

37. Corcoran Unified School District

38. Coronado Unified School District

39. Covina-Valley Unified School District

40. Davis Joint Unified School District

41. Death Valley Unified School District

42. Del Norte Unified School District

43. Desert Center Unified School District

44. Desert Sands Unified School District

45. Dos Palos Oro Loma Joint Unified School District

46. Dublin Unified School District

47. Durham Unified School District

48. El Tejon Unified School District 49. Emery Unified School District

50. Escalon Unified School District

Unresponsive Districts (continued)

51. Esparto Unified School District

52. Eureka City Unified School District

53. Exeter Unified School District

54. Ferndale Unified School District

55. Fillmore Unified School District

56. Firebaugh-Las Deltas Unified School District

57. Fontana Unified School District

58. Fort Bragg Unified School District

59. Fowler Unified School District

60. Gateway Unified School District

61. Glendora Unified School District

62. Golden Plains Unified School District

63. Gridley Unified School District

64. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District

65. Hamilton Unified School District

66. Healdsburg Unified School District

67. Hemet Unified School District

68. Hesperia Unified School District

69. Holtville Unified School District

70. Imperial Unified School District

71. John Swett Unified School District

72. Jurupa Unified School District

73. Kerman Unified School District

74. Kings Canyon Unified School District

75. Konocti Unified School District

76. La Cañada Unified School District

77. La Honda-Pescadero Unified School District

78. Lake Elsinore Unified School District

79. Lake Tahoe Unified School District

80. Lakeport Unified School District

81. Laton Joint Unified School District

82. Laytonville Unified School District

83. Lincoln Unified School District

84. Live Oak Unified School District

85. Livermore Valley Unified School District

86. Lodi Unified School District

87. Lone Pine Unified School District

88. Long Beach Unified School District

89. Los Alamitos Unified School District

90. Los Angeles Unified School District

91. Los Molinos Unified School District

92. Lucerne Valley Unified School District

93. Lucia Mar Unified School District

94. Manteca Unified School District

95. Mariposa Unified School District

96. Martinez Unified School District

97. Mattole Unified School District

98. Maxwell Unified School District

99. McFarland Unified School District

100. Mendocino Unified School District

101. Mendota Unified School District

102. Middletown Unified School District

103. Modoc Joint Unified School District

104. Mojave Unified School District

105. Monrovia Unified School District

106. Moorpark Unified School District

107. Moreno Valley Unified School District

108. Mountain Valley Unified School District

109. Muroc Joint Unified School District

110. Murrieta Valley Unified School District

111. Napa Valley Unified School District

112. Needles Unified School District

113. New Haven Unified School District

114. Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District

115. North Monterey County Unified School District

116. Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District

117. Novato Unified School District

118. Oakdale Joint Unified School District

119. Oakland Unified School District

120. Orange Unified School District

121. Orland Joint Unified School District

122. Owens Valley Unified School District

123. Pacific Grove Unified School District

124. Pajaro Valley Unified School District

125. Palo Alto Unified School District

126. Palo Verde Unified School District

127. Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District

128. Paradise Unified School District

129. Paramount Unified School District

130. Piedmont City Unified School District

131. Pierce Joint Unified School District

132. Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District

133. Pleasanton Unified School District

134. Porterville Unified School District

135. Potter Valley Community Unified School District

136. Princeton Joint Unified School District

137. Ramona City Unified School District

138. Redlands Unified School District

139. Redondo Beach Unified School District

140. Rialto Unified School District

141.

Rim Of The World Unified School District

142. River Delta Unified School District

143. Riverbank Unified School District

144. Riverdale Unified School District

145. Riverside Unified School District

146. Rocklin Unified School District

147. Saddleback Valley Unified School District

148. Saint Helena Unified School District

149. San Bernardino City Unified School District

150. San Jose Unified School District

151. San Leandro Unified School District

152. San Lorenzo Unified School District

153. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District

154. San Luis Coastal Unified School District

155. San Pasqual Valley Unified School District

156. Santa Barbara Unified School District

157. Santa Paula Unified School District

158. Scott Valley Unified School District

159. Selma Unified School District

160. Shoreline Unified School District

161. Sierra Unified School District

162. Sierra Sands Unified School District

163.

