Introduction

In Australia, there is ongoing debate surrounding the inclusion, discussion, and protection of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) community members within schools (Jones et al., 2022; Law, 2017). Not surprisingly, schools and educators can also hesitate when incorporating LGBTQ+ content into policies and practices with concerns of backlash from other members in the school community who may hold differing views on LGBTQ+ inclusion (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022). Despite these ongoing debates, statistics highlight the negative experiences that LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents face within schools. Compared to national samples, Australian LGBTQ+ youth and adults are five and eight times more likely (respectively), to consider or attempt self-harm (2021b; Hill et al., 2021a). These alarming statistics are not unique to Australia and are recognised internationally as a major concern (Gorse, 2022). Experiences of discrimination from peers, co-workers, and public service professionals, including school staff, are known to contribute to these disparities (Hill et al., 2021b). LGBTQ+ adults are more than twice as likely to experience discrimination compared to cisgender/heterosexual counterparts (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2021), with schools and workplaces being some of the most common sites of discrimination (Hill et al., 2021a). These statistics indicate Australian schools are often sites of harm for the LGBTQ+ community and warrant further investigation and intervention to create safer and more inclusive educational environments.

While there has been some research examining the school experiences of LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents in Australia, these studies have largely been conducted in isolation from one another, focusing on one group at a time. This fragmented approach overlooks the potential similarities in school-based challenges faced by different groups within the LGBTQ+ community in school settings (Wang & Degol, 2016). To address this gap in research, this study aims to explore potential trends in school-based challenges and perceptions among LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents through a school climate lens. By examining school experiences collectively across these groups, the study seeks to identify common challenges related to school safety, interpersonal relationships, and self-harm, as well as potential variations based on individual demographics (e.g., gender modality) and institutional characteristics of schools (e.g., school type and location). By examining these factors, the study seeks to inform inclusive practices that meet the needs of LGBTQ+ individuals, and particularly those most at risk, such as those in non-metropolitan areas or transgender/gender diverse individuals.

This study aims to build on school climate research by identifying the types of challenges the LGBTQ+ community experience in Australian schools from multiple perspectives, and identify potential trends in challenges based on critical institutional and individual characteristics. Institutional characteristics include school type (i.e., government/public, religious affiliated private, vs. non-religious affiliated private schools); and school location (i.e., non-metropolitan vs. metropolitan locales). Individual demographics refer to an individual’s role within schools (i.e., student, staff vs. parent) and gender modality (i.e., cisgender vs. transgender/gender diverse). Similarities and differences in school experiences are explored via two methods. Trends in challenging experiences based on an individual’s role within school is highlighted through comparison of types and frequency of school-based challenges experienced by LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents. Trends in school-based challenges based on institutional characteristics and individual demographics are identified via inferential statistics.

School climate

School climate (herein referred to as climate), encompasses everyday encounters and acceptable norms within schools (Wang & Degol, 2016). Climates that are safe and inclusive are crucial to the health and wellbeing of all members of the school community, including LGBTQ+ individuals (Wang & Degol, 2016). Surveys exploring climate perspectives among students, staff, and parents are vital for develo** interventions targeted to promoting positive school climates for at risk minority groups (Ullman, 2021; Wang & Degol, 2016). Surveys exploring climate from multiple perspectives aid in; justifying interventions for specific minority groups, identifying content for needed interventions (e.g., safety perceptions, interpersonal challenges), assessing whether climates are experienced similarly by all members, and establishing a baseline for tracking changes overtime or exploring intervention efficacy.

Internationally, LGBTQ+ community perspectives of climate have predominantly been explored via quantitative methods in student samples (Ancheta et al., 2021), with growing interest in the perspectives of LGBTQ+ staff (Ullman, 2020), and LGBTQ+ parents (Goldberg & Garcia, 2020). Three quantitative indicators of climate prevalent within international student samples include perceptions of school safety, interpersonal challenges, and self-harm behaviours. Although these climate indicators are explored within student samples, they are likely to be relevant to staff and parent school-experiences, albeit experienced in different ways and intensities. The following sections offer a brief discussion of LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parent perceptions of school safety, interpersonal challenges, and self-harm as pertinent indicators of Australian climates.

