Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background: Suicide attempts and suicide completion are on the rise for children and adolescents and even more so for LGBTQ+ youth. Despite some social progress, LGBTQ+ individuals still face oppression socially and legally. With much of the restrictive LGBTQ+ legislation occurring within educational settings, school counselors have an important role supporting the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth; however, many school counselors do not feel equipped to do so. Objectives: School counselors often exit their graduate programs and enter the profession with little to no knowledge of or experience working with LGBTQ+ students. The current study sought to better understand school counselors’ experiences supporting LGBTQ+ youth in their school by discussing results of two focus groups with school counselors working with LGBTQ+ students in a southeastern school district. Research Question: What are the experiences of elementary, middle, and high school counselors supporting LGBTQ+ students in a southeastern school district? Methods: Using thematic analysis of two focus group interviews, we gained greater insight into school counselors’ experiences of supporting LGBTQ+ students in their schools. Results: Through the thematic analysis, five themes and two subthemes emerged in the data. Conclusions: Although school counselors often lack time or resources to work with LGBTQ+ youth (Gonzalez, 2016), the current study’s findings reveal additional barriers given less attention in the literature: navigating tension and pressure from legal policies and nonaffirming parents.

Keywords

LGBTQ+school counseling thematic analysis qualitative research cultural competency

Introduction

Suicide attempts and suicide completion are on the rise for children and adolescents (Ati et al., 2021) and even more so for LGBTQ+ youth (Johns et al., 2019, 2020). Findings from the Trevor Project’s (2022) national survey on 34,000 LGBTQ+ youth revealed that 45% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, 14% attempted suicide in the past year, and 60% wanted mental health care in the past year but were not able to receive it. The national survey also revealed that LGBTQ+ youth who have supportive people in their lives reported attempting suicide in the last year at drastically lower rates than those felt low or moderate social support (Trevor Project, 2022). These findings are especially important given the current sociopolitical climate in the United States, including anti-LGBTQ+ legislation such as “Don’t Say Gay'' bills being proposed in several states (Alfonseca, 2022; Goodrich, 2022) and various states’ proposed transphobic legislation (Yurcaba, 2022).

Some social progress has occurred over the last decade in the lives of LGBTQ+ youth, resulting from increased visibility of LGBTQ+ individuals. Showing recent testament to this progress is the Bostock v. Clayton case, in which the United States Supreme Court determined that sexual orientation and gender identity receive protected class membership in terms of employment discrimination (Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 633, 2020). Another key milestone for LGBTQ+ rights and visibility was the 2015 U.S. supreme court case Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in the United States (National Constitution Center, 2023). Researchers have documented that the age of LGBTQ+ youth coming out has dramatically decreased among younger generations (Bishop et al., 2020), allowing for LGBTQ+ youth to have more time between the initial awareness of one’s LGBTQ+ identity and disclosing that identity to other individuals.

Despite some social progress, LGBTQ+ individuals still face oppression socially and legally. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2023), 430 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in the United States as of March 2023. Of these 430 bills, 207 are related to schools and educational settings. One example of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation is bill HB 1269 in Tennessee, which would legalize school employees’ refusal to use students’ preferred pronouns if the pronoun was not consistent with the student’s sex assigned at birth (Tennessee General Assembly, 2023). Another bill, Texas HB 4534, would make it illegal for schools to assist an LGBTQ+ student with social transitioning, at the cost of losing state funding (Texas Legislature Online, 2023). These laws have deleterious impacts on LGBTQ+ youth; it is well-documented that LGBTQ+ individuals in states with more restrictive legislation have worse mental health outcomes and more internalized stigma than individuals in states with protective laws in place (Grzanka et al., 2019).

With much of the restrictive LGBTQ+ legislation occurring within educational settings, school counselors have an important role related to the mental health of LGBTQ+ youth. School counselors are in a strong position to advocate for and support LGBTQ+ youth given their proactive, advocacy-focused training embedded in the American School Counselor Association’s ASCA National Model (2019; Gonzalez, 2016). For example, the ASCA (2022) position statement overtly conveys support and advocacy for LGBTQ+ youth, stating that the school counselor’s role is to “promote equal opportunity and respect for all students regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” (para. 1) and to work to eliminate barriers impeding LGBTQ+ student development. However, although school counselors may want to support LGBTQ+ students, many school counselors report feeling unprepared (Bidell, 2012; Farmer et al., 2013) or unsupported (Gonzalez, 2016; Maru, 2017) when working with this population. Various factors such as lack of training from counselor preparation programs, lack of administrative support, lack of LGBTQ+-inclusive policies, or structural barriers such as time and heavy caseloads all play roles in preventing school counselors from working effectively and competently with LGBTQ+ youth (Gonzalez, 2016).