Sierra-Plumas Joint Unified School District

164. Snowline Joint Unified School District

165. South Pasadena Unified School District

166. Southern Humboldt Unified School District

167. Southern Kern Unified School District

168. Stockton Unified School District

169. Stony Creek Joint Unified School District

170. Sunol Glen Unified School District

171. Surprise Valley Joint Unified School District

172. Temecula Valley Unified School District

173. Templeton Unified School District

174. Travis Unified School District

175. Trinity Alps Unified School District

176. Trona Joint Unified School District

177. Tulelake Basin Joint Unified School District

178. Turlock Unified School District

179. Tustin Unified School District

180. Twin Rivers Unified School District

Unresponsive Districts (continued)

181. Ukiah Unified School District

182. Upland Unified School District

183. Vacaville Unified School District

184. Valley Center-Pauma Unified School District

185. Ventura Unified School District

186. Visalia Unified School District Walnut Valley Unified School District

187. Walnut Valley Unified School District

188. Warner Unified School District

189. Washington (Fresno) Unified School District

190. Waterford Unified School District

191. West Contra Costa Unified School District

192. West Covina Unified School District

193. Western Placer Unified School District

194. Williams Unified School District

195. Windsor Unified School District

196. Wiseburn Unified School District

197. Woodlake Unified School District

198. Yuba City Unified School District

Appendix I: Advisory Committee

Equality California Institute is grateful to the members of the Safe and Supportive Schools Advisory Committee for their guidance and participation throughout this process, as well as for informing the design of the survey and our outreach efforts.

Members

1. Erica Hasenbeck, Fresno Unified School District

2. Kena Hazelwood, San Francisco Unified School District

3. Erik Martinez, San Francisco Unified School District

4. Dr. Angelov Farooq, Riverside Unified School District Board Member

5. Ariana Rodriguez, ACLU of Southern California

6. Gabby Doyle, The Trevor Project

7. Kim Westheimer, Gender Spectrum

8. Stephanie Camacho-Van Dyke, The LGBT Center Orange County

9. Rick Oculto, Community Advocate

10. Lex Ortega, The LGBT Community Center of The Desert

11. Vincent “Vinnie” Pompei, San Diego State University College of Education

12. Justin Tindall, It Gets Better Project

Appendix II: The Safe & Supportive Schools Survey

Student Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

Anti-Bullying:

The following questions refer to the district’s policies and procedures around bullying prevention.

1. Does the district’s AntiBullying Policy include the following (select all that apply)

Explicitly prohibits bullying based on actual or perceived gender expression

Explicitly prohibits bullying based on actual or perceived gender identity

Explicitly prohibits bullying based on actual or perceived sexual orientation

Applies to all school-related activities, including transportation to or from school and school-related activities

Requires school personnel to intervene if they witness bullying

Outlines specific procedures for initiating an investigation when a complaint of bullying is received or when bullying is witnessed

Specifies a timeline for the start and completion of bullying investigations.

Details actions or support systems in place to aid the target/victim of bullying (e.g., counseling services, a change in classroom/seat assignment, etc.)

Outlines steps taken to address the behavior of the responsible for bullying (e.g., counseling, disciplinary action, etc.)

Includes provision for periodic follow-ups to ensure that bullying does not recur.

Requires maintaining a confidential record of bullying complaints and their resolutions.

Ensures protection against retaliation for those who report bullying or assist in the investigation.

Applies to and addresses cyber-bullying

Addresses the ability of targets of bullying to transfer to a different school

Allows for targets of bullying to transfer to another district if there is no available school for an intradistrict transfer and the school district of proposed enrollment approves the application for transfer Expressly prohibits retaliation against anyone who reports or files a complaint of bullying

Expressly prohibits retaliation against anyone who reports or files a complaint of bullying

California Education Code §200

California Education Code §201

California Education Code §218

California Education Code §220

California Education Code §234

California Education Code §234.1-74

California Education Code §32282

California Education Code §46600

California Education Code §49600

Anti-Bullying (continued)

2. Has the Anti-Bullying Policy been translated and made publicly available in languages other than English?

3. By which of the following methods is the Anti-Bullying Policy made available and/or distributed? (Check all that apply)

4. Has a Complaint Policy and Form been translated and made publicly available in languages other than English?

5. By which of the following methods is the Complaint Policy and Form made available and/or distributed? (Check all that apply)

Yes No

Available on the district’s or schools’ website(s)

In print form, mailed to, or sent home with students

California Education Code Section 234.1(c)

(c) and (e)

Yes No California Education Code Section 234.1(c)

Available on the district’s or schools’ website(s)

In print form, mailed to, or sent home with students

Posted in a publicly accessible area

6. Does the district require schools to track complaints related to violations of the Anti-Bullying Policy?

Optional: Please upload the district’s Anti-bullying Policy and Complaint Policy and Form here.

