How Bright Is the Restorative Rainbow? The Experiences of Sexual/Affectual Minority Youth Within a Restorative School District

Abstract

The widespread adoption of restorative practices in U.S. schools to address educational inequities has been significant. However, the existing literature on restorative practices lacks research regarding the impact of this approach on sexual/affectual minority students. In our study, we explore the experiences of sexual/affectual minority students in Grades 3–12 compared to heterosexual students within a school district implementing restorative practices. Our findings indicate that sexual/affectual minority students face more discrimination and feeling left out, and less sense of belonging in school, feeling supported by adults, and feeling valued in comparison to their heterosexual peers. They are also less likely to feel heard or safe during talking circles. The article reports on these findings and concludes by discussing the implications and recommendations for school counseling practice and future research.

Keywords

restorative practices school reform LGBTQ+queer theory sexual minority

Introduction

School counselors and educators across the country are implementing restorative practices to transform schools into spaces that emphasize belonging and relational trust with the intention to also uproot traditional punitive discipline approaches that contribute to the school-to-prison nexus (Zakszeski & Rutherford, 2021). An emerging body of OW scholarship has found that restorative practices can positively impact school climate, but the restorative practices literature is, as of yet, silent on outcomes specifically related to sexual/affectual minority students—those who have sexual/romantic orientations outside the heterosexual norm: lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, polysexual, asexual, queer, and questioning. For the past 7 years, our team has engaged in a community-based participatory research university/district partnership to evaluate the implementation of restorative practices. In keeping with evaluation directives from our community partners, this empirical study utilized exploratory quantitative methodology to investigate the experiences of sexual/affectual minority students compared to heterosexual students. This article focuses solely on the experiences of sexual/affectual minority students rather than lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer+ (LGBTQ+) identities more broadly to emphasize and honor the distinction between sexual/affectual orientation and gender minority identities.

Literature

School Counseling and Restorative Practices

Both the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019) and ASCA Student Standards: Mindsets & Behaviors for Student Success (ASCA, 2021) call on school counselors to advocate for social justice by utilizing data to both identify and address structures that hinder achievement for diverse populations (ASCA, 2019). In their pursuit of equity and social justice, school counseling scholars and practitioners are embracing restorative practices as a paradigm to advance equity within school systems (Domina et al., 2022; Gomez et al., 2021; Gregory et al., 2021; Savitz-Romer & Nicola, 2022; Smith et al., 2017, 2021). Restorative practices are rooted in indigenous cultures and religious traditions wherein community belongingness and social cohesion are prioritized (Evans & Vaandering, 2022). Use of restorative practices is guided by the following assumptions: (a) Students in healthy relationships develop a sense of belonging and community, (b) positive relationships in a group generate an inherent drive to uphold healthy norms in the community, (c) caring accountability to one another further reduces the likelihood of doing harm or engaging in misbehavior, and (d) the work to build relationships and nurture socially just communities requires intention (Darling-Hammond & Gregory, 2023). In short, restorative practices entail a wide array of relational skills and tools designed to proactively foster secure relationships so that misbehavior is less common and, when harmful behavior occurs, the conditions for active repair are present (Gregory et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2017).

Although scholars have identified substantive limitations within the restorative practices empirical literature (Zakszeski & Rutherford, 2021), most studies report positive outcomes of implementing restorative practices, including improvements in school climate (Augustine et al., 2018), increased feelings of student belonging (Velez et al., 2020), modest reductions in disparities in exclusionary discipline (Green et al., 2019), and social/emotional learning growth (Skrzypek et al., 2020). In one systematic restorative practices literature review, Zakszeski and Rutherford (2021) examined 71 methodologically diverse study designs reporting outcomes from nine countries. Most studies found promising outcomes related to school climate, gains in social/emotional skills, and reductions in exclusionary discipline, with only slight reductions in discipline disparities. At the same time, Zakeski and Rutherford’s review made no mention of sexual/affectual minority concerns. In another recent systematic review, Lodi et al. (2021) examined studies from seven countries that addressed implementation of restorative practices. As in Zakeseki and Rutherford’s work, Lodi and colleagues found that restorative practices produced positive results with respect to discipline, school climate, and social/emotional skills in a majority of the studies. Only four of the studies reviewed found a reduction in discipline disparities, and, again, outcomes related to sexual/affectual minority students specifically were left unaddressed (Lodi et al., 2021).

Sexual/Affectual Minority Students’ Experiences in Schools

Scholars in the field of human development have found that individuals begin to encounter milestones such as attraction and questioning one’s sexual orientation as early as age 9 (Bishop et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2021). When considering the extant literature on K–12 educational experiences of sexual/affectual minority students, this means that students as young as third grade experience school systems as sites of harm and oppression (Marraccini et al., 2022; Moyano & del Mar Sanchez-Fuentes, 2020). A recent systematic literature review revealed that sexual/affectual minority students face significant discrimination in schools and are at a higher risk of experiencing various forms of bullying compared to their heterosexual peers (Moyano & del Mar Sanchez-Fuentes, 2020). The annual nationwide study from GLSEN (Kosciw et al., 2022) has consistently found that an overwhelming majority of sexual/affectual minority students encounter heterosexist language, victimization, and discrimination, leading to avoidance of school activities or even school absenteeism. Recent research has indicated that sexual/affectual minority students are denied access to curriculum that reflects their identities (Antonelli & Sembiante, 2022) and punitive discipline data shows overrepresentation of sexual/affectual minority students, with pansexual students particularly affected (Kosciw et al., 2022; Snapp et al., 2015). The deleterious impact of ecological heterosexism on the health, well-being, and development of sexual/affectual minority students is evident, with LGBTQ+ youth exhibiting increased risk of suicidal thoughts, self-injury, and related behaviors (Marraccini et al., 2022; Speer et al., 2022).

This critical state of affairs has garnered attention within the school counseling literature, accompanied by calls for the field to challenge heteronormative injustice and equip school counselors with the necessary competencies to meet the needs of sexual/affectual minority students (Beck & Wikoff, 2020; Gonzalez & McNulty, 2010; Goodrich & Luke, 2009; Smith, 2013; Smith et al., 2021; Whitman et al., 2007). As school counseling practice intersects with the implementation of restorative practices (Boulden, 2021; Case & Amand, 2014; DePalmer & Livick, 2022; Smith et al., 2017), studies by school counseling scholars and practitioners that examine how restorative practices can address the specific needs of sexual/affectual minority students are crucial (ASCA, 2023). If evaluation data finds that implementing restorative practices fails to sufficiently disrupt structures of heteronormativity, school counselors can utilize these data to inform systemic advocacy and transform schools into affirming spaces for sexual/affectual minority students.

Although scholars have explored the potential of restorative practices to redress structural racism, ableism, and classism, notably absent from the literature is scholarship on the transformative potential of restorative practices as a tool for disrupting structural heterosexism. This state of affairs can be understood through the aid of critical theory, which posits that individuals, including scholars of restorative practices and school counseling, are socialized to feel comfortable in relations of domination and subordination resulting in a lack of attention to the needs of marginalized groups (Kincheloe, 2008). As a result, both the empirical and theoretical restorative practices literature has participated in the larger heteronormative knowledge production complex that erases the experiences of sexual/affectual minority students through omission (Martino et al., 2020). In other words, by failing to gather data specifically from students identifying as sexual/affectual minority when conducting research, well-intended restorative practices researchers reinforce the subversive, heterosexist discourse that the experiences of these students in schools is of little importance. Therefore, for those implementing and studying restorative practices to make good on this approach’s promise to promote inclusion, belonging, and safety for all students within a school community, examining how restorative practices address the specific needs of sexual/affectual minority students is crucial.