LGBTQ+ Student Disparities

As documented by the Trevor Project’s (2022) national survey, LGBTQ+ youth are at risk of various mental health issues and suicidality due to nonaffirming environments. Findings from the National Survey on School Climate conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (Kosciw et al., 2016) found that 66% of LGBTQ+ youth experienced discrimination at their school related to their sexual orientation or gender expression. This survey also found that LGBTQ+ students often feel unsafe or miss school due to safety concerns (Kosciw et al., 2016). Researchers have further noted that many of these safety concerns arise due to school personnel not directly intervening during bullying and/or harassment incidents, often due to perceived lack of skills to address anti-LGBTQ+ biases (Dragowski et al., 2016; Maru, 2017).

However, LGBTQ+ youth who reported feeling affirmed in their school reported lower rates of attempted suicide than youth in schools perceived as not LGBTQ+ affirming (Kosciw et al., 2016; Trevor Project, 2022). Further, the presence of supportive school personnel and organizations, such as gender and sexuality alliances, or comprehensive antibullying policies have been shown to contribute to a more positive school climate for LGBTQ+ youth (Graybill et al., 2009; Kull et al., 2016). School counselors are uniquely positioned to actively contribute to a positive school climate for LGBTQ+ youth given their connection to the entire school community (Shi & Doud, 2017), although they may feel unprepared to do so.

School Counselor Competence with LGBTQ+ Clients

Several scholars have examined competency levels among school counselors working with LGBTQ+ youth (Bidell, 2012; Farmer et al., 2013; Mahdi et al., 2014; Shi & Doud, 2017). Bidell (2012) compared competency levels between community agency mental health counselors and school counselors, and found that school counselors rated themselves lower in multicultural and sexual orientation counseling competencies compared to mental health counselors. Farmer et al. (2013) found that school counselors self-reported their own competency levels with LGBTQ+ individuals far lower than all other mental health professionals surveyed. In a survey of school health professionals in New Mexico, Mahdi et al. (2014) found that all of the professionals, including school counselors, reported limited or no experience discussing mental health risks associated with LGBTQ+ students. A more recent investigation of school counselor competencies working with LGBTQ+ students (Shi & Doud, 2017) revealed higher competencies among school counselors identifying as nonheterosexual, those who received additional training after their master’s degree program, and those originating from the western United States compared to those from the southern United States. In sum, school counselors often exit their graduate programs and enter the profession with little to no knowledge or experience in working with LGBTQ+ students. The school counselors who feel most competent working with LGBTQ+ students tend to identify as LGBTQ+ themselves or have personal experience with the LGBTQ+ community (Shi & Doud, 2017). Overall, these studies demonstrate that school counselors often feel unprepared to address the disparities among their LGBTQ+ students; thus, further training on LGBTQ+ competency could be beneficial.

The current study sought to better understand school counselors’ experiences supporting LGBTQ+ youth in their schools. This study discusses results of two focus groups with school counselors working with LGBTQ+ students in a southeastern school district. Using thematic analysis of interviews, we identified themes regarding comfort, competence, and overall experience. Several themes around navigating various external pressures (e.g., district policy, state and national legislation, and parental/caregiver right to know) also arose during the focus groups.

Method

Design

We used thematic analysis of two focus group interviews to gain insight into school counselors’ experiences of supporting LGBTQ+ students in their schools. Thematic analysis is a flexible, qualitative approach that can be applied to a broad range of research paradigms and is not bounded by specific theoretical tenets (Clarke & Braun, 2016). This analysis method provides a systematic approach to generating codes and themes from qualitative data (Clarke & Braun, 2016) and identifying emerging patterns across participant interviews (Glesne, 2016).

Research Team

The research team consisted of one White cisgender female counselor education faculty member, one White cisgender male counselor education faculty member, and two mental health counseling graduate students affiliated with the same Southeastern counselor education program: one White cisgender female and one biracial (White and Native American) cisgender male. One faculty member and one student researcher on the research team identify as heterosexual and the other two researchers identify as members of the LGBTQ+ community. The lead researchers are both counselor educators with several years of counseling experience with LGBTQ+ children, adolescents, and families. The two graduate students are currently in practicum beginning their counseling experiences. Each member of the team is highly invested in promoting awareness and providing support for the LGBTQ+ populations.