Yes No

California Education Code Section 234.1(dc) and (e)

Best Practice under California Education Code §234.6 (requiring posting on district’s website of “[a]ny additional information a local education agency deems important for preventing bullying and harassment”)

California Education Code §234.1(b) and (f)

LGBTQ+ Visibility and General School Climate:

The following questions focus on the district’s efforts and strategies regarding the visibility of LGBTQ+ people and the overall climate of inclusivity and acceptance in the schools

7. Do schools within the district recognize and observe specific days or events related to LGBTQ+ contributions, people, or themes? For instance, do they host activities, presentations, or educational sessions for occasions such as Pride Month, Harvey Milk Day, LGBTQ+ History Month, Day of Silence, or National Coming Out Day?

8. Does the district require schools to allow students to form a Gender and Sexuality Alliance (“GSA”) or other similar club or organization focused on LGBTQ+ students?

9. How many middle schools in your district have a GSA or other similar club or organization?

10. How many high schools in your district have a GSA or other similar club or organization?

11. Does the district prohibit using words such as “gay” and “queer” in naming a GSA or other similar club or organization?

12. If the district has implemented one or more dress code or appearance policies, do each of these policies allow students to wear clothing that aligns with their gender identity or gender expression?

13. Does the district track the number of incidents of formal discipline (i.e., detention, suspension, expulsion) of LGBTQ+ students? Does the district track the reasons assigned to each formal disciplinary incident?

Yes No

Yes No

All 50% or more

Some, but fewer than 50%

None

All 50% or more

Some, but fewer than 50%

None

Yes No Not applicable

Yes No

Not applicable

Yes - both the number of incidents and reasons are tracked

Yes - only the number of incidents are tracked No

Best Practice

California Education Code encourages schools to use the resources provided by the Department of Education (California Education Code §218)

Schools are required in social studies curriculum to recognize the contributions of LGBTQ Americans (California Education Code §51204.5)

California Education Code §218

California Education Code §234.1(d)

California Education Code §218

California Education Code §234.1(d)

Best Practice

Best Practice

Transgender/ Gender Non-Conforming Students:

The following questions refer to the district’s policies and procedures around supporting Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Students.

14. Does the district’s Gender Support Policy establish protections for the privacy of transgender or gender nonconforming students’ birth names and assigned sexes through (check all that apply):

a process for changing a transgender or gender non-conforming student’s name and gender for purposes of official school records (e.g., student transcripts) or databases

a process for changing a transgender or gender non-conforming student’s name and gender for purposes of “unofficial” school records (e.g., attendance sheets, school IDs, report cards, diplomas)

CSBA Guidance on Gender Support Policies.

California Education Code §Section 220

California Education Code §221.5

Guidance from the California Department of Education (https://www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ ee/supportlgbtq.asp and https://www.cde. ca.gov/ds/sp/cl/calpadsupdflash158.asp)

15. Does the district’s Gender Support Policy (check all that apply):

16. Does every school in your district have at least one bathroom designated as all-gender or nongendered that is located in an easilyaccessible area (e.g. not located in the nurse’s office or teachers’ lounge)?

Require that documents reflecting a transgender or gender non-conforming student’s birth name and assigned sex be segregated (physically and electronically) from records reflecting the student’s asserted gender identity and name

Require that teachers and other personnel refer to transgender or gender non-conforming students according to the student’s asserted name and gender identity (e.g., asserted pronouns)

Allow students to use school facilities, such as restrooms and locker rooms, that correspond with their gender identity during regular school hours, before and after school, as well as during field trips or any off-campus activities

Allow students to participate in any sexsegregated classes (e.g. physical education classes), elective programs (e.g. boys choir), and competitive sports that correspond with the student’s gender identity

Yes No

Optional 16A: Describe your district’s current outlook on bathroom accessibility and list any specific challenges or obstacles your district has encountered in your progress toward establishing all-gender or nongendered bathrooms. Short answer format

Optional: Please upload the district’s Gender Support Policy or policies and Gender Support Plan Template here. Policy Upload

California Education Code §221.5

SB 760 (currently active in committee –would require gender neutral bathrooms in school by 2025)

Curriculum:

The following questions ask about the district’s educational content and instruction, specifically addressing the inclusion and representation of LGBTQ+ topics, history, and perspectives.