Purpose

Within the context of a multiyear, community-based participatory research project (Garnett, Moore, et al., 2019), this quantitative exploratory study utilized a survey instrument to investigate the experiences of sexual/affectual minority students compared to heterosexual students within one school district that has implemented restorative practices in grades K–12 for 6 years. Specifically, we analyzed student data to explore the following research questions:

1. What are the experiences of sexual/affectual minority students compared to heterosexual students within restorative practices community-building circles?

2. How do sexual/affectual minority students perceive and experience adult responses to their misbehavior compared to heterosexual students within the restorative practices framework?

3. What are sexual/affectual minority students’ perceptions of the school climate and their sense of belongingness compared to heterosexual students within a school that has implemented restorative practices?

4. How do the above results differ when considering different school levels (elementary, middle, and high school)?

5. How do sexual/affectual minority students experience microaggressions and discrimination compared to heterosexual students within a school that has implemented restorative practices?

Research Context and Design

In 2016, our partner school district conducted a district-wide equity inclusion report that revealed significant exclusionary discipline disparities for students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch, Black and brown children, and students with disabilities. In response, restorative practices were identified as a promising systemic approach to reduce exclusionary discipline and improve school climate. To support this work, school district leadership signed a comprehensive memorandum of understanding (MOU) in spring 2017 with our research team and the vice president for research at the University of Vermont, supporting a multiyear, mixed-methods, collaborative research partnership to evaluate the efficacy of implementing restorative practices. The MOU explicated and operationalized research activities, consent procedures, data collection, sharing and storage, and institutional research board review.

Although our partner school district started implementing restorative practices district-wide in earnest in 2017, several years’ worth of thinking and conceptualizing the issue, solutions, and related implementation needs were dedicated to operationalizing restorative practices. As a result, implementation efforts entailed philosophical and programmatic shifts, including: (a) explicitly naming and seeing the value of restorative practices for teachers and adults in the district as a tool for growth, healing, and relationship building with each other; (b) starting planning for professional development activities and restorative practices with a readiness assessment to have more information about buy-in and implementation needs; (c) creating building-level restorative practice teams that would create an implementation map for their school community during the first year of implementation; (d) a focus on starting the restorative practices work at Tier 1 and going “slow”; and (e) embedding professional development activities, support, and coaching on restorative practices implementation through existing and newly created district-wide structures for peer learning and sharing.

The program also invited parents, care providers, and community stakeholders to participate in implementation efforts. Early in the process, we held community forums to introduce families to restorative practices and to address questions and concerns. Another key component of early implementation was inviting representatives from community justice centers and community youth counseling centers to serve on steering commitments and as consultants, provide professional development and training, and assist in assessment needs such as instrument development and data collection efforts.

Instrumentation

The data for this exploratory quantitative study was collected in 2022 through the administration of the Student Restorative Practices and Equity Experience Scale (SRPEES; Simpfenderfer et al., 2023). The SRPEES was developed through collaborative processes that integrated best practices in scale design and embodied our community-based participatory research social justice methodological assumptions and values (see Garnett, Moore, et al. [2019], for a fuller discussion). Early instrument design and item generation entailed convening a community working group of nine people—university researchers, school district administrators, local community justice center professionals, and regional restorative practices trainers—to share ideas, review other instruments already in use, and brainstorm initial items that would support the goals for our particular community aligned with the restorative practices implementation context within our district partner schools. Other instruments that served to seed our instrument were Anne Gregory’s Restorative Practices Use Student Scale (Gregory et al., 2016), the Chicago Public Schools Impact of Restorative Practices Survey (2017), the PBIS School Climate Survey (Center on PBIS, 2022), the School-Based Racial and Ethnic Microaggressions Scale (Keels et al., 2017), and locally developed items by school-based restorative practices practitioners measuring program implementation (Kidde, 2017).

Our community-based participatory research project team next engaged in multiple rounds of participant feedback, pilot testing, and item-generation brainstorming. For example, we presented the initial survey items to a consortium of more than 50 practicing classroom teachers and administrators, who meet monthly to receive restorative practices professional development, support each other in restorative practices implementation, and share out data and stories about the restorative practices work in their schools. This group provided invaluable feedback on our draft SRPEES, offering more developmentally attuned language, calling us in for not initially including demographic items to allow transgender and gender-nonbinary students to self-identify, and to be more explicit about the context within a socioecological system of schools. We then field tested the instrument through a “think aloud” exercise, inviting students to complete the survey while verbally expressing any thoughts occurring during the process (Dillman et al., 2014. The field test administrations provided valuable knowledge regarding the time required to complete the survey and how the directions, items, and procedures could be understood and interpreted by students taking the survey in the future. Following a rigorous process of stakeholder feedback and pilot testing, we had a scale that consists of items that inquire about various aspects of students’ experiences, including their participation in restorative circles, perceptions of the school climate, encounters with microaggressions, and observations of how adults handle misbehavior.

The final step of our instrument design process was to administer the survey districtwide, and then statistically examine the construct validity of the SRPEES using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test the theoretical foundations of the instrument. A total of 1575 students completed the survey across 11 schools in the district (about 60% of students in Grades 3–12) for the validation study. Parents and care providers received multiple communications that they had the right to opt out of having their student complete the instrument. The opening administration procedures also invited students to opt out of completing the survey if they chose.

Our CFA analysis found evidence supporting the construct validity for the SRPEES with a five-factor structure of Restorative Practices Benefits, Restorative Practices Quality, School Support, Repair Harm, and Feeling Left Out. The quality of the instrument was assessed for both validity and reliability. Construct validity was assessed using fit indices produced by the CFA for overall goodness of fit, and for factor loading estimates of items on the expected constructs. Each of the fit indices suggested that the survey items were effective in measuring the expected constructs: (125) = 238.343, p < 0.001, SRMR = 0.038, RMSEA = 0.036 (90% CI = 0.029–0.043), CLI = 0.969, and TLI = 0.961; factor loadings ranged from 0.294 to 0.850 and were statistically significant. To assess construct reliability, we utilized the omega coefficient (ω), which is a more conservative and preferrable measure of reliability compared to Cronbach’s alpha (Hayes & Coutts, 2020). The construct reliability results were: Restorative Practices Benefits (ω = 0.79), Restorative Practices Quality (ω = 0.61), School Support (ω = 0.86), Repair Harm (ω = 0.84), and Feeling Left Out (ω = 0.80), indicating good to excellent measures of reliability across the constructs.

Methods

The SRPEES was administered to students in Grades 3–12 at schools that are actively implementing restorative practices within one district. The school district administers the survey annually using Google Forms; this study draws from the spring 2022 semester data. Each spring, parents receive notification in advance regarding the purpose of the survey; the University of Vermont’s involvement with deidentified, secondary data analysis; and an invitation for their child to opt out should they so choose. The survey is administered during class time to allow teachers to answer clarifying questions that might arise. Students are given the choice to participate or to decline. The first question on the survey asks students if they have participated in restorative circles at least once during the year; students who respond “yes” then receive questions specifically related to their experiences within restorative circles. All students receive questions related to school climate and microaggressions, and demographic questions related to gender and sexual orientation.