School safety (SS)

School safety (SS) refers to the perception of schools as safe learning environments free from bullying, homophobia, and transphobia, with appropriate responses from school staff (Wang & Degol, 2016). Positive outcomes of SS include academic performance and wellbeing for students, job satisfaction for staff, and parental satisfaction with schools (Mann & Jones, 2022; Ullman & Smith, 2018; Wang & Degol, 2016). However, LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents often feel unsafe in schools and perceive staff responses to challenges as inadequate (Mann & Jones, 2022; Ullman, 2021; Wright & Smith, 2015). For instance, LGBTQ+ students rate school respect for diversity and bullying management lower compared to state based samples (Ullman, 2021). LGBTQ+ school staff fear disclosing their sexual orientation or gender modality due to potential reprisals (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022), and LGBTQ+ parents have concerns about homophobic or transphobic sentiments in the school community (Mann & Jones, 2022). Thus, schools may be similarly perceived as an unsafe environment by various members of the LGBTQ+ community. Because individual studies use different outcome measures and methodologies, however, it is not possible to directly compare findings across groups. This study extends past research to enable comparison across LGBTQ+ student, staff, and parent perceptions of SS by using a consistent measure of SS across groups.

Interpersonal challenges (ICs)

Interpersonal challenges (ICs) refer to difficult relationships in schools, including marginalisation, discrimination, and victimisation (Wang & Degol, 2016). ICs have been extensively studied in LGBTQ+ student samples, who often experience verbal harassment, physical assault, relational bullying, property damage, cyberbullying, and sexual harassment (e.g., Kosciw et al., 2022). LGBTQ+ students experience ICs more frequently than non-LGBTQ+ peers, and transgender/gender diverse individuals experience more ICs than cisgender peers (Kosciw et al., 2022; Norris & Orchowski, 2020).

LGBTQ+ staff (Ullman & Smith, 2018) and parents (Mann & Jones, 2022) can also face ICs from students, staff and other parents. For example, in the United States, 73.6% of staff had rumours spread about them at school, and 20.8% experienced workplace harassment (Wright & Smith, 2015). Parents also report ICs, such as those perpetrated by students, staff, and other parents, as enduring themes in research (Goldberg et al., 2017; Mann & Jones, 2022). However, no Australian studies have quantitatively explored how school-based ICs may be experienced by LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents. This study extends this research by exploring the types of ICs experienced by LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents using measures commonly included in LGBTQ+ student climate research (Kosciw et al., 2022). That is, deliberate exclusion, verbal harassment, spreading of rumours of lies, online (cyber) bullying, sexual harassment, property damage, and physical harassment.

Self-harm (SH)

Climate can also be understood by the levels of self-harm or suicidal thoughts/behaviours (SH) experienced by LGBTQ+ people specifically due to homophobia, transphobia, or intersex discrimination within schools. SH was selected as an indicator of climate in this study due to its historical prevalence among Australian and international LGBTQ+ community members (e.g., Gorse, 2022). For example, a recent study of Australian LGBTQ+ youth found over half of youth aged 14–21 experienced suicidal ideation (Hill et al., 2021b). Similarly, in a sample of Australian LGBTQ+ adults aged 18–65 + years, 74.8% reported having experienced suicidal ideation (Hill et al., 2021b). However, these SH estimates do not specifically explore discrimination experienced at school but rather focus on SH broadly. SH due to harm exclusively in schools has been explored in student samples in the United States, but not Australia, with evidence that LGBTQ+ students are more likely to SH compared to non-LGBTQ+ students (Hatchel et al., 2021). This suggests a need to investigate SH as a result of discriminatory experiences at school among Australian LGBTQ+ students more closely.

Staff also indicate climates may be influential in SH. For example, in a sample of 421 LGBTQ+ staff, Ullman and Smith (2018) found 67% reported experiencing discrimination in the workplace, and such experiences could lead to suicidal ideation. Significantly less research has specifically explored SH in LGBTQ+ parents, or SH as a result of school experiences. However, perceived stigma enacted in public organisations (such as deliberate exclusion) was negatively associated with parent mental health (Crouch et al., 2014). Taken together, this research suggests that LGBTQ+ parents may be at similar risk of SH due to school-based challenges as staff; however this is yet to be empirically explored. To address the present knowledge gap, this study aimed to extend current research by exploring SH exclusively as a result of school-based homophobia or transphobia in the LGBTQ+ community. Specifically, this study aimed to better understand how SH is experienced in similar and different ways from the perspective of LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents.

Institutional characteristics and individual demographics influential in climates

An additional aim of this study was to explore how climates may differ as a function of characteristics of the institution (school type or location) and characteristics of individuals (gender modality) (Wang & Degol, 2016). Here we consider how institutional characteristics and individual demographics may also influence the LGBTQ+ community’s perceptions of climate and present four hypotheses regarding potential trends.

