Rubric

Rubric for the Evaluation of High Schools on Their LGBTQ+ Inclusivity

Click above to view a PDF of a rubric that you can use to evaluate your high school’s sex education and level of inclusivity. We encourage students, teachers, parents, and administration to evaluate their respective high school’s sex education by using the rubric, scoring process, resources, and research.

Score Evaluation

0-17: Dangerous.

Schools in this zone need drastic change and improvement and are not providing a safe environment for LGBTQ+ students, in fact those students may be at risk. Sex-ed/health curriculum in these schools will also put all students at risk of contracting STIs and teen pregnancy.  Schools in this section are recommended to change their policies to be more in line with what is suggested by this rubric.

18-34: Poor.

These schools may have made some attempt at protecting LGBTQ+ students, but it is minimal and students are still unsafe and may be at risk. These schools may have some sort of sex-ed/health program but it is not comprehensive or inclusive puting all students at risk. Schools in this zone are recommended to change their policies to fit better with what is recommended by this rubric.

35-51: Needs Improvement.

Schools in this zone have taken positive steps to protect LGBTQ+ students however these students may still face unnecessary  challenges. Sex-ed/health curriculum in these schools may not be fully comprehensive or inclusive. Schools should implement changes based on the rubric.

52-68: Strong.

These schools are doing an excellent job at ensuring the comfort and safety of LGBTQ+ students. Their sex-ed/health curriculum in very comprehensive and inclusive which ensures the safety and wellbeing of all students. Of course there is always room for improvement and these schools should continue to look for ways they might better support their students.

Resources

Our sex ed curriculum on this website is comprehensive and meets the requirements on the rubric. It is free and available for any school to use or adapt. Other curricula that meet the requirements are Positive Prevention Plus and Health Connected.

Want professional help revamping your school’s policies and teacher trainings? Check out these resources:

Other resources used to help complete this rubric:

Research

Unfortunately, there are many problems that affect members of the LGBTQ+ community, but more specifically the younger members of that community. In schools and education systems, a lack of representation and teaching for LGBTQ+ students can relate to mental and physical health-related repercussions.

LGBTQ+ students have been found to be more likely to be depressed, self-harming, suicidal, or idealizing suicide than their heterosexual/cisgender peers. In a study of 1000 students it was reported that students who claimed to have experienced discrimination for being LGBTQ+ “were significantly more likely than those who did not to report self-harm (25.0% vs. 6.3%) and suicidal ideation (23.9% vs. 7.4%). Additionally,  they had significantly higher mean scores on the depressive symptomatology scale” (Almeida et al. 1008). Queer youth are shown to have significantly higher rates of suicide than both LGBTQ+ adults and heterosexual, cisgender youth and adults. “gay youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people and may constitute up to 30 percent of all completed youth suicides annually” (Califia 161). This is attributed to being part of two groups with high suicide rates: LGBTQ+ people and young people.  To be clear LGBTQ+ are not genetically predisposed to being depressed, “the thinking among most mental health professionals is that despair, hopelessness, and self-hatred are an understandable response to living in a society where LGBT people face stigma, discrimination, and violence” (Califia 161).

Bullying also greatly impacts LGBTQ+ students and it is incredibly prevalent in schools. Bullying towards LGBTQ+ students and a lack of awareness of related issues leads to an increase in risks (Russell 7). For example, the chance of LGBTQ+ students to reach negative outcomes such as suicide, depression, and drug abuse is higher than students that don’t identify with this community. Schools that have anti-bullying policies protecting LGBTQ+ students have lower rates of depression and the students report feeling safer. Implementing such policies can prevent some of the risks. Additionally, changes in school policy and education focused on LGBTQ+ students can reduce the risk of negative outcomes in LGBTQ+ youths’ lives (Russell 14).  LGBTQ+ issues have been addressed in some schools through the use of school policy and education. Establishing an anti-bullying policy, and providing both faculty and staff training to address the problems LGBTQ+ students face is highly beneficial.

By looking at the evidence found and the history of LGBTQ+ discrimination in schools, one is able to see how relevant and imperative it is to confront this problem. It is incredibly important that schools change their policies for the better in order to insure the safety of all their students. Our rubric seeks to help in evaluating schools on their efforts or lack thereof in supporting and protecting LGBTQ+ students

Works Cited

  • Almeida, Joanna, et al. “Emotional Distress among LGBT Youth: The Influence of Perceived Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence, vol. 38, 14. 7, 2009, pp. 1001-14. ProQuest, http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/204636129?accountid=8285.
  • Cahill, Sean. “Education Law and Policy.” Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered History in America, edited by Marc Stein, vol. 1, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2004, pp. 331-335. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3403600159/GVRL?u=wash11212&sid=GVRL&xid=e2060b11. Accessed 18 Sept. 2018.
  • Califia, Patrick. “Suicide.” Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered History in America, edited by Marc Stein, vol. 3, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2004, pp. 161-164. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3403600493/GVRL?u=wash11212&sid=GVRL&xid=48384470. Accessed 17 Sept. 2018.
  • Creating an LGBT-Inclusive School Climate: A Teaching Tolerance Guide for School Leaders. Southern Law Poverty Center, 2017, www.tolerance.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Teaching-Tolerance-LGBT-Best-Practices-2017-WEB-Oct2017.pdf. Accessed 13 Sept. 2018.
  • Fystrom, A. A. (2011). The developmental readiness of elementary school age children to engage in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender classroom lessons (Order No. 3481423). Available from ProQuest Central; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (906492510). Retrieved from http://proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/906492510?accountid=8285
  • Matzner, Andrew. “Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).” GLBTQ Social Sciences, Jan. 2011, pp. 1-3. EBSCOhost, proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=qth&AN=70697053&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
  • Russell, Stephen T. “Beyond Risk: Resilience in the Lives of Sexual Minority Youth.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education, vol. 2, no. 3, 2005, pp. 5-18. EBSCOhost, proxyau.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=fgh&AN=MFS-17557625&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
  • Stevenson, Michael R. “Sex Education.” Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgendered History in America, edited by Marc Stein, vol. 3, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2004, pp. 91-93. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3403600463/GVRL?u=wash11212&sid=GVRL&xid=f222b75d. Accessed 17 Sept. 2018