Sample

Across the districts’ 11 schools, a total of 1751 students completed the 2022 survey, equating to 69% of students in Grades 3–12. Among the respondents, 80% reported participating in at least one restorative circle during the academic year. The demographics of students who completed the survey are included in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample Demographics.

Demographic Variable	n (%)
Grade	196 (11%)
3rd	167 (9%)
4th	209 (11%)
5th	188 (10%)
6th	188 (10%)
7th	178 (10%)
8th	187 (10%)
9th	146 (8%)
10th	102 (5%)
11th	150 (8%)
12th	165 (9%)
Race
American Indian/Alaskan Native	58 (3%)
Asian, Asian American	162 (9%)
Black/African American	2004 (11%)
African	250 (14%)
Hispanic or Latinx	55 (3%)
Middle Eastern	17 (<1%)
Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander	<10 (<1%)
White/Non-Latino	881 (48%)
Multiracial	71 (4%)
Gender
Girl	713 (39%)
Boy	772 (42%)
Neither a boy or a girl	54 (3%)
Girl, but sometimes don’t feel like a girl	63 (3%)
Boy, but sometimes don’t feel like a boy	28 (2%)
I am not sure yet	44 (2%)
I don’t know what this questions means	10 (<1%)
Decline to answer	57 (3%)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual or straight	760 (41%)
Gay or lesbian	93 (5%)
Bisexual or pansexual	233 (13%)
Asexual	41 (2%)
Queer	40 (2%)
I am not sure yet	175 (10%)
I don’t know what this questions means	136 (7%)
Decline to answer	183 (10%)
Participated in at least one restorative circle
Yes	1408 (76%)
No	343 (19%)

Measures

The SRPEES was designed to capture students’ perceptions of encounters that can be conceptually grouped within four domains: (a) experiences in restorative circles, (b) how adults respond to misbehavior, (c) school climate and sense of belonging, and (d) microaggressions and discrimination. For a thorough explication of how these domains emerged as a factor structure during the CFA test that was used to establish instrument validity, please see Simpfenderfer et al. (2023). Table 2 presents the full list of questions and descriptive statistics from the SPREES.

Table 2.

Survey Item Descriptive Statistics.

Survey Question	M	SD
At this school, there are adults who care about what happens to me	4.09	1.03
The adults at school treat me and others fairly	4.04	0.97
I feel left out by adults because of who I am	1.59	0.95
If l have a problem, there are adults in my school that I can talk to	3.88	1.18
I feel like adults in my school support my overall well-being	4.06	1.02
If I cause harm, my teachers treat me with respect, are calm, and are open to what I have to say	3.58	1.31
If I cause harm, I am given an opportunity to understand the harm and make it right	3.84	1.24
I feel left out by peers because of who I am	1.80	1.06
I feel respected at school because of who I am	3.99	1.01
During restorative circles, I am making connections with students who I wasn’t friends with before	2.80	1.17
I enjoy my time in restorative circles	3.06	1.25
I feel safe participating in restorative circles	4.06	1.07
I feel I am listened to during restorative circles	3.88	1.01
I feel supported helping to lead classroom restorative circles	3.10	1.29
My teacher uses restorative circles as a time for us to share feelings, ideas, and experiences	3.85	1.19
I feel like I belong in my school	3.92	1.09
Our school shows respect for people from all backgrounds and cultures	4.21	0.96
I feel like my school values my identity, abilities, language(s), and culture	4.15	0.99

Experiences in Restorative Circles

Students who responded that they had participated in at least one restorative circle during the year were also presented with a series of questions regarding their experiences within those circles. Examples of questions related to restorative circles include asking if the student felt listened to within restorative circles, if the circles helped them connect with other students, and whether they feel safe participating in restorative circles. Students responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Always).

Experiences with Adults’ Response to Misbehavior

All students who completed the survey were asked about their experiences with adults in the school. These questions included: “If I cause harm, my teachers treat me with respect, are calm, and are open to what I have to say” and “If I cause harm, I am given the opportunity to understand the harm and make it right.” Students responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Always).

School Climate and Sense of Belonging

The survey also asked all students to respond to statements related to school climate and sense of belonging. Sample items in this domain include: “I feel like I belong at my school” and “Our school shows respect for people from all backgrounds and cultures.” Students responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Always).

Microaggressions and Discrimination

Finally, all students who completed the survey were asked about their experiences with microaggressions and discrimination at school. Microaggression questions included “I feel left out by adults because of who I am” and “I feel left out by peers because of who I am.” Students responded on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with responses ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Always). To capture discrimination at school, students were asked if they had experienced different types of discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, learning disability, physical disability, language spoken, or the amount of money their family has. Students were invited to check all that applied to represent the types of discrimination they experienced.

Demographic Questions

The SRPEES asked a series of demographic questions, including race, gender, sexual orientation, language spoken at home, and if the student is on an IEP. The sexual orientation questions allowed students to select as many identifies as they identified with; options included heterosexual or straight, gay or lesbian, bisexual or pansexual, asexual, queer, and “I am not sure yet.” It also offered an “other” category in which students could self-identify, and the option to indicate “I don’t know what this question means.” Although we prefer not to collapse identify categories and experiences can vary across different identities, to protect students’ anonymity, sexual minority categories were collapsed into LGBQA (gay or lesbian, bisexual or pansexual, asexual, queer, and I am not sure yet) and heterosexual or straight.

Data Analysis

Due to this study’s exploratory nature, we conducted tests of difference to examine our research questions. To answer our first three research questions, we used independent sample t tests to examine the differences between sexual/affectual minority and heterosexual students. Each item related to experiences with restorative circles, experiences with adults responses to misbehavior, and school climate and sense of belonging. To answer our fourth research question, we divided the sample into elementary (30%), middle (30%), and high school students (40%) to examine differences in experiences across school levels. To answer our fifth research question, we examined the differences in the categorical variables of types of discrimination experienced between the sexual/affectual minority and heterosexual students. We utilized a chi-square analysis to examine these differences because the responses are dichotomous (1 = student experienced a specific type of discrimination, 0 = student did not experience a specific discrimination). Chi-square analysis allowed us to examine differences in the frequency of responses between sexual/affectual minority and heterosexual students. Due to small n size in the discrimination responses at the separate elementary, middle, and high school levels, the chi-square analysis was run only at the district level.

Results

The results of our analysis show that sexual/affectual minority students had small yet statistically significant differing experiences compared to their heterosexual peers regarding feeling safe and listened to within restorative circles, belonging in school, feeling supported by adults, and feeling valued, and in feeling left out and discriminated against. We discuss results as they relate to each of our research questions in turn.

Experience Within Restorative Circles

At the district level, we found statistically significant differences between sexual/affectual minority students and heterosexual students in perceptions of feeling listened to and feeling safe during restorative circles. Sexual/affectual minority students were less likely to report feeling listened to or safe within circles, although the effect size was small. When breaking the sample into school level, differences in students’ perceptions of feeling listened to were only statistically significant at the middle and high school levels (see Table 3 for details).