Limited Australian research has compared the school experiences of LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents by school type. Investigators in the United States report students in government schools were more likely to report hearing homophobic comments compared to private or independent school types (Kosciw et al., 2022). Religious affiliated schools can also be uniquely challenging for the LGBTQ+ community including adverse practices that openly discriminate against diverse sexual orientations and gender modalities (Callaghan, 2018; Jones et al., 2022). Comparison in climates based on school types can be difficult to interpret in the Australian context. Although school sectors are classified as Government, Catholic and Independent schools (ABS, 2023), around 90% of independent schools are religiously affiliated (Independent Schools Australia, 2023). Three classifications were used in the study: government or public, religious affiliated private or independent, and non-religious private or independent schools. Based on previous research, we hypothesised that LGBTQ+ community members in government/public, religious affiliated private schools, or both would have more negative perceptions of climate compared to peers in non-religious affiliated private school types.

School location refers to metropolitan versus non-metropolitan areas, with non-metropolitan areas defined as those in regional, remote, or rural settings (far from a big city) (Jones, 2015). LGBTQ+ students (Kosciw et al., 2022), staff (Ullman & Smith, 2018) and parents (Goldberg & Garcia, 2020) in non-metropolitan areas perceive more negative climates than those in metropolitan areas. As a result, we hypothesised that LGBTQ+ community members in non-metropolitan schools would have more concerns in climate compared to peers in metropolitan locales.

Regarding individual characteristics, we considered a participant’s role in schools (i.e., student, staff, or parent discussed above), and gender modality (cisgender or transgender/gender diverse). We hypothesised LGBTQ+ students would report greater concerns in climate compared to staff and parents due to their higher level of social interaction at school. In terms of gender modality, transgender/gender diverse students report greater concerns in health and educational outcomes compared to cisgender peers, including ICs and SS at school (Hatchel et al., 2019; Norris & Orchowski, 2020; Russell et al., 2020). Transgender/gender diverse LGBTQ+ staff are more likely to experience workplace discrimination compared to cisgender peers (Ullman, 2020). Further, transgender/gender diverse parents can experience unique personal challenges including psychological distress due to lack of acknowledgement of correct pronoun or name use in schools (Charter et al., 2023). Therefore, we hypothesised that transgender/gender diverse LGBTQ+ community members would indicate more concerns in climate compared to cisgender peers.

The present study

Schools are sites of harm for LGBTQ+ community members, with limited research indicating the ways in which this harm is experienced may be broadly similar across students, staff and parents. However, no research has directly compared these groups, resulting in a lack of clarity regarding whether group based or school-wide approaches to redressing harm may be most beneficial. As a result, this study aimed to address two considerations critical to the justification for, and development of, interventions to promote positive school climate for the Australian LGBTQ+ community. That is, (1) identification of the types and frequency of challenges the LGBTQ+ community experience in Australian schools, and (2) identification of potential trends in experiences based on institutional characteristics or individual demographics. This study expanded on current climate frameworks commonly used in student-only samples to include LGBTQ+ staff and parent perspectives. Given LGBTQ+ student, staff and parent research has largely developed within three distinct bodies of literature, we were particularly interested in exploring the ways in which SS, ICs and SH indicators of climate were similar and distinct for Australian LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents. We were also interested in exploring whether the LGBTQ+ community’s experiences differed by school characteristics (i.e., school type or school location) and individual demographics (i.e., gender modality). Therefore, the following research questions were developed:

  1. 1.

    What are the LGBTQ+ community’s perceptions of School Safety (SS), Interpersonal Challenges (ICs) and Self-Harm (SH) in Australian schools?

  2. 2.

    Do the LGBTQ+ community’s perceptions of climate similarly differ by institutional characteristics (i.e., school type or school location) and individual demographics (i.e., role or gender modality)?

Method

Data for this study were drawn from a larger survey exploring the experiences and perceptions of LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents in Australian schools (Mann et al., 2024). Ethical approval was obtained from the university ethical committee (52022946538066). Participants were considered to have met the selection criteria for the study if they were connected to Australian schools at any point between 2018 and 2022, even if they had subsequently moved to other contexts such as university. This meant that recollections were potentially retrospective by three years. We therefore were able to compare our student data with existing large samples of LGBTQ+ youth, which have typically included young people aged 14–21 (Kosciw et al., 2022). Participants indicating employment or enrolment in schools prior to 2018 were excluded from the analysis due to the legalising of same-sex marriage in Australia in 2017 and prior research indicating that significant legislative changes inform socio-cultural attitudes (Goldberg et al., 2013). For staff and parents, schools referred to all levels of schooling, including early childhood, primary school, and secondary school. Students however were required by ethics approvals to be 14 or above at the time of completing the survey, meaning the student sample focuses on secondary school. Participants were recruited via paid and unpaid social media advertisements on Facebook and Instagram and via mailing lists held by the Maths Association NSW (MANSW) and Rainbow Families (an Australian community organisation supportive of LGBTQ+ parented families).

