ISTRICT POLICIES AND TRAININGS

Research consistently shows that feeling unsafe at school or experiencing harassment at school

is linked to health and behavior risks for youth, as well as poor school performance. Recent

research shows that bias-motivated harassment is all too common in California’s schools. At the

same time, school non-discrimination policies have been shown to promote school safety and

are a key strategy to prevent negative health and academic outcomes for youth.

What is the state of school safety policy in California? We conducted a survey of one-third of

California’s school districts – here is what we learned.

Key Findings

SAFE SCHOOLS RESEARCH BRIEF

The good news

The vast majority of school districts report

that they have non-discrimination policies

that enumerate all of the categories covered

in the state non-discrimination law.

Therefore, the majority of California school

districts report that they protect students

from discrimination and harassment based

on actual or perceived sexual orientation.

A majority of districts include gender as an

enumerated category.

Some districts are training staff and addi-

tional districts are willing to do more train-

ing on these issues

The bad news

Implementation of district policies does not

occur in many school districts and when

implementation occurs it is often not thor-

ough or consistent.

While the majority of districts report that

they include the enumerated category of

"gender" in their non-discrimination policies,

these policies lack a definition of gender that

makes clear that transgender and gender

non-conforming students are protected from

discrimination.

Some districts are unaware of the need for

training, while some are unable or unwilling

to address the need to implement non-dis-

crimination and harassment policies.

ADMINISTRATOR NOTIFICATION

In the last year, 47% of school districts had notified school site administrators about their district’s non-discrimina-

tion policy through an assembly or training (it is important to note that the content of these trainings or assemblies

is unknown). These results show that many school districts do conduct in-person trainings of faculty: nearly half are

conducting some type of training or assembly to inform school site administrators of the district’s discrimination pol-

icy. At the same time, this means that a majority of school districts are taking a passive approach: the primary form

of notification is through posting a bulletin or including the information in an employee handbook.

DISTRICT POLICIES

While California school districts are making progress by passing inclusive

non-discrimination policies, there are far too many school districts still

NOT in compliance with California law.

• 94% of districts report having a policy specifically prohibiting discrim-

ination based on sexual orientation.

• Only 40% of districts have policies that prevent harassment based on

gender identity, appearance or behavior. This means 60% of school

districts are in direct violation of California law.

■ Yes

■ No

POLICIES THAT PREVENT HARASSMENT

BASED ON GENDER IDENTITY,

APPEARANCE OR BEHAVIOR

60%

YES

40%

SAFE SCHOOLS RESEARCH BRIEF District Policies and Trainings

STUDENT AND PARENT NOTIFICATION

Most of the time, parents and students are passively informed about school safety policies: 71% of parents and 77%

of students were informed by employee or student handbook only. A much smaller proportion, 11% of parents and

23% of students, were informed by a training, meeting or assembly.

The State requires that districts inform students and parents of the district’s non-discrimination policy and about how

to file a complaint about discrimination. Just as with school administrators and teachers, a large majority of parents

and students are not informed in-person.

DISTRICT OBSTACLES TO TRAINING

Resources, expertise and time are the greatest obstacles to staff and student training for districts. The California

Healthy Kids Survey shows that there are incidents of anti-gay harassment and bullying in every school district in the

state. However, almost a third of the districts do not think they have had incidents that necessitate training for

employees and over a quarter do not think they have had incidents that necessitate training for students.

TEACHER TRAININGS

A majority of school districts do not require trainings on how to address discrimination and harassment based on

sexual orientation for their elementary, middle or high schools teachers: Only 54% of districts require that all of

their counselors receive such training.

Of the trainings that do occur, only 59% of school districts report that they include information about addressing

harassment based on gender identity, appearance and behavior. In addition, 23% of school districts do not know

whether trainings include such information.

California law explicitly protects students on the basis of gender identity, appearance and behavior. Teachers, coun-

selors and other school personnel need training in this area, but such training is uncommon.