Table 3.

Experiences With Restorative Circles Among Sexual/Affectual Minority and Heterosexual Students.

	Sexual/Affectual Minority			Heterosexual			Sig	Cohen’s d
	N	M	SD	n	M	SD	Sig	Cohen’s d
I feel I am listened to during restorative circles
Overall	585	3.79	0.972	718	3.93	1.01	**	0.144
Elementary	220	3.93	0.96	162	4.08	0.891
Middle	196	3.84	0.772	299	4.06	0.901	**	0.260
High	169	3.54	1.14	257	3.68	1.16
I feel safe participating in restorative circles
Overall	580	3.94	1.06	715	4.1	1.04	**	0.158
Elementary	220	3.93	0.96	162	4.08	0.891
Middle	195	3.85	0.875	299	4.13	0.955	***	0.302
High	168	3.6	1.18	257	3.95	1.12	**	0.312
I enjoy my time in restorative circles
Overall	589	3	1.23	711	3.01	1.25
Elementary	220	3.58	1.14	160	3.71	1.1
Middle	197	2.66	1.04	295	2.75	1.17
High	172	2.67	1.28	256	2.87	1.28
My teacher uses restorative circles as a time for us to share feelings, ideas, and experiences
Overall	581	3.8	1.16	719	3.82	1.22
Elementary	219	4.12	0.998	160	4.15	0.953
Middle	195	3.9	1.01	297	4.1	1.01
High	168	3.26	1.33	262	3.3	1.4
During restorative circles, I am making connections with students who I wasn’t friends with before
Overall	581	2.77	1.14	717	2.79	1.17
Elementary	217	3.15	1.05	161	3.11	1.15
Middle	193	2.55	0.989	299	2.64	1.1
High	171	2.54	1.27	257	2.75	1.23
I feel supported helping to lead classroom restorative circles
Overall	446	3.02	1.27	545	3.17	1.26
Elementary	164	3.4	1.31	107	3.63	1.32
Middle	155	2.96	1.14	235	3.2	1.15
High	127	2.58	1.2	203	2.89	1.3

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Experience With Adult Responses to Students’ Misbehavior

We found no statistically significant differences between sexual/affectual minority students and their heterosexual peers for the questions related to adult responses to their misbehavior. Examining the different school levels also did not reveal statistically significant difference (see Table 4 for details).

Table 4.

Experiences With Adults’ Responses to Misbehavior and Microaggressions, Among Sexual/Affectual Minority and Heterosexual Students.

	Sexual/Affectual Minority			Heterosexual			Sig	Cohen’s d
	N	M	SD	n	M	SD	Sig	Cohen’s d
I feel left out by adults because of who I am
Overall	523	1.76	1.02	635	1.5	0.883	***	0.268
Elementary	182	1.58	1.07	144	1.47	0.953
Middle	173	1.95	1.05	251	1.53	0.873	***	0.436
High	168	1.75	0.901	240	1.49	0.953	**	0.299
I feel left out by peers because of who I am
Overall	544	2.05	1.14	655	1.65	0.967	***	0.380
Elementary	187	1.88	1.18	143	1.57	0.997	***	0.380
Middle	184	2.14	1.12	261	1.71	0.965	***	0.383
High	173	2.14	1.11	251	1.63	0.951	***	0.380
If I cause harm, my teachers treat me with respect, are calm, and are open to what I have to say
Overall	358	3.56	1.29	430	3.51	1.3
Elementary	160	3.73	1.35	128	3.73	1.3
Middle	109	3.48	1.24	187	3.41	1.31
High	104	3.54	1.16	193	3.7	1.22
If I cause harm, I am given an opportunity to understand the harm and make it right
Overall	359	3.82	1.21	435	3.81	1.23
Elementary	170	4.14	1.17	133	4.23	1.02
Middle	89	3.37	1.19	115	3.43	1.27
High	85	3.52	1.21	109	3.5	1.35

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Perceptions of School Climate and Sense of Belonging

Within our partner school district, sexual/affectual minority students had statistically significantly lower perceptions of feeling like they had an adult they could go to with problems, feeling like they belonged at school, feeling like they were respected for who they were at school, feeling supported by adults, and feeling like they were valued for who they were within their school, compared to their heterosexual peers. When looking at the different school levels, the only item with statistically significant difference between elementary-aged sexual/affectual minority students and heterosexual students was feeling respected for who they were, with an effect size of .35. At the middle school level, sexual/affectual minority students also had statistically significantly lower perceptions of feeling that adults cared about them; the effect size was small at .23. At the high school level, sexual/affectual minority students reported lower levels of feeling adults treated them fairly, also with a small effect size of .27 (see Table 5 for details).

Table 5.

School Climate and Sense of Belonging, Sexual/Affectual Minority and Heterosexual Students.

	Sexual/Affectual Minority			Heterosexual			Sig	Cohen’s d
	N	M	SD	n	M	SD	Sig	Cohen’s d
If l have a problem, there are adults in my school that I can talk to
Overall	605	3.73	1.22	758	3.95	1.14	***	0.181
Elementary	220	4.1	1.19	161	4.18	1.13
Middle	198	3.42	1.16	300	3.82	1.16	***	0.345
High	187	3.63	1.21	297	3.95	1.09	**	0.273
The adults at school treat me and others fairly
Overall	599	3.98	0.983	759	4.03	0.96
Elementary	215	4.34	0.924	162	4.2	0.992
Middle	197	3.74	0.975	300	3.87	0.973
High	187	3.83	0.94	297	4.1	0.906	**	0.296
I feel like I belong in my school
Overall	601	3.68	1.14	758	4.01	1.02	***	0.311
Elementary	215	4.01	1.13	162	4.22	1.02
Middle	198	3.45	1.11	299	3.94	0.99	***	0.469
High	188	3.53	1.08	297	3.97	1.03	***	0.417
I feel respected at school because of who I am
Overall	599	3.77	1.06	753	4.1	0.947	***	0.329
Elementary	217	4.04	1.07	159	4.39	0.892	***	0.353
Middle	195	3.52	1.05	300	3.95	0.98	***	0.432
High	187	3.72	1	294	4.1	0.908	***	0.397
I feel like adults in my school support my overall well-being
Overall	602	3.97	1.04	754	4.08	0.983	*	0.108
Elementary	218	4.4	0.917	159	4.39	0.834
Middle	197	3.69	1.01	300	4.01	0.964	***	0.328
High	187	3.76	1.03	295	3.98	1.04	*	0.210
I feel like my school values my identity, abilities, language(s), and culture
Overall	598	4.05	1	753	4.17	0.97	*	0.122
Elementary	217	4.48	0.882	161	4.48	0.859
Middle	197	3.74	0.979	299	4.02	1.01	**	0.277
High	184	3.87	0.994	293	4.15	0.951	**	0.293
At this school, there are adults who care about what happens to me
Overall	600	4.03	1.04	755	4.08	1.03
Elementary	216	4.42	0.921	161	4.4	1
Middle	197	3.74	1.03	300	3.97	1.01	*	0.233
High	187	3.88	1.06	294	4.02	1.02

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Experiences of Microaggressions and Discrimination

Overall, sexual/affectual minority students were more likely than their heterosexual peers to report feeling left out by adults and peers because of who they are. When looking at the school-level analysis, elementary sexual/affectual minority students reported that they were more likely to feel left out only by peers.