Participants

A total of 18 school counselors and one district behavioral liaison participated in the focus groups (N = 19). Among the participants, 17 identified as female and 2 as male, with 12 participants identifying as White and seven as African American. Nine participants worked at the high school level, six at the middle school level, three at the elementary school level, and one as a district-level administrator.

Data Collection Procedures

After institutional review board approval, we contacted all school counselors in a particular school district to gain interest in participating in our focus groups on supporting LGBTQ+ students. Before beginning the focus groups, each participant completed a brief online demographic survey. The 19 participants were divided into two focus groups to provide more space for each participant to share and to ensure that we followed recommended focus group size guidelines of 8–12 participants (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990). Each focus group was led by the lead researchers and utilized a semistructured interview focus group protocol lasting 1 hour. Examples of questions to participants during the focus groups are: “What is your experience working with LGBTQ+ youth in your school?” and “How prepared do you feel working with LGBTQ+ youth?” All focus groups were recorded and transcribed for data analysis purposes by the two graduate student researchers.

Data Analysis

We chose thematic analysis to identify, analyze, and interpret themes found within the transcribed data from the focus groups (Clarke & Braun, 2016). More specifically, we used inductive thematic data analysis to allow our participant data to direct our coding. We followed the six phases of thematic analysis: (a) familiarization with the data, (b) generation of preliminary codes, (c) exploration of themes, (d) review of themes, (e) identification of themes, (f) and production of a report (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Our team met regularly to complete each phase of the analysis prior to moving to the next phase. All four of the authors coded the focus groups, with two authors completing the initial coding for each focus group before gaining group consensus of all codes across both focus groups’ data.

Trustworthiness

We established trustworthiness in multiple ways. Our research team met regularly to identify and discuss our biases and beliefs on this topic. After discussing our potential biases, we followed Lincoln and Guba’s (1986) four key components, addressing (a) credibility, (b) transferability, (c) dependability, and (d) confirmability to ensure the fidelity of the analysis. Some of the biases identified by the research team related to personal experiences of identifying as LGBTQ+, previous experiences working with LGBTQ+ youth, and experiences of supporting LGBTQ+ youth in a southern region of the country. To ensure our credibility and accuracy during data collection, we followed a focus group design that allowed multiple perspectives to be heard and established consistency across the participants. We addressed transferability through the way we reported our results in that we provided in-depth descriptions and direct quotes from our participants, illustrating the applicability of this information and participant experiences across schools and levels. During data analysis, we utilized group consensus in two different ways to support the dependability of the analysis. Two members coded one focus group and worked toward consensus within their pairs before bringing it to the larger group, which then analyzed the codes and also ensured consensus. We resolved disagreements and achieved consensus during the coding process by group discussion and revisiting transcripts to ensure we were understanding the participant quotes in the correct contexts. We addressed data confirmability in two ways. First, we used the open inductive approach to thematic analysis, focusing on the participants’ experiences to direct our coding. Second, we applied our research team’s variety of clinical and personal experiences that allow for different perspectives on the topic.

Results

The purpose in conducting the focus groups was to gain a deeper insight into the participating school counselors’ comfort and competence in supporting LGBTQ+ students in their schools, especially amid the political and societal pressures of supporting this population. During both focus groups, we observed that participants were engaging in rich dialogue and sharing about their experiences working with LGBTQ+ youth and their successes and current struggles. As we engaged in data analysis and coding, we noticed the surfacing of impactful themes. Therefore, to best honor the focus group participants’ experiences and sharing, our team identified five themes and two subthemes that illustrated the participants’ experiences working with LGBTQ+ youth in their schools (Table 1).

Table 1.

Focus Group Themes.

Theme	Subtheme	Examples
School counselor’s familiarity with the LGBTQ+ population		• Personal experiences with friends and loved ones
		• Professional experiences with students
		• Parents’ role
School counselor’s challenges for addressing students identifying as LGBTQ+		• Challenges working with parents
		• Challenges using correct terminology
Tension between counseling ethics and policies		• Feeling unsure how to protect the student but also uphold parents’ rights and counseling code of ethics
Pressure	Felt by school counselor	• Pressure to make the “right decision” on reporting to parents
	Felt by school counselor	• Fear of technology and social media
	Felt by student	• Pressure from parents
	Felt by student	• Developmental pressure on the student to decide how they identify during a time of growth and change
Power of discussing LGBTQ+ topics in a group setting		• Helpful to get other perspectives
Power of discussing LGBTQ+ topics in a group setting		• Joining process is helpful to not feeling so isolated

