A CASE STUDY of 16 Districts
Protecting Transgender and Non-Binary Students Through School District Policy Development: A Case Study of 16 Districts By Sherri Castillo ABSTRACT School districts in Pennsylvania have little guidance in policy development for working with transgender and non-binary students. A shifting legal landscape and a renewed focus on school board seats to shape district policy has resulted in vastly different treatment for LGBTQ+ students in schools. This work examines policies for working with transgender and non-binary students in 16 districts in one county in Pennsylvania to better understand the factors contributing to policy development.
A 2018 national study found that transgender youth had six times greater odds of experiencing gender-based bullying, eight times greater chances of experiencing homophobic bullying, and six times greater risks of experiencing gender-based and/or homophobic bullying than their cisgender and heterosexual peers (Day et al., 2018). Outside of bullying policies, public education rarely addresses the needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) students and completely misses academic or behavioral supports for transgender and nonbinary students; as such, transgender and non-binary communities in public education spaces require significant shifts in current policy to end systemic marginalization and discrimination. Legislative bodies and individual school districts across the country are currently making decisions about the inclusion of transgender and non-binary students in schools. In Pennsylvania, pending court cases, legal precedent, and a lack of protective policies indicate that districts should work harder to support the civil rights of their trans and non-binary student body.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
All students in Pennsylvania are guaranteed access to public education by the state constitution, but for too many transgender and non-binary students, school policies prevent full inclusion into learning communities. State constitution does not address specific access to spaces like bathrooms or locker rooms for students and generally leaves policies governing school-based systems to districts and school boards. Transgender youth report feeling most unsafe at school in multiple places like bathrooms, locker rooms, and gym classes (Kosciew et al., 2016). It is the responsibility of school communities to push forward protective policy measures for all LGBTQ+ people, including transgender and non-binary students. To address this issue, it is the job of school boards to set protective policies in place for marginalized people, including transgender and non-binary students, yet, many school boards do not set policies unless prompted by individual students or families or fail to address the issue at all. While there is some precedent in Pennsylvania stemming from pending or closed court cases, there’s very little in the way of policies that directly address transgender and non-binary students’ rights to facilities affirming their gender identities. To look at this issue more deeply, this case study examines 16 districts (referred to anonymously as Districts A-P) in one Pennsylvania county. The study seeks to understand how and why policies develop in some districts and not others, as well as the impact community pressure places on districts to develop restrictions on the rights of transgender and non-binary youth. The goal of the paper is to understand in what ways school districts in the case study support their trans and non-binary students as well how they are affected by community, national, and legal pressures. I seek answers to the following research questions: 1. How do policy protections for transgender and non-binary students vary by school district? 2. How do district leaders and teachers implement policies that pertain to transgender and non-binary students?
LITERATURE REVIEW
Most school boards are elected by the public, and school board members run in local elections for a variety of reasons. Some board members are passionate about a single issue and run because of a problem they see in their home district. According to Barbaro (2021), the shift to single platform issues, such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) or mask mandates, has been prompted by the coronavirus pandemic. Some may run to curb spending and cut property taxes, while others have a background in education and want to use their knowledge to serve their communities. The quality of education and the policies in a district are largely impacted by the decisions a board makes and whether the elected officials on that board have in-depth knowledge of the education system (Maeroff, 2011). Though superintendents make recommendations to the board, they are under no obligation to vote accordingly. Because school boards are responsible for hiring the superintendent, they frequently hire someone aligned with the board’s vision for the district; because boards are elected by the public, districts become a direct reflection of the values of a community. E n g a g e for C h a n g e | S P R I N G 2 0 2 3
9