For the questions related to whether students experienced discrimination on the basis of different identities, sexual/affectual minority students were more likely to report being discriminated against on the basis of gender, learning disability, sexual orientation, language spoken at home, and how much money they have (see Table 6 for details).

Table 6.

Chi-Square Analysis of Sexual/Affectual Minority Students’ Experiences With Discrimination.

	Sexual/Affectual Minority		Heterosexual		χ²(1)	p	ɸ
	N	%	n	%	χ²(1)	p	ɸ
Gender	156	28	66	10	72.442	***	0.239
Race	51	9	70	10	0.299
Learning disability	53	9	34	5	10.203	***	0.090
Physical disability	27	5	20	3	3.315
Sexual orientation	112	20	20	3	97.181	***	0.277
Language	36	6	23	3	6.839	**	0.074
Money	53	9	32	5	11.765	***	0.097

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

Our findings suggest that across numerous indices, sexual/affectual minority students are having a more challenging experience than that of heir heterosexual peers within a school district implementing restorative practices. With the exception of the category Adult Responses to Misbehavior, the restorative practices policy aspirations for students (i.e., experiencing a sense of belonging; feeling heard, respected, and valued for who they are; feeling safe; and feeling like they have an adult they could go to with problems who will support them) are not being realized with sexual/affectual minority students to the same degree as they are with students who identify as heterosexual. That being said, the effect sizes of our findings were small to medium. Therefore, in terms of practical significance, although our findings merit thoughtful consideration and discussion, further research is needed to determine a fuller picture of the degree of inequity.

Sexual/Affectual Minority Competence Within Restorative Circles

At the district level, we found statistically significant differences between sexual/affectual minority students and heterosexual students in perceptions of feeling listened to and feeling safe during restorative circles. A crucial aspect of restorative practices implementation is the use of restorative circles, also called talking circles, which create ritualized spaces for inclusive participation, equitable sharing, and deep listening (Boyes-Watson & Pranis, 2015). Restorative circles, led by students or adults, serve various proactive and responsive purposes, including community building, problem solving, and addressing harm (Evanovich et al., 2020; Gregory et al., 2021; Kidde, 2017). Talking circles, as a primary tool within restorative practices, contribute to building community, reducing challenging behavior, fostering discussions, and promoting safe communication (Costello et al., 2010; Evanovich et al., 2020; Smith et al., 2017; Wroldsen & Follestad, 2018). For school counselors, the format and dynamics of talking circles are likely to feel like familiar territory, akin to task-oriented counseling groups (Corey & Corey, 2018; Dylan, 2013).

Our study found that sexual/affectual minority students at the middle and high school were less likely to report feeling listened to or safe with restorative circles compared to their heterosexual peers. Like all small groups in schools, restorative circles do not occur within a social vacuum; they, too, are microcosms of the ecology of schools and the communities, the majority of which reinforce heterosexism at multiple ecological levels (Goodrich, 2018; Kosciw et al., 2022). Regarding restorative circles specifically, all of the of the objectives mentioned above—community building, celebrations, problem solving, building social competence, and repairing harm—can be pursued in ways that are affirming of sexual/affectual minority identities or in ways that cause harm and disconnect for sexual/affectual minority students (Peters & Luke, 2023). For example, if, during a community building circle, a student shares a joyful story about a family experience with “both of my moms,” and then receives a response from a peer, “What do you mean two moms?”, the circle space instantly becomes a space of disconnection and harm rather than one of community and safety for participants who are sexual/affectual minority.

Research emphasizes the importance of LGBTQ competency for small-group facilitators to ensure a safe and positive experience for LGBTQ individuals (Goodrich & Luke, 2013; Smith & Shin, 2008). Unfortunately, many school counselors and teachers lack the necessary skills to effectively facilitate restorative circles that meet the needs of sexual/affectual minority students (Lloyd-Hazlett & Foster, 2013). A national study found that only 47.4% of school counselors felt confident in leading support groups for LGBTQ students, despite professional standards expecting competency in this area (Kuff et al., 2019). Similar concerns exist in teacher education, where preservice educators receive insufficient training to support LGBTQ students (Carter Andrews et al., 2018; Coulter et al., 2020; Jones et al., 2021). Insufficient LGBTQ competency among circle facilitators may affect the findings of our study.

Based on our results, we echo calls from scholars of restorative practices implementation to develop critical consciousness and anti-oppressive skills among circle facilitators (Gregory et al., 2021). School counselors, as suggested by Bauman and colleagues (2023), should incorporate the principles of anti-oppression into facilitating small-group restorative circles. Implementing an anti-oppression approach in restorative circles involves incorporating symbols and posters of LGBTQ pride within the classroom space, creating a circle centerpiece that affirms sexual/affectual minority identities, using prompts that address sexual/affectual minority concerns, celebrating sexual/affectual minority pride, promoting critical consciousness, and providing opportunities for affinity group talking circles for sexual/affectual minority students (Sedlacek & Darling-Hammond, 2021).

Sexual/Affectual Minority Perceptions of School Climate, Sense of Belonging

Within our partner school district, sexual/affectual minority students had statistically significantly lower perceptions than their heterosexual peers of feeling like they had an adult they could go to with problems, feeling like they belonged at school, feeling that they were respected for who they were at school, feeling supported by adults, and feeling like they were valued for who they were within their school.

School counseling scholarship that examines school climate and culture suggests that feeling connected or engaged with school is associated with improved social/emotional health outcomes for students (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018; Cleveland & Sink, 2017; Hernandez & Seem, 2004). This same association has been identified with the presence of positive, supportive relationships with adults at school (Johns et al., 2018). School climate and culture can also directly impact a student’s sense of belonging and interactions with both peers and adults, and shape their overall learning experience (Kosciw et al., 2015; Maxwell et al., 2017). Studies have also explored the relationship between restorative practices and school climate, with some reporting increased connectedness and improved relationships between students (Augustine et al., 2018). Although certain constructs may impact outcomes to varying degrees for different student groups (La Salle et al., 2015), collectively, the culture and social climate within a school can significantly shape the academic and psychological well-being of students (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018).

Our findings buttress previous scholarship that noted the essential role of trusted adults in the lives of sexual/affectual minority youth and their association with adolescent emotional states and suicidality (Colvin et al., 2019; Rimes et al., 2018). Research has identified that enforcement of rules and safety and implementation of inclusive policies have a positive association with improved academic and social outcomes for sexual/affectual minority students (Wernick et al., 2017). Our findings tentatively suggest that elements of school climate and culture, even within our partner district focused on restorative practices, may negatively impact perceptions of safety, belonging, and success for sexual/affectual minority students.

At a more granular level, our findings may indicate that sexual/affectual minority students within our restorative-practices-implementing partner school district are less likely to feel cared for or treated fairly by adults in middle and high schools. This is consistent with a robust body of literature that calls for more focused supports and interventions for sexual/affectual minority students as they transition into adolescence (Johns et al., 2019; McDonald, 2018; Schweizer & Mowen, 2022). For schools and districts considering or currently implementing restorative practices, steps including intentionally seeking to hire critically conscious personnel with shared sexual/affectual minority identities (Cerezo & Bergfeld, 2013), providing professional development opportunities for school personnel to develop as allies (Ratts et al., 2013), and working directly with school principals to promote sexual/affectual-minority-affirming school cultures (Beck, 2016) may contribute to disrupting structures of heteronormativity and create safer, more equitable learning environments for students identifying as sexual/affectual minorities.