Theme 1: School Counselor’s Familiarity with the LGBTQ+ Population

The level of experience or familiarity working with LGBTQ+ students, beyond what is taught in counseling programs, varied across participants. Some participants had several students, friends, or family members who identified as LGBTQ+, while others had no or limited experience with an LGBTQ+ student or loved one. Throughout the focus group interviews, many participants highlighted their reliance on their own personal experiences in shaping how they connect with students identifying as LGBTQ+. Personal experience with family members, friends, or their own children who identify as LGBTQ+ appeared to guide participants’ beliefs and expectations of working with LGBTQ+ students. One participant described her personal struggles as a parent when her daughter came out:

She told me she was gay when she was in 12^th grade in high school. . . . I wasn’t really ready to deal with that, you know, and I, me being a counselor and all that, that was my child and I still, I had my own perceptions of it. . . . I’m very good at, you know, putting those aside when it comes to other children but, you know, when it’s at your front door it’s a different story.

This participant felt that her experience helped her understand how other parents might react when their child comes out. She added that if a parent isn’t ready, “They may ignore it, and that’s what I did . . . I tried to act like this was not happening.” Eventually, the participant recognized that her reaction was causing harm to her daughter. “I had to make changes,” she said.

Another participant discussed her role in helping LGBTQ+ elementary students navigate through potential romantic attractions. She explained that attraction often appears differently at that age and children have trouble understanding their feelings. For example, “They never say, ‘Oh my god she’s so cute’ or ‘I always get nervous [when they’re around].’” The participant was able to relate to her students by recalling her experiences at their age: “I remember when I was young in elementary school, I did like other people . . . I did like a boy. . . . I was attracted to him and I would get nervous.” The participant acknowledged that LGBTQ+ youth may have a more difficult time navigating through their feelings since they might be “unsure and still very much exploring, experimenting and processing.” The participant stressed the importance of offering support without trying to influence the student.

Some participants reflected on their initial reactions when they worked with an LGBTQ+ student for the first time. They admitted that they felt apprehension and worry that they were not adequately prepared to work with LGBTQ+ students. One participant stated: “I remember when the [transgender] student first enrolled from out of state, I kind of went, ‘Okay, it’s hit my school now!’” Despite her worries regarding the sociopolitical expectations and tensions, she felt the arrival of the student “was a very easy process” because her school was supportive, structured, and had concrete processes in place to support the student, teachers, and staff at the school.

Theme 2: School Counselor’s Challenges Addressing Students Identifying as LGBTQ+

The participants reported a variety of distinct challenges working with LGBTQ+ students in the school setting. The most common concern among the participants involved students and their families. Several participants shared that their students often struggled coming out to their parents. In some instances, they reported that students had been reluctant to open up to their school counselor due to fears that the counselor would have to disclose the information to their parents. The participants noted a hesitation of reaching out to the school counselors for support due to the fear of persecution from their families if the family found out that the student identified as LGBTQ+.

One participant stated: “They want to tell you how they’re feeling but they’re so scared that you’re going to tell their parents and they already know how that’s going to look there.” Another participant added, “I had a student in here crying, you know, because she likes this girl . . . and her parents are very religious. . . . She was more scared to tell me because she thought that I was going to have to tell the parents.” Another participant agreed: “They’re more afraid . . . or more secretive about it and not really fully ready . . . and a lot of times . . . I pick up that it may be family issues.” The fear or uncertainty of the role of the school counselor related to reporting LGBTQ+ topics seems to add another level of stress and pressure to students in this population.

Not only are the students feeling pressure that families might find out their varied identity or sexual orientation, but the school counselors reported their own feelings of pressure related to families’ reactions. Many of the participants worried about how parents would react when they learned about their child’s identity and/or orientation, and realized that parents may need their own time to process this information. “I don’t want to tell their parents and upset them,” one participant said. Another participant shared: “You have to give the parents time to get that information and be ready to receive it . . . or it’s going to be hard on that child.” One participant added: “This is your baby and she needs you . . . and I think sometimes parents don’t see that at first.”