Participants

For this specific study, participants included 1,926 LGBTQ+ students, 198 LGBTQ+ staff and 180 LGBTQ+ parents. The age of students ranged from 14 to 21 years of age (M = 15.37, SD = 1.23), and the age of parents and staff ranged from 18 to 65 years. Table 1 provides a full demographic break down of the sample. In short, most students identified as bisexual or pansexual, and non-binary. In contrast, the majority of staff and parents identified as gay or lesbian, and female. Most students, staff and parents were connected to government schools, and schools in metropolitan areas.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of students, staff, and parents in schools
Full size table

Measures

School climate indicators

School safety was measured using five items developed from state parent satisfaction surveys that explore perceptions of safety, staff response to challenges, homophobia, transphobia, and bullying as problems in schools (Independent Schools Victoria, 2017). Perceptions of SS focuses on perceptions of schools generally, while ICs focus on personal direct experience. Example items include: My school is a safe place to learn, and homophobia is a problem in my school. The measure of school safety had a good internal consistency for the student (α = 0.80), staff (α = 0.83), and parent (α = 0.84) sample.

Interpersonal challenges with others in schools were explored in two ways. First, participants were asked if they had experienced any ICs with others in school, such as being verbally or physically bullied, picked on, deliberately excluded, or picked on online. Responses were coded via 1 = Yes, 2 = No. Second, we used seven items developed from a LGBTQ+ student climate national survey (Kosciw et al., 2022). The types of ICs explored included damage to property, verbal harassment, physical assault, mean rumours or lies, feeling excluded or left out, sexually harassed and online bullying. Example items included: ‘How often have you had your property damaged or stolen at your school (e.g. graffiti, damage to your car, damage to books)?’, ‘How often have you been verbally harassed (e.g. name calling, threats, etc.) at your school of employment?’, and ‘How often have you been physically assaulted (shoved, pushed, punched, kicked, injured with a weapon, etc.) at your school?’. Responses were reworded appropriately for each participant’s role. Each item was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = All the time, 5 = Never). Items were reverse scored so that higher scores reflected a greater frequency of violence type.

Self-harm was measured through one multiple choice item (Hill et al., 2021b). Participants were asked ‘As a result of homophobia, transphobia or intersexphobia at your school, have you ever…’ and presented with 5 responses: 1 = Thought about self-harm?, 2 = Harmed yourself?, 3 = Thought about suicide?, 4 = Attempted suicide?, 5 = None of the above. Due to small groups in parent participants, responses were dichotomised to 1 = Thought about or enacted self-harm or suicidal behaviours as a result of discrimination in schools, and 2 = No suicidal or self-harm thoughts or behaviours as a result of discrimination in schools.

Institutional and individual characteristics

Institutional characteristics included school type and school location. School type was collected via one item asking participants to indicate the school with which they were most recently employed or enrolled. Options included 1 = Public or government schools, 2 = Religious affiliated private schools, and 3 = Non-religious private schools. School location was measured through one item asking participants to indicate if their schools was in a rural, remote, or regional school. Provided responses were coded to 1 = Non-metropolitan, 2 = Metropolitan.

Individual characteristics included participant role (1 = Student, 2 = Staff, and 3 = Parent) and gender modality. The measure of gender modality was adapted from the Australian census guidelines (ABS, 2021) and utilised a 2-step method. First, we included an item capturing sex assigned at birth (1 = Male, 2 = Female, 3 = Other), followed by an item capturing current gender identity (1 = Man or male, 2 = Woman or female, 3 = Non-binary, 4 = Other). Second, and using these items, we recoded participants into two overarching gender modality categories: 1 = Sex assigned at birth aligned with gender identity (i.e., cisgender), and 2 = Other sex assigned at birth or sex assigned at birth not aligned to gender identity (i.e., transgender or gender diverse).

Analysis

All analyses were completed in IBM SPSS v.26. To address research question 1, which asked about different climate indicators, we analysed the frequency of LGBTQ+ participants’ experiences of each dependent variable: perceptions of SS, ICs, SH.