Microaggression and Discrimination

The findings in our study further emphasize the significance of the concept of intersectionality when it comes to experiences of discrimination and microaggressions. Sexual/affectual minority students in our sample were more likely to report being discriminated against based on gender, learning disability, sexual orientation, language spoken at home, and how much money they have. These findings run parallel to research highlighting the exacerbated barriers and challenges faced by individuals with multiple intersecting marginalized identities (Cyrus, 2017; Samimi et al., 2023). Moreover, the extant literature has found that higher frequencies of discrimination and microaggressions predict mental health struggle in general, while uniquely predicting depression (Kattari, 2020; Nadal et al., 2014; Vargas et al., 2020). Intersectionality magnifies these deleterious outcomes, considering the research suggesting that those with intersecting identities, such as sexual/affectual minority students who also identify as persons of color or persons with disabilities, exhibit higher risk for certain mental health problems, particularly symptoms of depression (Abbas & García, 2021; Vargas et al., 2020).

A school that has identified restorative practices as central to its values and practices is a school that is fertile ground for school counselors to disrupt and redress the harm of discrimination and microaggressions (ASCA, 2023; Garnett, Smith, et al., 2019; Ginwright, 2015). Concretely, restorative practice talking circles are ideal spaces within schools for students and adults to reflect upon, process, heal from, and learn from experiences of discrimination and microaggression incidents (Bauman et al., 2023). To foster a positive school climate and address microaggressions, various strategies can be implemented. Aligned with the ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2023), school counselors can conduct school climate surveys that specifically ask about microaggressions and discrimination, and then share out the results with faculty and staff to assess the occurrence and harm of such incidents. School counselors can also organize restorative conferences between students and offending adults, to flatten power differentials and promote understanding. Addressing microaggressions and discrimination at Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 levels is also crucial, targeting both individual students and systemic issues (for a fuller explication of how to address discrimination through a multitiered systems of support framework, see Betters-Bubon et al., 2022). However, genuine change requires personal transformation among adults, and policy changes alone may not suffice. Therefore, professional development opportunities should prioritize adult transformation to promote relational safety and foster sexual/affectual minority consciousness throughout the school community.

Limitations

Our study is not without limitations. First, the study design was nonrandomized, which introduces the possibility of self-selection bias. Because the students chose whether to participate in the study, our results may be influenced by this self-selection and may not be fully representative of the entire population. Further, our outcomes were measured through participant-reported survey items, which may be subject to perception bias. Another consideration is that our study focused on a specific school district that has LGBTQ-affirming policies, situated within a city and state with LGBTQ-affirming laws. Therefore, the findings of our study may not be easily generalizable to other school districts or states that may have different policies, cultural contexts, or levels of LGBTQ acceptance. With regard to implementation science, our study is limited in that it does not include measurements of restorative circle frequency nor fidelity of delivery. Finally, in line with the cross-sectional nature of our analysis focusing on a single academic year, we acknowledge that establishing causality is not feasible. We are currently engaged in a longitudinal study that we hope will offer a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of restorative practices on sexual/affectual minority-identified students, provide valuable insights into the long-term effects of restorative practices implementation, and contribute to a deeper understanding of the causal pathways of sexual/affectual minority students having a more positive experience within schools.

Conclusion

In conclusion, restorative practices show promise for transforming schools into inclusive environments that prioritize belonging and relational trust. However, there is a critical gap in understanding the specific outcomes of restorative practices for sexual/affectual minority students. Our community-based participatory research partnership has allowed us to evaluate restorative practices implementation and bridge this empirical gap. Congruent with recommendations from scholars of equity-centered school discipline reform, and in line with the ASCA National Model, our findings emphasize the importance of naming and considering the sociohistorical and structural conditions of oppression. Furthermore, intentional integration of critically conscious education is crucial for cultivating sexual minority empowerment and fostering inclusive school climates (Gregory et al., 2021). Without critical policy analysis, restorative practices implementation risks perpetuating heteronormative subjugation within schools, where heterosexism may persist even within the framework of restorative practices. In the end, the aim of our research is to shed light on how heteronormative school structures and cultures, including those schools that have embraced restorative practices implementation, might negatively impact sexual/affectual minority students (Farley and Leonardi (2021). By doing so, we hope to join with liberation-oriented school counselors, scholars, educators, and activists in promoting a more equitable school environment for sexual/affectual minority students.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Lance C. Smith, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Vermont in Burlington, VT, USA. Email: lance.smith@uvm.edu

Amanda Simpfenderfer, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Education at William & Mary in Williamsburg, VA, USA

Peter N. Knox, PhD, is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Vermont in Burlington, VT, USA

Colby T. Kervick, PhD, is an associate professor at the University of Vermont in Burlington, VT, USA

Bernice R. Garnett, PhD, is an associate professor, at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

References

Abbas

García

J. J.

(2021). Mental health in LGBTQ PoC. In Garcia

J. J.

(Ed.), Heart, brain and mental health disparities for LGBTQ people of color (pp. 109–120). Springer.

Aldridge

J. M.

McChesney

(2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012

American School Counselor Association . (2019). ASCA national model: A framework for school counseling programs (4th ed.). ASCA.

American School Counselor Association . (2021). ASCA student standards: Mindsets & behaviors for student success: K-12 college-, career- and life-readiness standards for every student. https://schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/7428a787-a452-4abb-afec-d78ec77870cd/Mindsets-Behaviors.pdf

American School Counselor Association . (2023). The ASCA National Model: Equity in action. https://schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/149d87d4-d5f8-4c16-afd5-98d7d15a8975/ANM-Equity-Infographic.pdf

Antonelli

M. A.

Sembiante

S. F.

(2022). A systematic review of research on LGBTQ educators’ experiences and LGBTQ curriculum in K-12 US public schools. Multicultural Education Review, 14(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/2005615X.2022.2087031

Augustine

C. H.

Engberg

Grimm

G. E.

Lee

Wang

E. L.

Christianson

Joseph

A. A.

(2018). Can restorative practices improve school climate and curb suspensions? An evaluation of the impact of restorative practices in a mid-sized urban school district. Rand Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2840

Bauman

Taylor

Noor

(2023). Task groups as an anti-oppression opportunity for school counselors. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 48(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2023.2204128

Beck

M. J.

(2016). Bolstering the preparation of school counselor–principal teams for work with LGBT youth: Recommendations for preparation programs. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 10(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2015.1138099

10.

Beck

M. J.

Wikoff

H. D.

(2020). “Professional development is really key”: Experiences of school counselors engaging in professional development focused on LGBTQ youth. Professional School Counseling, 24(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X2095

11.

Betters-Bubon

Pianta

Sweeney

Goodman-Scott

(2022). Antiracism starts with us: School counselor critical reflection within an multitiered systems of support framework. Professional School Counseling, 26(1), Article 2156759X2210867. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X2210867

12.