Another challenge the participants shared was feeling a lack of knowledge and competence to support LGBTQ+ students. Several participants admitted to being in the dark about terminology and the various ways a person may identify within the LGBTQ+ community. This included pronouns as well as identification markers such as being gay, queer, pansexual, bisexual, fluid, etc. Since the participants didn’t often feel well prepared through trainings and other formal education, many participants relied on asking their students upfront for clarification. “Keeping abreast of those pieces . . . if I’m not sure of a term, I just ask them to help me with it,” one participant said. Another participant credited personal exposure outside of the school setting and finding her own ways to learn about the importance of proper terminology:

I’m listening more to how my friends like to be identified. My friend is big on queer, not gay . . . so I make sure I’m not offensive on calling him gay . . . he’s queer. . . . I think that was helpful, just going into those social things and how to let our kids be empowered.

Some participants acknowledged that they struggled with a bias. More specifically, some participants struggled with the concept that young children may already know how they identify. One participant shared that they had “a couple of (female) students who were thinking they were . . . attracted or wanted to be in a relationship with a girl . . . but I told them upfront . . . you’re nine and it’s not a real relationship.” Although not an affirming response, the participant stated that they tried to keep a balance of not persuading the students one way or the other, but rather, to focus on the fact that they’re too young to know for certain one way or the other.

One participant urged others in the group to “see beyond their own biases and beliefs” and to focus on more important matters, adding:

It doesn’t matter what you think or believe or know or understand, you don’t have to understand it, what you have to know is you’ve got a kid who’s at high risk. . . . You’ve got a kid who’s in pain, you’ve got a kid who is struggling. . . . You’ve got a kid who needs help. . . . What’s important is this kid get support. . . . They’re all still human beings.

Theme 3: Tension Between Counseling Ethics and Policies

Participants reported high stress regarding the tension between legal or district policies and counseling ethics. There is no official decision-making model for clinician use; rather, school counselors have a margin of error bordered by ethical codes, school district policy, and legal policy. In many cases, this provides space for counselors to use judgment on a case-by-case basis because each is unique. However, this may lead to confusion, as one participant reported:

Our [school district] attorney has been very empathetic but also very clear that they don't have good legal guidance for this. But it’s like, she doesn't want to put anything in writing. . . . Where we’re struggling is balancing those interests: the child, the confidentiality, the parents’ right to influence their child’s life, the students’ safety, are the students going to be more or less safe?

Another participant reported noticing “a huge triangle between procedures, ethics, and just moral compass really, and how to best support the student. And this is, like, the trickiest area for me.” Participants shared a resounding sense that navigating ethics and policy can be confusing because information is not always easily accessed, understandable, or in alignment with what they believe their job as a school counselor is. One participant shared: “I was thinking about those folks who are hesitant to accept or resistant to follow some of those district procedures or even just unsure and unclear.” Some participants were unsure of what their school district policy is while others understood the policy in their districts but did not agree to the policy for fears around student safety. For example, one participant stated: “I will not out a student to anybody. I’m not. Regardless of laws I, personally will not out [them].” According to the participants, many school districts in their region have policies to notify the student’s parent if they share a differing sexual identity or orientation. Although school districts and legal teams are working diligently to create helpful policies on supporting LGBTQ+ youth and their families, these school counselors reported that they and other school staff still do not feel sure how or what to do to best support their students and protect themselves from legal consequences.

Theme 4: Pressure

From the focus groups, we identified two subthemes under the theme of pressure: pressure felt by the school counselors and pressure felt by students (from the school counselor’s perspective).

Pressure Felt by School Counselor

Pressure felt by the school counselors appeared to come from a variety of sources and has been heightened by the technological advances and vast media coverage of day-to-day activities through social media and personal cell phone videos. One participant noted: “In all honesty anyone in education, at any minute, a bomb could drop on us and we could be the one on social media or in the news.” This participant was highlighting that students have the ability to record and post any actions made by a teacher, school counselor, or staff member. Concern over decisions on what name or pronoun to use, whether or not to report sexual identity or orientation of a student to their guardian, or how to speak to a student is amplified by the school counselors’ fear of a mistake or misstep being recorded and shared virally.

At the same time, school counselors also perceive pressure from balancing best practices and the repercussions of potential conflict. Another participant reported:

We’re trying to come up with the guidance and the thought process of how do we weigh the parents’ rights vs. child’s confidentiality, the safety of the child, and then our own risk tolerance? What happens if a couple years later the parent finds us out we knew all along [about a child’s gender identity disclosure]?

Focus group participants offered suggestions to mediate pressure felt by counselors, including “make sure that we don’t feel the pressure of making these decisions totally independently,” having a documented process, and identifying coworkers they can talk to.