To address research question 2, which asked if climate indicators differed by institutional (school type or location) and individual characteristics (role and gender modality), a series of comparative analyses were run. As SS was measured via ordinal data, three four-way ANOVAs were run to compare whether student, staff and parent perceptions of SS differed based on institutional characteristics and individual characteristics. The between-subjects factors were institutional characteristics (government/public, religious affiliated private or independent school vs. non-religious affiliated private or independent school) and individual characteristics (cisgender vs. transgender/gender diverse). The dependent variable was SS. All assumptions of normal distribution and homogeneity of variance were met. Bonferroni corrections were automatically applied. Tukey post-hoc analysis was conducted to explore differences in the three categories of role (student, staff vs. parent) and school types (public/government, religious affiliated private or independent school vs. non-religious private or independent school).

Chi-square tests of independence and goodness of fit were run to compare whether institutional and individual characteristics influenced student, staff and parent ICs and SH due to the categorical nature of the indicators. Specific comparisons included students, staff, vs. parents; government, private religious affiliated schools vs. non-religious affiliated private schools; non-metropolitan vs. metropolitan schools, and cisgender vs. transgender/gender diverse modalities. Assumptions of independence of observations and mutually exclusive groups were ensured prior to statistical testing (Field, 2013). Several analyses run on staff and parent responses did not meet the assumption of expected counts (> 5) in all cells. In such cases, Fischer’s exact test statistics were conducted (Field, 2013). A Bonferroni correction was applied to all chi-square test results to account for the number of sequential tests being run (8 tests; p = 0.05/8 = 0.006).

Results

Perceptions of school safety

Frequency data of participants’ perceptions of school safety are reported in Fig. 1. Table 2 provides the proportion of students, staff and parents that agreed or strongly agreed to SS indicators. A significant number of students, staff and parents agreed or strongly agreed bullying, transphobia and homophobia were problematic in Australian schools. The ANOVA results indicated there was a statistically significant difference in perceptions of school safety for students, staff and parents, F(2, 2271) = 120.415, p < 0.001. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated the mean score of perceptions of school safety for students (M = 2.50, SD = 0.79) was significantly lower than perceptions of staff (M = 3.12, SD = 0.79), and parents (M = 3.31, SD = 0.82) (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between staff and parent perceptions of school safety (p > 0.05).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Frequency (%) of LGBTQ+ student (n = 1921), staff (n = 196) and parent (n = 163) perceptions of school safety

Full size image
Table 2 Frequency (%) of LGBTQ+ students (n = 1921), staff (n = 196) and parents (n = 163) reporting agree/strongly agree to school safety indicators
Full size table

Institutional and individual characteristics

To explore potential (dis)similarities in perceptions of SS based on institutional (school type and location) and individual (gender modality) characteristics, three more ANOVAs were conducted: one for students, one for staff, and one for parents.

For students, there was a significant main effect of school type on SS, F(2, 11) = 10.09 p < 0.001. Post hoc TukeyHSD tests indicated that perceptions of SS were significantly higher for students in non-religious private schools (M = 2.98, SD = 0.83) than for students in government schools (M = 2.45, SD = 0.80) (p < 0.001), or religious affiliated private schools (M = 2.51, SD = 0.73) (p < 0.001), while perceptions of SS did not differ significantly between students in government or religious affiliated private schools (p > 0.05). There was also a significant main effect of location, with students in metropolitan areas perceiving higher SS (M = 2.54, SD = 0.79) than those in non-metropolitan areas (M = 2.35, SD = 0.77), F(1, 11) = 8.40 p = 0.004. Finally, there was a significant main effect of gender modality, with cisgender students perceiving higher SS (M = 2.63, SD = 0.0.79) than transgender/gender diverse peers (M = 2.39, SD = 0.77), F(1, 11) = 4.02 p = 0.045.

For staff and parents there were no significant main effects of school type (pstaff = 0.57; pparents = 0.37), school location (pstaff = 0.81; pparent = 0.38), or gender modality (pstaff = 0.31; pparent = 0.84) on SS.

Interpersonal challenges

There was a significant difference in the proportions of students, staff and parents who responded “yes” to the first question asking if they had experienced ICs in schools, with more LGBTQ+ students reporting experiencing ICs in schools (53.7%), compared to staff (28.9%) and parent (23.5%) respondents, χ2 (2, N = 1125) = 90.83, p < 0.001.