17. How frequently does the district review textbooks and curricular materials used in schools?

18. Has the district adopted instructional materials for history and social studies that align with the FAIR Education Act, specifically those inclusive of the roles and contributions of LGBTQ+ people? (Check all that apply.)

Every 24 months or more frequently

Less frequently than every 24 months

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

None of the above

19. In which of the following subjects do the district’s adopted instructional materials align with the FAIR Education Act by including the contributions of LGBTQ+ people? (Check all that apply.)

History Government

Social Studies

English Language Arts

19A. Does your district adopt instructional materials that include contributions of LGBTQ+ people in other subjects beyond those required in the FAIR Education Act?

Science (any discipline) Mathematics

Music and the Arts

Physical Education and Sports

Other

20. For sexual health education, is student participation mandatory (unless a parent or guardian submits an affirmative opt-out), or is the program optional (requiring parents to opt-in on behalf of their child)?

21. For HIV prevention education, is student participation mandatory (unless a parent or guardian submits an affirmative opt-out), or is the program optional (requiring parents to opt-in on behalf of their child)?

Mandatory/Opt-out only

Optional/Opt-in only

Best Practice

Mandatory/Opt-out only

Optional/Opt-in only

California Education Code §51934

California Education Code §51938

California Education Code §51939

California Education Code §51930, 5193351934

California Education Code §51938

California Education Code §51939

Curriculum (continued)

22. Does the sexual health curriculum include discussions about a variety of body types and relationships, beyond those of people who identify with the gender they were assigned at birth and relationships that are heterosexual?

Optional: Please upload materials to show the breadth of LGBTQ+ inclusion in your curriculum and sexual health education (eg. list of LGBTQ+ library books, curriculum reviews, etc.)

Yes No

California Education Code §51933

Staff Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

Teacher-Staff Climate

This section pertains to your district’s stance on anti-discrimination policies concerning staff.

23. Does the Teacher/Staff AntiBullying Policy explicitly prohibit bullying based on the following?: (Check all that apply.)curriculum and sexual health education (eg. list of LGBTQ+ library books, curriculum reviews, etc.)

Actual or perceived gender expression

Actual or perceived gender identity

Actual or perceived sexual orientation

Actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression of a person or group with which a teacher is associated

24. Is there a district-wide group or other association for LGBTQ+ identifying teachers and/or other staff?

25. Are there campus-specific affinity groups or other associations for LGBTQ+ identifying teachers and/or other staff?

26. Has the district explicitly informed staff that they are allowed to publicly display LGBTQ+ symbols such as safe space stickers and rainbow flags in the classroom?

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Optional: Please upload your district’s Staff Anti-Discrimination Policy here. Policy Upload

California Education Code §200

California Education Code §201

California Education Code §220

California Education Code §234.1-7

California Education Code §32282

California Education Code §234.1(d)

California Education Code §234.1(d)

California Education Code §218 (highlighting state’s goal of creating safe spaces for LGBTQ pupils)

Cultural Competency Training of District Employees:

This section asks about staff training focused on diversity, anti-bias, cultural competency, and/or equity and inclusion. Please enter the resources or organizations utilized to facilitate training that included LGBTQ+ specific topics.

27. For which of the following school types does the district offer trainings related to LGBTQ+ topics, including protection and support for transgender and nonbinary teachers?” Select all that apply.

28. Does the district list LGBTQ+ specific training among its Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP) goals or activities?

29. How many hours of LGBTQ+ specific training are employees of the district required to receive in a 24 month period?

30. In the last 24 months, which LGBTQ+ specific training topics has the district offered:

Elementary School

Middle School

High School

None of the above

Yes No

Optional: At EQCA, we want to help identify resources that… What training or ERGs have been most helpful to you?

If these trainings are facilitated internally, please include the Employee Resource Group (ERG) or trainer’s name and contact information.

Optional: What topics would you like to learn more about?

General cultural competency (e.g., gender and sexual diversity, terminology, etc.)

Policy (e.g., district policies on anti-bullying, suicide prevention, etc.)

Curriculum (e.g., teaching LGBTQ+ topics in social science instruction, etc.)

Other (option to provide a description)

Short answer format

Short answer format

AB 493

AB 5

California Education Code §218 (Best practice, as this code section was the fruition of AB 493

California Education Code §218

Community Supports, Policies, and Best Practices

Suicide Prevention:

The following questions refer to the district’s policies and procedures around suicide prevention.