Pressure Felt by Students

Participants reported perceiving pressure on students coming from parents. For example, one participant shared: “When navigating self-identity and sexual identity, if they [the student] are absolutely not ready to come out to their parents,” the student can feel a lot of pressure to keep this aspect from their parents while also wanting to share who they are at school with friends. Often, the LGBTQ+ student feels more comfortable coming out to friends in a school setting than to family in a home setting, thus adding a level of pressure to live two different lives. Further, students often feel pressured to fit an expectation set by their parents. According to one participant: “I don’t think their peers pressure them into the roles as much. I’m talking about parents who have bought clothing for children that, I don’t even know if they’re comfortable with it, but that’s what their parents purchased.” With the pressures of balancing school and home identities, students feel a developmentally driven pressure of exploring and trying to figure out who they are. Another participant shared:

They’re in the process of identifying. They’re questioning, they’re in the process of becoming, whatever, on many levels [laughing]. Becoming who they are as a person, whether that’s sexuality or, you know, career goals, or in a lot of things. They’re exploring and experimenting in trying on different roles.

Theme 5: Power of Discussing LGBTQ+ Topics in a Group Setting

Connecting with and consulting other peers was vital for participants. Many of them expressed their appreciation for being able to discuss the topic in these focus groups with colleagues from different schools. Several participants brought up the importance of gaining “somebody else’s perspective” outside of their immediate group of colleagues and that it provided a “comfort level.” One participant pointed out that participating in this study afforded them an opportunity to meet other colleagues who deal with similar issues pertaining to supporting LGBTQ+ youth and other important subjects that come up with their students. One participant stated:

I thought it was helpful to have it . . . with a group of colleagues instead of like a mixed group, you know, people wearing different hats. I thought it was really good, just like people who kind of know each other and understand each other's roles, it was kind of nice to have just the comfort level I think of that, that group.

Another participant shared that, at times, they feel “separated from people in clinical practice and . . . people in agencies and people in universities.” Participating in this study made them feel that “we’re all kind of speaking the same language” and, as a result, provided reinforcement that other professionals across all areas (i.e., schools, agencies, universities, etc.) are working to help support all students. Some participants reported that, prior to participating in this study, they had considered reaching out to other schools in hopes of “running a situation by somebody else.” One of the participants recognized that by relying solely on consultation within their own work circle, they run the risk of influencing one another’s decisions. Another participant pointed out that seeking outside consultation could “help us problem solve” with the overall goal of “helping us with the questions to ask ourselves.”

Discussion and Implications

Our findings indicate nuanced barriers experienced by school counselors when working with LGBTQ+ youth. That school counselors often lack time or resources to work with LGBTQ+ youth is well documented (Gonzalez, 2016), yet the current study’s findings reveal additional barriers that are discussed less frequently in the literature: navigating tension and pressure from legal policies and nonaffirming parents.

When discussing what knowledge or training the participants have to support them in working with their LGBTQ+ students, participants reported pulling from their own personal experiences with LGBTQ+ individuals when utilizing strategies for working with these youth. This is consistent with research that school counselors with experiences closer to LGBTQ+ individuals and/or LGBTQ+ mental health report feeling more competent to work with LGBTQ+ youth (Shi & Doud, 2017). One participant in our study shared that she feels more comfortable affirming her students’ identities because of her own experiences of having a close friend who identifies as queer rather than gay. This underscores the importance of meeting clients where they are by using the client’s terminology related to their identity. This is of the utmost importance because words hold different meaning for different individuals. The word “queer,” as stated in the above example, is the preferred terminology for that individual; however, “queer” can also hold a negative connotation for some.

This participant also shared that she struggles with how to implement this affirming stance in the presence of nonaffirming parents who do not support their child’s identity exploration. Such a struggle is consistent with our finding of family pressure on students to identify a specific way, such as by buying certain types of clothes. School counselors can provide psychoeducation to families on how supporting identity exploration can be beneficial to LGBTQ+ youth’s mental health, which aligns with the ASCA (2022) position statement.

