Schools and districts across the country have been thrust into the political limelight as they grapple with sometimes competing policy messages about the education of transgender and gender expansive students. Drawing on 2 years of survey data from families of transgender and gender expansive youth in one mountain state, this article uses critical trans politics to examine the ways the current policy climate aligns with the supports schools provide. Results suggest that parents desire policies and practices that transform cis-heteronormative school structures, and they recognize that policy is often limited in its ability to affect the material experiences of youth in schools. We therefore argue that a focus on bathroom bills and policies regarding trans accessibility have distracted from a conversation that needs to be elevated to address broader structural issues and should ultimately be driven by families and trans youth.
AbowitzK. K. (2018). The war on public education: Agonist democracy and the fight for schools as public things. Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 25(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7202/1070712ar
2.
AshleyF. (2019). Puberty blockers are necessary, but they don’t prevent homelessness: Caring for transgender youth by supporting unsupportive parents. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(2), 87–89.
3.
BacchiC. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be?Pearson Australia.
4.
BarnettB. S.NesbitA. E.SorrentinoR. M. (2018). The transgender bathroom debate at the intersection of politics, law, ethics, and science. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 46(2), 232–241. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.003761-18
5.
BartholomaeusC.RiggsD. W. (2017). Whole-of-school approaches to supporting transgender students, staff, and parents. International Journal of Transgenderism18(4), 361–366.
6.
BellD. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93(3), 518–533.
7.
BellD. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown v. Board of Education and the unfulfilled hopes for racial reform. Oxford University Press.
8.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
9.
CarbadoD. (2011). Critical what what?Connecticut Law Review, 43, 1593–1643.
10.
CollinsP. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
11.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 46, 1241–1299.
12.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.
GirouxH. A. (2013). The new extremism: Politics of distraction in the age of austerity. Philosophers for Change. http://philosophersforchange.org
16.
GLSEN & the National Center for Transgender Equality. (2018). Model district policy on transgender and gender nonconforming students. https://www.glsen.org
17.
HalberstamJ. (1998). Female masculinity. Duke University Press.
18.
HalberstamJ. (2018). Trans*: A quick and quirky account of gender variability. University of California Press.
19.
HerriottL.BurnsD. P.YeungB. (2018). Contested spaces: Trans-inclusive school policies and parental sovereignty in Canada. Gender and Education, 30(6), 695–714. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1396291
20.
HorsfordS. D.ScottJ. T.AndersonG. L. (2019). The politics of education policy in an era of inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. Routledge.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Longman.
23.
KlarmanM. J. (1994). How Brown changed race relations: The backlash thesis. The Journal of American History, 81(1), 81–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/2080994
24.
KosciwJ. G.ClarkC. M.TruongN. L.ZongroneA. D. (2020). The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/research/2019-national-school-climate-survey
Ladson-BillingsG. (2013). Lack of achievement or loss of opportunity? In CarterP. L.WelnerK. G. (Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 11–22). Oxford University Press. http://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.001.0001
27.
Ladson-BillingsG.TateW. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47–68.
LaidlawL. (2020). Trans university students’ access to facilities: The limits of accommodation. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, 35(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2020.18
30.
LeonardiB. (2014). Tilling the soil for LGBTQ inclusive policies: A case study of one school’s attempt to bring policy into practice (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado Boulder.
31.
LeonardiB.FarleyA.DragerE. H.GonzalezJ. (forthcoming). Unpacking the T: Sharing the diverse experiences of parents/guardians navigating schools with trans youth. Berkeley Review of Education.
32.
LeonardiB.StaleyS. (2018). What’s involved in ‘the work’? Understanding administrators’ roles in bringing trans-affirming policies into practice. Gender and Education, 30(6), 754–773. http://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1455967
33.
LewisM. M.EckesS. E. (2020). Storytelling, leadership, and the law: Using amicus briefs to understand the impact of school district policies and practices related to transgender student Inclusion. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(1), 46–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19840389
34.
LhamonC. E.GuptaV. (2016). Dear colleague letter on transgender students. US Department of Justice and US Department of Education.
35.
LindblomC. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. The Free Press.
ManginM. M. (2020). Transgender students in elementary schools: How supportive principals lead. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(2), 255–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19843579
38.
MeyerE. J.KeenanH. (2018). Can policies help schools affirm gender diversity? A policy archaeology of transgender-inclusive policies in California schools. Gender and Education, 30(6), 736–753.
NicolazzoZ. (2016). ‘It’s a hard line to walk’: black non-binary trans* collegians’ perspectives on passing, realness, and trans*-normativity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(9), 1173–1188.
41.
NicolazzoZ. (2017a). Imagining a trans* epistemology: What liberation thinks like in postsecondary education. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917697203
42.
NicolazzoZ. (2017b). Introduction: What’s transgressive about trans* studies in education now?International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(3), 211–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1274063
43.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Sage.
RobertsL. M.MarxR. A. (2018). The persistence of policies of protection in LGBTQ research & advocacy. Journal of LGBT Youth, 15(4), 280–299.
46.
SpadeD. (2009). Keynote address: Trans law reform strategies, co-optation, and the potential for transformative change. Women’s Rights Law Reporter, 30, 288–314.
47.
SpadeD. (2011). Law as tactics. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 21(2), 40–71.
48.
SpadeD. (2013). Intersectional resistance and law reform. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 1031–1055.
49.
SpadeD. (2015). Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of law. Duke University Press.
UllmanJ. (2018). Breaking out of the (anti) bullying ‘box’: NYC educators discuss trans/gender diversity-inclusive policies and curriculum. Sex Education, 18(5), 495–510.
