Education sector responses to LGBT violence addresses the ways in which education systems work to create safe learning environments for LGBT students. Overall, education sector responses tend to focus on homophobia and violence linked to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, and less on transphobia. Most responses focus in some way on diverse expressions of gender and support students to understand that gender may be expressed in a different way from binary models (of masculine and feminine). Responses vary greatly in their scope (from a single class to the national level); duration (from one-off events to several years); and level of support that they enjoy (from individual teachers to the highest levels of government).
A comprehensive education sector response to homophobic and transphobic violence encompasses all of the following elements: effective policies, relevant curricula and learning materials, training and support for staff, support for students and families information and strategic partnerships, and monitoring and evaluation. This type of approach could also be applied in the form of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA's). GSAs are “student-led clubs open to youth of all sexual orientations with the purpose of supporting sexual minority students and their heterosexual allies and also reducing prejudice, discrimination, and harassment within the school. Multiple studies have found evidence to support that GSAs are capable of reducing violence, bullying, aggression, and suicide attempts within the student population as a whole, but had the most pronounced effects on LGBT-identified students. Poteat, V. Paul et al. “Gay–Straight Alliances Are Associated With Student Health: A Multischool Comparison of LGBTQ and Heterosexual Youth.” Journal of Research on Adolescence 23.2 (2013): 319–330. Web. Marx, Joseph, and Heather Kettrey. “Gay-Straight Alliances Are Associated with Lower Levels of School-Based Victimization of LGBTQ+ Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 45.7 (2016): 1269–1282. Web.
Very few countries have education sector policies that address homophobic and transphobic violence or include sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in curricula or learning materials. In most countries, staff lack training and support to address sexual orientation and gender identity/expression and to prevent and respond to homophobic and transphobic violence. Although many countries provide support for students who experience violence, services are often ill-equipped to deal with homophobic and transphobic violence. Few countries collect data on the nature, prevalence or impact of homophobic and transphobic violence, which contributes to low awareness of the problem and lack of evidence for planning effective responses.
In general terms, the range of responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings appears to correlate to a country's: socio-cultural context (in terms of the society's beliefs and attitudes towards sexual and gender diversity, as well as to human rights and gender equality); and legal context (in terms of the rights of LGBTI individuals and the situation of human rights in general).
Policy approaches Few countries have developed education sector policies to prevent and address homophobic and transphobic violence in schools, reflecting the fact that recognition of the prevalence and harmful impact of such violence in the sector is a relatively recent development. Most countries that have developed policies have taken one of the two following approaches: Integrating references to sexual orientation and gender identity or to homophobic and transphobic discrimination and violence into existing education sector policies on general violence, bullying or discrimination. Developing specific education sector policies that focus on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. The first approach aims to protect and support LGBTI students by mainstreaming issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity into broader policies to prevent and address discrimination and violence. However, available data suggest that in countries where policies do not clearly refer to homophobic and transphobic violence, this form of violence may not be addressed by schools. For example, a large-scale qualitative research study conducted in 19 European countries in 2013 by the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency concluded that: 'Where anti-bullying measures are in place, these are often generic and they may be ineffective in dealing specifically with bullying on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. FRA, Professionally speaking: challenges to achieving equality for LGBT people. Vienna - Austria: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016. The second approach requires political leadership and a legal environment that is conducive to the protection of the rights of LGBTI people. A number of countries have developed specific education sector policies that address homophobic and transphobic violence in schools and other educational settings.
Work conducted in countering violence in schools, in general, has shown that 'school and system-wide interventions', often referred to as 'whole school' strategies or approaches, are particularly effective. The same applies to education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic violence. In this report, 'whole school' responses to homophobic and transphobic violence are also referred to as 'comprehensive' education sector responses, which can also be referred to as 'holistic', 'systematic', 'systemic', 'system-wide'. These types of approaches are usually most effective when they are implemented within the scope of interacting with the community as a whole. Through a systematic approach, the intended impact is not strictly limited to campus grounds but permeates the barriers between the school and its surrounding populace. Often, aggression and violence does not occur in isolated instances, but rather occurs as a product of the school's negative climate which may endorse or even encourage bullying and/or aggression. Reviews of existing programs that encompass the participation of the students, teachers, and community as a whole have demonstrated their ability in preventing and reducing suicide attempts and peer-to-peer aggression. O’Malley Olsen, Emily et al. “School Violence and Bullying Among Sexual Minority High School Students, 2009–2011.” Journal of Adolescent Health 55.3 (2014): 432–438. Web.