Perhaps our most striking finding is in the seriousness placed on the tension school counselors feel between their ethical codes and legal policies. ASCA (2022) emphasizes that school counselors support students regardless of their sexual and/or gender identity. Several participants expressed concern around balancing these various roles and expectations when working with LGBTQ+ youth, including the interests of the child, confidentiality, the parents’ right to influence their child’s life, safety, and legal policies. Although guidelines are in place for school counselors to be competent and affirming with their LGBTQ+ students (American Psychological Association, 2021; ASCA, 2022; Burnes et al., 2010; Harper et al., 2013), no existing guidelines assist school counselors in reconciling the tension between each of the important aspects of their LGBTQ+ students’ lives. When discussing the salience of this theme, school counselors made clear how they also feel pressure to make the right decision for their LGBTQ+ students, despite having to balance multiple, often competing, expectations of what the right decision means. Following the suggestion of Mullen et al. (2023), school counselors can engage in professional advocacy, which includes learning about legislation and speaking to their representative. This may be an important strategy when new legislation is introduced, to help in managing the confusion of how to integrate changing legislation into one’s ethical practice.

Our final theme addresses the importance school counselors placed on being able to share space with other school counselors experiencing similar barriers to working effectively with LGBTQ+ youth. Previous researchers have noted the importance of having supportive school personnel for contributing to a more positive climate for LGBTQ+ students (Kull et al., 2016; Maru, 2017). This theme demonstrates that school counselors may feel isolated when determining the best course of action for working effectively with their LGBTQ+ students, and being able to share this experience with other school counselors helped them feel validated in their efforts to do their best with the knowledge and resources available to them. This theme highlights the lack of clinically oriented supervision among school counselors, in contrast to their counterparts in mental health or marriage, couples, and family counseling, who all have mandated supervision as part of their licensure requirements. Supervision often offers a space for such clinical conversations. Therefore, school counselors may need to seek support from counselors in their broader communities who may be familiar with navigating the tension between the legislation and their scope of practice. Further, school counselors can utilize both their knowledge of ethics and their skills in providing data-informed advocacy to bolster administrative support when these tensions exist.

Limitations and Future Research

Although generalizability is not the purpose of qualitative research and thus is not a true limitation of this work, we note that the findings of this study are not generalizable to all school districts or school counselors working with LGBTQ+ students. Limitations do exist regarding the research team and the region in which this study was conducted. Although our team had diversity in age, gender, training, clinical experiences, and sexual orientation, we lacked racial diversity. Among the participants, regional diversity was limited in that they all represented the same school district in a low-income, southeastern region of the country. This lack of diversity may have impacted the research team’s interpretation of the participants’ experiences with this topic, and the participants’ experiences may be limited due to the cultural implications of the southern region on working specifically with this population. Further, although many of the members of the research team provided mental health services in schools, none were formally trained as school counselors. Having a team member who was a trained school counselor might have been beneficial in building rapport during the interviews and offered a helpful lens during data analysis. However, the participants did report feeling less isolated knowing that others in the school counseling profession were also looking for ways to support their peers and LGBTQ+ students. Future research could replicate these focus groups in other regions and other schools/districts, and could use strictly quantitative measures with a larger sample size for a more extensive statistical analysis.

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Jessie D. Guest, Ph.D., is a clinical assistant professor at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, SC. Email: jessied@email.sc.edu Thomas M. Toomey, Ph.D., is an assistant professor at Austin Peay State University in Clarksville, TX. At the time of this study, Palmer Garrison and Ryan Buell were mental health counseling graduate students at the University of South Carolina.

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.

ORCID iD

Jessie D. Guest

Author Biographies

Jessie Guest is a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of South Carolina. She completed her doctoral studies at the University of South Carolina. Jessie is a Licensed Mental Health Counselor Supervisor in the states of South Carolina and North Carolina as well as a Registered Play Therapist Supervisor. Jessie currently coordinates the Graduate Certificate in Play Therapy and is the Coordinator of the Center for Community Counseling within the College of Education. Jessie’s research interests and publications consist of Social Emotional Learning, mindfulness and well-being, play therapy, countertransference, and trauma.

Thomas Toomey is an Assistant Professor at Austin Peay State University. He completed his doctoral studies at the University of South Carolina. Thomas’ research interests consist of wellness counseling, LGBTQ+ mental health and wellness, and Evidenced-Based Counseling Interventions.

Palmer Garrison is a recent graduate of the EdS Program in Counselor Education. She is currently an LPC-A in Columbia, SC. Her clinical interests focus on play therapy and working with children, adolescents, and their families.

Ryan Buell is a recent graduate of the EdS Program in Counselor Education. He is currently an LPC-A in Texas. His clinical interests focus on grief, trauma, spirituality, and self-esteem.