Participants who answered yes to this first question then indicated the types and frequencies of ICs they had experienced. These findings are presented in Fig. 2. Students, staff, and parents indicated experiencing all types of ICs in schools including deliberate exclusion, verbal harassment, harmful rumours, cyber harassment (online), sexual harassment, property damage, and physical harassment. Table 3 presents the proportion of students, staff and parents that reported experiencing the different types of ICs often or all the time. The most common and frequent forms of ICs experienced by all three groups included deliberate exclusion, and rumours or lies. Students and staff also indicated experiencing verbal harassment in schools frequently.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Type and frequency of interpersonal challenges experienced by LGBTQ+ students (n = 1030), LGBTQ+ staff (n = 57) and LGBTQ+ parents (n = 38)

Full size image
Table 3 Proportion (%) of interpersonal challenges experienced often or all the time by LGBTQ+ students (n = 1,030), staff (n = 57) and parents (n = 38)
Full size table

Institutional and individual characteristics

The results of Chi-square analysis exploring institutional characteristics of schools and individual characteristics are presented in Table 4. ICs did not differ based on school type among any participant group (i.e., government/public school, religious affiliated private school vs. non-religious affiliated private school). Students in non-metropolitan schools were proportionally more likely to report ICs than were students in metropolitan students; there was no difference for staff or parents, however. Transgender/gender diverse students were proportionally more likely to report ICs than their cisgender counterparts; there was no significant difference for staff or parents.

Table 4 Frequency (%) of LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents demographic and school characteristic factors as a function of experiencing or not experiencing interpersonal challenges in schools
Full size table

Self-harm behaviours as a result of discrimination in schools

Participants from all three groups indicated SH due to discrimination experienced in Australian schools. There was significant difference in the proportion of students, staff and parents who indicated SH as a result of discrimination in schools. Students (60.2%) were proportionately more likely to indicate SH, followed by staff (17.4%) and parents (4.2%), χ2 (2, N = 2260) = 274.52, p < 0.001.

Institutional and individual characteristics

Chi-square analysis exploring potential differences between institutional and individual characteristics in SH are presented in Table 5. SH did not differ based on school type (government/public, religious affiliated private vs. non-religious affiliated private schools), or school location (non-metropolitan vs. metropolitan) for students, staff or parents. Transgender/gender diverse students were proportionally more likely to indicate SH than cisgender students, p < 0.01. Gender modality was not associated with differences in SH for staff or parents.

Table 5 Frequency (%) of LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents demographic and school characteristic factors as a function of self-harming or not self-harming due to experiencing discrimination in schools
Full size table

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first Australian study to explore LGBTQ+ student, staff, and parent perceptions of climate concurrently. This study identified LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents report similar concerns in SS, ICs, and SH in Australian schools. This study also identified trends in the school experiences of the LGBTQ+ community based on institutional characteristics and individual demographics, in-line with our hypotheses. Consistent with our guiding predictions, we found LGBTQ+ students reported greater concerns in SS, ICs and SH compared to staff and parent participants. We also found partial support for our hypothesis that institutional characteristics and individual demographics were influential in LGBTQ+ community members’ perceptions of climates for students, but not staff or parents. Specifically, students in government and religious affiliated private schools had greater concerns in SS compared to non-religious private schools, however ICs and SH did not differ based on school type. Students in non-metropolitan areas reported greater concerns in SS and ICs compared to metropolitan schools, but not SH. Transgender/gender diverse students also experienced greater concerns in SS, ICs, and SH compared to cisgender peers. The descriptive findings of student, staff, and parent perceptions of SS, ICs, SH, as well as inferential findings exploring (dis)similarities based on institutional characteristics and individual demographics are further discussed below.

LGBTQ+ community perceptions of Australian school climates: indicators of school safety, interpersonal challenges, and self-harm

This study offers valuable insight into the LGBTQ+ communities’ perceptions of Australian school climates and provides direction for the development of group and school interventions First, LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents similarly view Australian schools as unsafe. Large portions of the LGBTQ+ community agreed/strongly agreed that staff were slow to respond to challenges experienced in schools. Large portions of the LGBTQ+ community also agreed/strongly agreed that homophobia, transphobia, and bullying were problems in Australian schools. Similar to previous findings (Kosciw et al., 2022; Ullman, 2021), around 10–20% of LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents agree/strongly agree that Australian schools are unsafe, with students more likely to view schools as unsafe compared to staff and parents. Taken together, these findings may indicate a consensus across community members that Australian schools are not safe for LGBTQ+ people.