Bishop

M. D.

Fish

J. N.

Hammack

P. L.

Russell

S. T.

(2020). Sexual identity development milestones in three generations of sexual minority people: A national probability sample. Developmental Psychology, 56(11), 2177–2193. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001105

13.

Boulden

(2021). Developing 21st-century skills through restorative practices. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 94(5), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2021.1915740

14.

Boyes-Watson

Pranis

(2015). Circle forward: Building a restorative school community. Living Justice Press.

15.

Carter Andrews

D. J.

Richmond

Floden

(2018). Teacher education for critical democracy. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(2), 114–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117752363

16.

Case

K. A.

Amand

C. S.

(2014). Developing allies to transgender and gender-nonconforming youth: Training for counselors and educators. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11(1), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2014.840764

17.

Center on PBIS . (January 2022). School climate survey (SCS) suite manual. University of Oregon. https://www.pbis.org/resource/school-climate-survey-suite

18.

Cerezo

Bergfeld

(2013). Meaningful LGBTQ inclusion in schools: The importance of diversity representation and counterspaces. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839341

19.

Chicago Public Schools . (2017). Impact of restorative practices survey. https://blog.cps.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/CPS_RP_Booklet.pdf

20.

Cleveland

R. E.

Sink

C. A.

(2017). Student happiness, school climate, and school improvement plans: Implications for school counseling practice. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), Article 2156759X1876189. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18761898

21.

Colvin

Egan

J. E.

Coulter

R. W.

(2019). School climate & sexual and gender minority adolescent mental health. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(January), 1938–1951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01108-w

22.

Corey

M. S.

Corey

(2018). Theory & practice of group counseling (8th ed.). Cengage Learning.

23.

Costello

Wachtel

(2010). Restorative circles in schools: Building community and enhancing learning. International Institute for Restorative Practices.

24.

Coulter

R. W.

Colvin

Onufer

L. R.

Arnold

Akiva

D’Ambrogi

Davis

(2020). Training pre-service teachers to better serve LGBTQ high school students. Journal of Education for Teaching, 47(2), 234–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2020.1851137

25.

Cyrus

(2017). Multiple minorities as multiply marginalized: Applying the minority stress theory to LGBTQ people of color. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 21(3), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/19359705.2017.1320739

26.

Darling-Hammond

Gregory

(2023, February). Measuring restorative practices to support implementation in K–12 schools. [Report]. Policy Analysis for California Education. https://edpolicyinca.org/publications/measuring-restorative-practices-support-implementation-k-12-schools

27.

DePalmer

Livick

(2022). Restorative practice: Moving from harm to healing. In Developing, delivering, and sustaining school counseling practices through a culturally affirming lens (pp. 34–57). IGI Global.

28.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.

29.

Domina

Akos

Bastian

K. C.

Godwin

(2022). The impact of school counselor resources in elementary and middle grades. Professional School Counseling, 26(1a), Article 2156759X2210867. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X221086746

30.

Dylan

(2013). Talking circles: A traditional form of group work. In Sullivan

Mitchell

Goodman

Lang

N. C.

Mesbur

E. S.

(Eds.), Social work with groups (pp. 119–133). Routledge.

31.

Evanovich

L. L.

Martinez

Kern

Haynes

R. D.

Jr. (2020). Proactive circles: A practical guide to the implementation of a restorative practice. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2019.1639128

32.

Evans

Vaandering

(2022). The little book of restorative justice in education: Fostering responsibility, healing, and hope in schools. Simon & Schuster.

33.

Farley

A. N.

Leonardi

(2021). Beyond bathroom bills and the gender identity debate: Complicating the policy conversation about supporting trans students in schools. Educational Policy, 35(2), 274–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820986770

34.

Garnett

B. R.

Moore

Kidde

Ballysingh

T. A.

Kervick

C. T.

Bedinger

Smith

L. C.

Sparks

(2019). Needs and readiness assessment for implementing school-wide restorative practices. Improving Schools, 23(1), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480219836529

35.

Garnett

B. R.

Smith

L. C.

Kervick

C. T.

Ballysingh

T. A.

Moore

Gonell

(2019). The emancipatory potential of transformative mixed methods designs: Informing youth participatory action research and restorative practices within a district-wide school transformation project. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 42(3), 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1598355

36.

Ginwright

S. A.

(2015). Radically healing Black lives: A love note to justice. New Directions for Student Leadership, 2015(148), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20151

37.

Gomez

J. A.

Rucinski

C. L.

Higgins-D’Alessandro

(2021). Promising pathways from school restorative practices to educational equity. Journal of Moral Education, 50(4), 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1793742

38.

Gonzalez

McNulty

(2010). Achieving competency with transgender youth: School counselors as collaborative advocates. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3–4), 176–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2010.524841

39.

Goodrich

K. M.

(2018). What makes a group? Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 43(3), 203–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2018.1486072

40.

Goodrich

K. M.

Luke

(2009). LGBTQ responsive school counseling. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 3(2), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538600903005284

41.

Goodrich

K. M.

Luke

(2013). The experiences of school counselors-in-training in group work with LGBTQ adolescents. In Singh

A. A.

Salazar

C. F.

(Eds.), Social justice in group work: Practical interventions for change (pp. 146–162). Routledge.

42.

Green

A. E.

Willging

C. E.

Zamarin

Dehaiman

L. M.

Ruiloba

(2019). Cultivating healing by implementing restorative practices for youth: Protocol for a cluster randomized trial. International Journal of Educational Research, 93, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.005.

43.

Gregory

Clawson

Davis

Gerewitz

(2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2014.929950

44.

Gregory

Osher

Bear

G. G.

Jagers

R. J.

Sprague

J. R.

(2021). Good intentions are not enough: Centering equity in school discipline reform. School Psychology Review, 50(2–3), 206–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1861911

45.

Gregory

Ward-Seidel

Carter

(2020). Twelve indicators of restorative practices implementation: A framework for educational leaders. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 31(2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2020.1824788

46.

Hall

W. J.

Dawes

H. C.

Plocek

(2021). Sexual orientation identity development milestones among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 753954. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.753954.

47.

Hayes

Coutts

J. J.

(2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629

48.

Hernandez

T. J.

Seem

S. R.

(2004). A safe school climate: A systemic approach and the school counselor. Professional School Counseling, 7(4), 256–262.

49.

Johns

M. M.

Beltran

Armstrong

H. L.

Jayne

P. E.

Barrios

L. C.

(2018). Protective factors among transgender and gender variant youth: A systematic review by socioecological level. Journal of Primary Prevention, 39(3), 263–301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-018-0508-9

50.

Johns

M. M.

Poteat

V. P.

Horn

S. S.

Kosciw

(2019). Strengthening our schools to promote resilience and health among LGBTQ youth: Emerging evidence and research priorities from the State of LGBTQ Youth Health and Wellbeing Symposium. LGBT Health, 6(4), 146–155. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2018.0109

51.

Jones

M. H.

Hershberger

M. A.

Goodrich

K. M.

Hackel

T. S.

Love

(2021). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching LGBTQ youth. The Teacher Educator, 56(4), 427–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2021.1927275

52.

Kattari

S. K.

(2020). Ableist microaggressions and the mental health of disabled adults. Community Mental Health Journal, 56(6), 1170–1179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-020-00615-6

53.