31. Does the district’s policy on pupil suicide prevention (grades 1-12) specify procedures related to the following (check all that apply)

32. Does the policy specifically address the needs of LGBTQ+ children, teens, or young adults?

Suicide prevention

Informing parents or guardians

Suicide intervention

Suicide postvention (support for those impacted by suicide)

Yes No

33. Has the district established a mandatory suicide awareness and prevention training program for staff?

33a. Does this training address risk factors specific to marginalized groups, including LGBTQ+ youth?

34. As part of the training program, has the district identified and publicized relevant and appropriate mental health services outside of the school site for children, teens, and young adults in your community?

Yes, it is mandatory and completed by all staff. Yes, but it is not mandatory or not completed by all staff.

No

Yes No

California Education Code §215

California Education Code §215 (3)(D)

California Education Code §215 (4)

Optional: Please upload or share a link to the relevant district’s suicide prevention policies.

Yes No

California Education Code §215 (4)(B)

Appendix III: Resources

California LGBTQ Youth Report. Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2019, https://assets2.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/YouthReport-California-Final.pdf.

FAIR Education Act: Information and Resources for Educators and Families. FAIR Education Act Implementation Coalition and Our Family Coalition, 2018. http://www.faireducationact.com

Governance and Policy Resources. California School Boards Association. 2024. https://www.csba.org/GovernanceAndPolicyResources. GSA Network Resource Packet. GSA Network, 2018. https://gsanetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/2018AR_ONLINE.pdf.

Safe Space Kit: A Guide to Supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Students in Your School. GLSEN, 2019. https://www. glsen.org/sites/default/files/2019-11/GLSEN%20English%20SafeSpace%20Book%20Text%20Updated%202019.pdf

School Climate in California (State Snapshot). GLSEN, 2019. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/California-Snapshot-2019.pdf

Separation and Stigma: Transgender Youth & School Facilities. Movement Advancement Project, National Center for Transgender Equality, National Education Association, GLSEN, 2017. www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/Separation%20and%20Stigma%20-%20 Full%20Report.pdf

Start a GSA: 10 Steps. GSA Network, 2018. https://gsanetwork.org/resources/10-steps-for-starting-a-gsa/.

Supporting Transgender and Gender Diverse Students in Schools: Key Recommendations for School Administrators. Division of School Psychology, Society for the Psychological Study of LGBT Issues, American Psychological Association, 2015. https://www. apa.org/pi/lgbt/programs/safe-supportive/lgbt/school-administrators.pdf

Welcoming Schools: Resources for Your School, Human Rights Campaign Foundation. www.welcomingschools.org/resources/ school-tips/

Creating Safe and Inclusive Teams for LGBTQ+ Athletes, GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/sites/default/files/ctg/GLSEN_CTG2021_Coaches_Guide.pdf

Undoing the Whitewashing of LGBTQ+ History, GLSEN. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UNWVAE-f22fURNiq5Ryyy6q6TntRpnHJ/view

Youth and Family Services, PFLAG. https://pflag.org/find-resources/

Creating Safe and Welcoming Schools, Human Rights Campaign. https://welcomingschools.org/resources/lesson-plans-lgbtq-inclusive

Trans Family SOS - Standards of Care. https://transfamilysos.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/LGBTQ_StandardsofCare_FINAL.pdf

ACLU Know Your Rights - LGBTQ Student Rights in K-12 California Public Schools https://www.aclusocal.org/en/know-your-rights/lgbtq-student-rights-k-12-california-public-schools

ACLU education complaint guide. https://www.myschoolmyrights.com/education-complaint-guide/

Appendix IV: Sample Policies

Bullying

Model District Anti-Bullying & Harassment Policy. GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/activity/model-district-anti-bullying-harassment-policy

Staff Non-Discrimination

Model Staff Non-Discrimination Policy

CSBA, Portola Valley School District. https://cdnsm5-ss11.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_60962/File/BP%204030.pdf

Transgender and Gender Expansive Students

Model School District Policy on Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students

GLSEN & National Center for Transgender Equality. https://www.glsen.org/activity/model-local-education-agency-policies

Suicide Prevention

Model School District Policy on Suicide Prevention.

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, The Trevor Project, American School Counselor Association, National Association of School Psychologists. https://afsp.org/model-school-policy-on-suicide-prevention/

safeschools@eqca.org schools.eqca.org

©2024 Equality California Institute