National policies Progress in implementing measures to prevent and address homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings varies between regions and countries. The most comprehensive initiatives are being implemented in Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the United States, and a number of countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America. However, the education sector response has been limited in the majority of countries in the world, particularly in Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Central Asia and some areas of the Pacific. In addition, many countries do not have comprehensive strategies to prevent and address violence in schools in general.
National legislation against discrimination (as a whole) has served as a basis to develop national policies – which either include, or are specific to, the education sector – that address discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. In general, the education sector tends to address homophobic and transphobic violence through wider policies on violence, such as those related to bullying in schools or safe schools.
Asia In Asia, the Philippines is the only country to include specific references to violence on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in a national law (2013).UNESCO, 'From Insult to Inclusion: Asia-Pacific report on school bullying, violence and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity', UNESCO, Paris and Bangkok, 2015. In Japan, in 2015, the Ministry of Education issued landmark guidance urging local education boards to ensure that schools cater to the needs of LGBT students. At a more local level, the 2004 Gender Equity Education Act in Taiwan of China seeks to eliminate gender stereotypes from the curriculum and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in schools. However, a regional report developed for this review notes that implementation measures for this Act may be inadequate to effectively prevent and address discrimination.
All other countries in the Asia region, apart from Pakistan, have legal or policy frameworks to address violence in educational institutions or the health of minors, although they vary in their nature and jurisdiction. In India, following a 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court recognizing the status of Hijras, the University Grants Commission called on all universities to recognize transgender students and to include a transgender category on all application forms, academic testimonials and official documents.UNESCO, 'Asia-Pacific Consultation on School Bullying based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity / Expression - Meeting Report', UNESCO, Bangkok, Thailand, 2015.
North America In 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that LGBT students and same-sex parents had the right to be safe from discrimination and to see their lives reflected in the school curriculum.Supreme Court Judgements, 'Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, 4 S.C.R. 710, 2002 SCC 86', 2012. [Online]. Available: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2030/index.do . [Accessed: 10-Aug-2015].M. Smith, 'Questioning heteronormativity: Lesbian and gay challenges to educational practice in British Columbia, Canada', Soc. Mov. Stud., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 131–145, 2004. In 2005, it ruled that school districts were 'liable for the discriminatory conduct of the students who harassed' and that they had a duty to provide students with 'an educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment'.Court of Appeal for British Columbia, 'School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v. Jubran, 2005 BCCA 201 (CanLII)', 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/ doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html. [Accessed: 10-Aug-2015]. The Ontario Education Act of Canada was amended in 2012 to specifically integrate attention to homophobic bullying following several years of amendments to Safe School legislation.Legislative Assembly of Ontario, 'Bill 13, Accepting Schools Act', 2012. [Online]. Available: http://ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2549 . [Accessed: 23-Sep- 2015]. The Act strengthened legal obligations for school boards to foster positive school environments and to prevent and address inappropriate student behaviour, including homophobic or transphobic violence. For example, principals must suspend students and consider expulsion for misbehaviour that is motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred, including that which is based on gender, sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. School boards must provide support for victims of bullying, witnesses and perpetrators. In Quebec, legislation was adopted in 2012 for schools to provide healthy and safe learning environments, allowing every student to develop their full potential regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.Assemblée nationale du Québec, 'Bill 56: An Act to Prevent and Stop Bullying and Violence in Schools', 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/ projets-loi/projet-loi-56-39-2.html. [Accessed: 20-Aug-2015].