Keels

Durkee

Hope

(2017). The psychological and academic costs of school-based racial and ethnic microaggressions. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1316–1344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217722120

54.

Kidde

(2017). Whole-school restorative approach resource guide: An orientation to a whole-school restorative approach and guide toward more in-depth resources and current research. Vermont Agency of Education. https://education.vermont.gov/documents/whole-school-restorative-approach-resource-guide

55.

Kincheloe

J. L.

(Ed.), (2008). Knowledge and critical pedagogy: An introduction. Springer.

56.

Kosciw

Clark

C. M.

Menard

(2022). The 2021 national school climate survey: The experiences of LGBTQ+ students in our nation’s schools. GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/research/2021-national-school-climate-survey

57.

Kosciw

J. G.

Palmer

N. A.

Kull

R. M.

(2015). Reflecting resiliency: Openness about sexual orientation and/or gender identity and its relationship to well-being and educational outcomes for LGBT students. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(1–2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9642-6

58.

Kuff

R. M.

Greytak

E. A.

Kosciw

J. G.

(2019). Supporting safe and healthy schools for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer students: A national survey of school counselors, social workers, and psychologists. GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/research/supporting-safe-and-healthy-schools-national-survey-mental-health-providers

59.

La Salle

T. P. L.

Meyers

Varjas

Roach

(2015). A cultural-ecological model of school climate. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 3(3), 157–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2015.1047550

60.

Lloyd-Hazlett

Foster

V. A.

(2013). Enhancing school counselor preparation for work with LGBTQ students: Developmental strategies and interventions. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839338

61.

Lodi

Perrella

Lepri

G. L.

Scarpa

M. L.

Patrizi

(2021). Use of restorative justice and restorative practices at school: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010096

62.

Marraccini

M. E.

Ingram

K. M.

Naser

S. C.

Grapin

S. L.

Toole

E. N.

O'Neill

J. C.

Chin

Martinez

R. R.

Jr. Griffin

(2022). The roles of school in supporting LGBTQ+ youth: A systematic review and ecological framework for understanding risk for suicide-related thoughts and behaviors. Journal of School Psychology, 91(5), 27–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.11.006

63.

Martino

Kassen

Omercajic

(2020). Supporting transgender students in schools: Beyond an individualist approach to trans inclusion in the education system. Educational Review, 74(4), 753–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2020.1829559

64.

Maxwell

Reynolds

K. J.

Lee

Subasic

Bromhead

(2017). The impact of school climate and school identification on academic achievement: Multilevel modeling with student and teacher data. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2069. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02069

65.

McDonald

(2018). Social support and mental health in LGBTQ adolescents: A review of the literature. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 39(1), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2017.1398283

66.

Moyano

del Mar Sanchez-Fuentes

(2020). Homophobic bullying at schools: A systematic review of research, prevalence, school-related predictors and consequences. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 53, Article 101441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101441

67.

Nadal

K. L.

Griffin

K. E.

Wong

Hamit

Rasmus

(2014). The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling and Development, 92(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x

68.

Peters

H. C.

Luke

(2023). Application of anti-oppression with group work. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 48(2), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2023.2170508

69.

Ratts

M. J.

Kaloper

McReady

Tighe

Butler

S. K.

Dempsey

McCullough

(2013). Safe space programs in K-12 schools: Creating a visible presence of LGBTQ allies. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839344

70.

Rimes

K. A.

Shivakumar

Ussher

Baker

Rahman

West

(2018). Psychosocial factors associated with suicide attempts, ideation, and future risk in lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Crisis: The Journal of Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 40(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000527

71.

Samimi

Jefferson

Flanagan

Anyon

(2023). Intersections of disproportion: A critical quantitative examination of dis/ability and gender in Black students’ school discipline outcomes. The Urban Review, 55, 456–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-023-00657-6.

72.

Savitz-Romer

Nicola

T. P.

(2022). An ecological examination of school counseling equity. The Urban Review, 54(2), 207–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-021-00618-x

73.

Schweizer

V. J.

Mowen

T. J.

(2022). Discrimination and risky sexual behavior, substance use, and suicidality among transgender individuals. Deviant Behavior, 43(3), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1839817

74.

Sedlacek

Q. C.

Darling-Hammond

(2021). ProjectQED: Building an inclusive department for queer and trans students, staff, and faculty. Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education, 14(2), 228–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/26379112.2021.1950007

75.

Simpfenderfer

Garnett

B. R.

Smith

L. C.

Moore

(2023). Development and validation of a multi-domain survey assessing student experiences with school-based restorative practices implementation: Community based participatory research at work for school equity. Contemporary Justice Review: Issues in Criminal, Social, and Restorative Justice, 26(2), 145–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580.2023.2258904

76.

Skrzypek

Bascug

E. W.

Ball

Kim

Elze

(2020). In their own words: Student perceptions of restorative practices. Children and Schools, 42(4), 245–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdaa011

77.

Smith

L. C.

(2013). How the ASCA National Model promotes and inhibits safe schools for queer youth: An inquiry using critical theory. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(4), 339–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.839340

78.

Smith

L. C.

Garnett

B. R.

Herbert

Grudev

Vogel

Keefner

Barnette

Baker

(2017). The hand of professional school counseling meets the glove of restorative practices: A call to the profession. Professional School Counseling, 21(1), Article 2156759X18761899. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156759X18761899

79.

Smith

L. C.

Herbert

Payne

Grudev

Volkmar

S. S.

Garnett

B. R.

Aguda-Brown

(2021). “Real meaningful change comes from building relationships”: School counselor’s experiences implementing restorative practices. Journal of School Counseling, 19(48). https://www.jsc.montana.edu/articles/v19n48.pdf.

80.

Smith

L. C.

Shin

R. Q.

(2008). Social privilege, social justice, and group counseling: An inquiry. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 33(4), 351–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920802424415

81.

Snapp

S. D.

Hoenig

J. M.

Fields

Russell

S. T.

(2015). Messy, butch, and queer: LGBTQ youth and the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Adolescent Research, 30(1), 57–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414557625

82.

Speer

S. R.

Atteberry-Ash

Kattari

S. K.

Kattari

Gupta

Walls

N. E.

(2022). An intersectional modeling of risk for nonsuicidal self-injury among LGBTQ adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 31(4), 1158–1171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-022-02250-z

83.

Vargas

S. M.

Huey

S. J.

Jr. Miranda

(2020). A critical review of current evidence on multiple types of discrimination and mental health. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(3), 374–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000441

84.

Velez

Hahn

Recchia

Wainryb

(2020). Rethinking responses to youth rebellion: Recent growth and development of restorative practices in schools. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.011.

85.

Wernick

L. J.

Kulick

Chin

(2017). Gender identity disparities in bathroom safety and wellbeing among high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(5), 917–930. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0652-1

86.

Whitman

J. S.

Horn

S. S.

Boyd

C. J.

(2007). Activism in the schools: Providing LGBTQ affirmative training to school counselors. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11(3–4), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1300/J236v11n03_08

87.

Wroldsen

Follestad

(2018). Using restorative circles in schools: How to build strong learning communities and foster student wellbeing. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

88.

Zakszeski

Rutherford

(2021). Mind the gap: A systematic review of research on restorative practices in schools. School Psychology Review, 50(2–3), 371–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2020.1852056