Elementary school

teachers

Middle school

teachers

High school teachers Counselors

■ Yes

■ I don’t know

■ No

■ Required for All

■ Required for

Some or Available

■ None areTrained

■ Not enough financial resources

■ Not enough time / other issues are a higher priority

■ Not enough district employees with the expertise to conduct trainings on these issues

■ Not aware of any community groups who could provide trainings

■ The issues are controversial for our com-munty

■ Our district hasn’t had any incidents that require such action

■■ Our community doesn’t have a problem with these issues

39.2%

44.2%

31.1%

16.7%

8.9%

31.1%

11.4%

36.9%

45.0%

32.5%

17.5%

15.0%

25.6%

9.2%

49.2%

32.8%

18.0%

48.1%

34.3%

17.7%

49%

34.4%

16.6%

54.5%

33.3%

12.3%

TEACHER AND COUNSELOR TRAINING

TRAININGS INCLUSIVE OF GENDER IDENTITY,

APPEARANCE AND BEHAVIOR

18%

23%

59%

OBSTACLES TO PROVIDING EMPLOYEE TRAINING

ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

DISCRIMINATION

OBSTACLES TO PROVIDING STUDENT ANTI-HARRASS-

MENT EDUCATION BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION

AND GENDER IDENTITY

SAFE SCHOOLS RESEARCH BRIEF District Policies and Trainings

DISTRICT WILLINGNESS TO HOST TRAININGS

Almost 40% of districts expressed interest in working with community

groups who provide training and curriculum on addressing discrimina-

tion and harassment based on sexual orientaion and gender identity.

DISTRICT SIZE

Larger school districts were more likely to report that they notify and train

students, staff, and parents about school safety policies. Nearly all larger

districts provided notification about non-discrimination policies through

handbooks, while only about half of mid-sized and smaller districts noti-

fied in this way. Active training was less common: 1/3 (37%) of large dis-

tricts reported having a training or assembly for students, and far fewer

mid-size or small districts reported such trainings.

57%

83%

2400-8600 Above 8600

■ Interested

■ Not sure

■ Not Interested

100

How Do School Districts Compare to Each Other?

NOTIFY OF NON-DISCRIMINATION

POLICY THROUGH HANDBOOK

District Enrollment (# of students)

20%

39%

41%

STUDENT POPULATION

Compared to unified, high school, and county districts, fewer elementary school districts report having non-discrim-

ination policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity. Further, in elementary districts, teachers and stu-

dents receive much less training on school safety issues, and tolerance education programs are less likely to be fully

inclusive of gender identity and sexual orientation.

STUDENT ECONOMICS

Notably, there are few if any differences in district policies based on average levels of economic disadvantage among

students; districts characterized by economic disadvantage are no more or less likely to have school safety policies in

place. Nor are there conclusive findings regarding the racial and ethnic make up of school districts’ student popula-

tion. These findings make clear that it is important for all school districts, regardless of their demographic make-up,

to implement non- discrimination policies that protect students based on sexual orientation and gender identity,

appearance and behavior.

TOLERANCE PROGRAMS INCLUDE INFOR-

MATION ABOUT GENDER IDENTITY AND

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

REQUIRED TRAINING FOR SCHOOL COUNSELORS

44%

50%

62%

68%

Elementary

districts

County school

districts

Unified school

districts

High school

districts

32%

39%

54%

71%

Elementary

districts

County school

districts

Unified school

districts

High school

districts

SAFE SCHOOLS RESEARCH BRIEF District Policies and Trainings

California Safe Schools Coalition • 160 14th Street • San Francisco, CA. 94103 • 415-626-1680 • www.casafeschools.org

Pass non-discrimination policies that are inclusive of gender identity,

appearance and behavior. This is necessary in order for school districts to be

compliant with California law.

Recognize and acknowledge that passing a non-discrimination policy is only the

first step in creating a safe and non-discriminatory school environment. Verbal

and written notification, mandatory training for staff and students, and inclusive

curriculum are the keys to fully implementing a non-discrimination policy.

Provide annual verbal notification about non-discrimination policies and how to

file a complaint through trainings and assemblies, in addition to annual

notification in writing.

Train teachers and staff to intervene when they hear slurs or negative comments

based on sexual orientation and gender, including gender identity, appearance

and behavior.

Introduce curriculum that includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people

and age-appropriate information about sexual orientation and gender identity.

Utilize available community-based trainers and support staff, parents and

students who are interested in conducting trainings.

Recommendations

ABOUT THE SURVEY

The California Safe Schools Coalition’s Safe Schools Policy Survey was designed to improve

understanding of successes and challenges in local efforts to create safe schools and reduce

harassment in schools. In the summer of 2004 we mailed surveys to every school district in the

state. We received responses from 359, or approximately 36% (out of 1219) of the districts in

California, representing 3,478,000 students or 56% of the students in California schools.

Thirteen (3.6%) were county offices of education, 157 (43.7%) were elementary districts, 144

(40.1%) were unified districts, and 45 (12.5%) were high school districts.

Reproduction of this text is encouraged; however, copies may not be sold, and the California Safe Schools Coalition, A Project of the Tides Center, should be cited as

the source of this information. Comments, questions and requests pertaining to this Research Brief may be e-mailed to info@casafeschools.org.