Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

American schools are on the frontline of the controversy over policies related to gender-expansive populations, people whose gender expression and identities do not match social norms for femininity or masculinity; yet, there is little research examining what educational policies exist for gender-expansive students and where protective policies are most likely to occur. This lack of research is especially problematic in light of growing evidence indicating there are negative health, academic, and social risks of poor school climates for gender-expansive people (Institute of Medicine, 2011). This mixed-methods study examines three related research questions: 1) What districts policies reference gender-expansive classes of students? 2) How many districts have inclusive policies (official district statements) or procedures (unofficial statements), and how comprehensive are they? And 3) What districts are more likely to have inclusive policies or procedures?

Methods

I use stratified random sampling based on enrollment to obtain a sample of 112 districts (100% response rate), about 1/4 of the districts in Illinois with high school enrollment and 45% of the student population. For each district, I collected up to 13 documents. Open-coding led to a coding scheme used in the content analysis (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2008), which was then used the estimate statewide frequencies. This approach captured both official, school-board approved policies, as well as “unofficial” administrative guidance. After merging the content analysis with district and community data, I tested the relationships between demographic and financial characteristics with the adoption of more inclusive policies and administrative guidance, the number of issues addressed in guidance, and affirming behaviors using logistic and ordinary least squares (OLS) multivariate regression analyses.

Results

We identified 10 policies/administrative guidance related to GE students through open-coding. Our content analysis suggests a positive association between state leadership and adopting specific protections for gender-expansive students. When mandated by the state, 100% of districts name “sexual orientation” as a protected class in employee discrimination policies and ““sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” and “gender expression” as protected classes in bullying policies. When protections are not mandated by law, districts either do not refer to gender-expansive classes or do so to a lesser extent. More than ¼ of districts provided “unofficial” guidance to direct administrators’ work with transgender students, but most used a template that merely offered topics of concern without specific directions. Guidance addressed 28 different issues, from restricting access to accommodations to classroom behaviors. When controlling for all other variables in our model, enrollment, district racial/ethnic composition, and community indicators of socio-economic status significantly predict the adoption of more protective policies, the number of issues addressed in administrative guidance, and affirming practices. We also find an association between metropolitan status with the number of issues addressed and affirming practices in administrative guidance.

Conclusions

The descriptive results inform district policymakers about the prevalence of protections for gender-expansive students, both through policies official and unofficial guidance, and how districts are addressing specific issues related to transgender students. It suggests where gender-expansive students could be vulnerable and what types of districts may need more resources or training.