Second, LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents experience similar types of ICs in Australian schools. Students (53.7%) reported the highest incidence of ICs, as did a significant number of staff (28.9%), and parents (23.5%). Consistent with previous research, students (Kosciw et al., 2022), staff (Ullman & Smith, 2018) and parents (Cloughessy et al., 2019) identified spreading of rumours, and deliberate exclusion as the most frequent type of IC experienced. Students and staff also reported experiencing verbal harassment often and frequently in Australian schools. Students, however, indicated a greater frequency in all types of ICs including sexual harassment, cyber bullying, property damage, and physical harassment. This increased variety of ICs experienced by students may be due to the fact that students have a greater number of social interactions at school, and especially with peers. This aligns with the broader literature about bullying and anti-social climates at school (Kosciw et al., 2022).

Third (and most concerning), LGBTQ+ students, staff and parents all reported SH as a result of discrimination experienced in Australian schools. LGBTQ+ students (60.2%) and staff (17.4%) indicated experiencing SH at a greater proportion than current Australian samples (8.8%) (ABS, 2022), while parent responses were around half (4.2%) of national estimates (ABS, 2022). The majority of LGBTQ+ students indicating SH in this study aligns with concerning trends found in other Australian LGBTQ+ youth samples (Hill et al., 2021b). In contrast, staff and parent indicators of SH were significantly lower than Australian LGBTQ+ adult samples (74.8%; n = 5084) (Hill et al., 2021b). Discrepancies in SH in adults in this sample compared to adult community samples may reflect potential sampling bias. LGBTQ+ parents (Mann & Jones, 2022) and LGBTQ+ staff are generally more highly educated than national samples, which may act as pivotal protections against SH (Bilsen, 2018). Further, SH among staff and parents may be more directly influenced by factors beyond school experiences, not addressed in this study.

The similarities across LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents offer clear justifications for school-wide interventions targeted to promote positive school climates for the Australian LGBTQ+ community. Australian legislation (e.g., Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)) stress the right for all Australians to have access to safe school environments free of discrimination. However, this study indicates this is not the case for the Australian LGBTQ+ community. Based on findings in this study, interventions should consider including content that addresses the LGBTQ+ community’s concerns in SS, ICs and SH. For example, interventions targeted to concerns in SS could include staff training in appropriate methods to identify and address homophobic/transphobic sentiments and behaviours in schools (Ullman, 2021). Interventions targeted to ICs could adopt anti-bullying frameworks that address multiple forms of interpersonal challenges, including physical harassment, verbal harassment, deliberate property damage, sexual harassment, cyber harassment, spreading of rumour or lies, verbal harassment, and deliberate exclusion (Kosciw et al., 2022). School-wide interventions should prioritise non-physical interpersonal challenges (i.e., verbal harassment, spreading of rumours or lies, and deliberate exclusion). Interventions targeted to SH should prioritise staff training in SH interventions strategies, and LGBTQ+ mental health and wellbeing across the lifespan.

Institutional characteristics and individual demographics influential in perceptions of school climate

Surprisingly, the findings of this work only partially aligned with work of other investigators (Goldberg & Garcia, 2020; Ullman & Smith, 2018): only students’ perceptions of climate differed based on institutional characteristics and individual demographics; no significant differences were found for staff or parents.

Consistent with international researchers, students in government/public and religious affiliated private schools had lower perceptions of SS compared to peers in non-religious affiliated private schools (Kosciw et al., 2022). Interestingly, LGBTQ+ student indicators of ICs and SH, did not differ by school type. Compared to ICs and SH, which reflect specific personal experiences, SS reflects perceptions of the overarching culture of a school. Thus, differences in SS may be due to broader cultural factors associated with school type, whereas IC and SH are more stable across school types. This suggests that while government/public and religious affiliated private schools may be in more need of intervention regarding SS, all school types would benefit from support regarding ICs and SH. Discrepancies in student perceptions of SS based on school type may also reflect other school institutional characteristics influential in perceptions of SS including socio-economic status of the local community, available resources (such as teacher-student ratios), school ethos or stance toward LGBTQ+ people, and wider policy frameworks (Baams et al., 2020). For example, non-religious private schools are niche within high socio-economic communities and metropolitan school sectors catering to mostly progressive liberals, and over-resourced relative to public schools (Independent Schools Australia, 2023). Public schools, although non-religious, are open access and universal, so greater heterogeneity in levels of discrimination can be expected, and as such, reduced capacity of schools to manage discrimination due to lower resourcing levels is also reasonable to expect. Religious affiliated private schools, while typically reflecting higher socio-economic communities and resources, can also include explicit anti-LGBTQ+ polices and teachings (Callaghan, 2018). As such, while this study indicates perceptions of SS for students differ by school type, future research is needed to explore and delineate other factors that may be influential in perceptions of SS across school types such as funding or resources, school ethos or community beliefs toward LGBTQ+ identities, and wider educational policy.

Students in non-metropolitan schools experienced greater concerns in SS and ICs compared to metropolitan based peers; there were no significant differences regarding SH. Students in rural areas concerns in SS and ICs may reflect non-metropolitan communities consisting of more traditional beliefs about gender norms/roles, and underrepresentation of LGBTQ+ individuals in the local community (Jones, 2015; Kosciw et al., 2022). SH, on the other hand, may be explained by factors outside of schools such as family support or rejection (Hatchel et al., 2019).

Transgender/gender diverse students were also found at greater risk of SS, ICs and SH compared to cisgender peers, in-line with international trends (Kosciw et al., 2022). Potential discrepancies in climate based on gender identity may reflect greater visibility of gender identity diversity (such as appearance, or pronoun use) and distinguishing (mis)treatment in school policies and practices (Ullman, 2021). The latter may include access to facilities (e.g., lavatories), involvement in activities (e.g., sport), and gender specific classroom practices (e.g., gendered language in attendance). There is a clear need for interventions that afford better protections to transgender/gender diverse students. These interventions should include affirmative strategies targeted to diversity in both sexual orientations and gender identities or expressions.

There are several possible explanations for the finding that LGBTQ+ staff and parent experienced did not differ by institutional characteristics or individual demographics. First, this study adopted convenience sampling and lacked representation of LGBTQ+ staff and parent participants in all school types, and transgender/gender diverse staff and parents, which may influence inferences drawn from statistical testing. Second, it may be that staff and parents experience similar school-based challenges regardless of school type, school location, or their gender identity. Staff and parents are afforded considerable agency in terms of selecting schools for enrolment/employment and level of involvement (or attendance) within schools. Thus, staff and parents may have more control over the number of interactions (and thus negative experiences) they have with any given school than students do. This consistency of experiences may also be broadly reflective of how Australian schools treat LGBTQ+ adults. For example, it may be that LGBTQ+ staff and parents pre-emptively self-exclude from or opt-out of non-required school interactions as a way to avoid discriminatory treatment (Jones et al., 2014; Mann & Jones, 2022). This may indicate the need for schools to include broad interventions targeted to the needs of LGBTQ+ staff and parents across all school types and locations and which specifically focus on building inclusivity and safety for participation.

Limitations and future research

While the study is the first Australian study to explore the climates from the perspective of LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents, adding much needed quantitative research to LGBTQ+ staff (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022) and parent (Perales et al., 2020) literature, there are several limitations. First, the sample size, although large, was recruited via convenience sampling. This may limit the extent this sample represents perceptions of school climate from the perspective of the entire Australian LGBTQ+ community. Second, climates were predominantly explored via measurements commonly utilised in LGBTQ+ student research (e.g. Kosciw et al., 2022), which is limited in capturing other unexplored aspects of school experiences that are relevant to staff and parents, but not students. Third, the study was limited in understanding other features of climate useful in the design of school interventions, including perpetrators and contexts where interpersonal challenges take place.

In terms of future research, we highlight the usefulness in adopting a school-wide perspective of the LGBTQ+ communities’ perceptions of climate to identify potential trends similarly experienced by the LGBTQ+ community. Future school-wide research should consider unpacking other aspects of schools that may be influential on the Australian LGBTQ+ communities’ perceptions of climate including homophobic/transphobic practices and attitudes in schools, or school stances toward LGBTQ+ inclusivity (such as provision of LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculums and pedagogies).

Conclusion

Schools can be challenging for the LGBTQ+ community, yet little research has considered if school challenges may be similarly experienced by LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents. Our study highlights LGBTQ+ students, staff, and parents experience similar concerns in Australian schools related to school safety, interpersonal challenges, and self-harm. Students were significantly more likely to indicate adverse perceptions of school safety, interpersonal challenges and self-harm, compared to staff and parent respondents. Students in public/government schools, religious affiliated private schools, and non-metropolitan schools reported more negative perceptions of school climate, as did transgender and gender diverse students. These findings highlight the need for Australian schools, educators, and policy makers to develop interventions/programs targeted to school safety, interpersonal challenges, and self-harm behaviours experienced by various members of the LGBTQ+ community.