References

Alfonseca

(2022). Florida House passes controversial ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/florida-house-passes-controversial-dont-gay-bill/story?id=83090590

American Civil Liberties Union . (2023). Mapping attacks on LGBTQ rights in U.S. state legislatures. https://www.aclu.org/legislative-attacks-on-lgbtq-rights

American Psychological Association . (2021). Guidelines for psychological practice with sexual minority persons. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/psychological-sexual-minority-persons.pdf

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

American School Counselor Association . (2022). The school counselor and LGBTQ+ youth. ASCA Position Statements. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/Standards-Positions/Position-Statements/ASCA-Position-Statements/The-School-Counselor-and-LGBTQ-Youth

Ati

N. A.

Paraswati

M. D.

Windarwati

H. D.

(2021). What are the risk factors and protective factors of suicidal behavior in adolescents? A systematic review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 34(1), 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcap.12295

Bidell

M. P.

(2012). Examining school counseling students multicultural and sexual orientation competencies through a cross-specialization comparison. Journal of Counseling and Development, 90(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-6676.2012.00025.x

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

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 633 . (2020). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/590/17-1618/

10.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

11.

Burnes

T. R.

Singh

A. A.

Harper

A. J.

Harper

Maxon-Kann

Pickering

D. L.

Hosea

(2010). American Counseling Association competencies for counseling with transgender clients. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 4(3–4), 135–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2010.524839

12.

Clarke

Braun

(2016). Thematic analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 297–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

13.

Dragowski

E. A.

McCabe

P. C.

Rubinson

(2016). Educators’ reports on incidence of harassment and advocacy toward LGBTQ students. Psychology in the Schools, 53(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21895

14.

Farmer

L. B.

Welfare

L. E.

Burge

P. L.

(2013). Counselor competence with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients: Differences among practice settings. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(4), 194–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00036.x

15.

Glesne

(2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (5th ed.). Pearson.

16.

Gonzalez

(2016). Factors that facilitate and impede school counselor advocacy for and with LGBT students. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Advocacy, 3(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/2326716X.2016.1147397

17.

Goodrich

K. M.

(2022). Groupthink in counselor education: “Don’t say gay” and the visibly invisible heterosexism of the academy. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 47(2), 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2022.2058286

18.

Graybill

E. C.

Varjas

Meyers

Watson

L. B.

(2009). Content-specific strategies to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: An exploratory study. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 570–584.

19.

Grzanka

P. R.

Spengler

E. S.

Miles

J. R.

Frantell

K. A.

DeVore

E. N.

(2019). “Sincerely held principles” or prejudice? The Tennessee counseling discrimination law. The Counseling Psychologist, 48(2), 223–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000019886972

20.

Harper

Finnerty

Martinez

Brace

Crethar

H. C.

Loos

Harper

Graham

Singh

Kocet

Travis

Lambert

Burnes

Dickey

L. M.

Hammer

T. R.

(2013). Association for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Issues in Counseling competencies for counseling with lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, intersex, and ally individuals. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(23), 2–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.755444

21.

Johns

M. M.

Lowry

Andrzejewski

Barrios

L. C.

Demissie

McManus

Rasberry

C. N.

Robin

Underwood

J. M.

(2019). Transgender identity and experiences of violence victimization, substance use, suicide risk, and sexual risk behaviors among high school students—19 states and large urban school districts, 2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(3), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6803a3

22.

Johns

M. M.

Lowry

Hipp

T. N.

Robin

Shafir

(2020). Differences in adolescent experiences of polyvictimization and suicide risk by sexual minority status. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(1), 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12595

23.

Kosciw

J. G.

Greytak

E. A.

Giga

N. M.

Villenas

Danischewski

D. J.

(2016). The 2015 national school climate survey. GLSEN. https://www.glsen.org/research/2015-national-school-climate-survey

24.

Kull

R. M.

Greytak

E. A.

Kosciw

J. G.

Villenas

(2016). Effectiveness of school district anti-bullying policies in improving LGBT youths’ school climate. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(4), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000196

25.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427

26.

Mahdi

Jevertson

Schrader

Nelson

Ramos

M. M.

(2014). Survey of New Mexico school health professionals regarding preparedness to support sexual minority students. Journal of School Health, 84(1), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12116

27.

Maru

(2017). Advocacy for and with LGBT students: An examination of high school counselor experiences. Professional School Counseling, 20(1a), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.5330/1096-2409-20.1a.38

28.

Mullen

Backer

Niles

Chae

(2023). Preparing school counseling trainees in professional legislative advocacy. The Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 23(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v23i1.33257

29.

National Constitution Center . (2023). Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/obergefell-v-hodges

30.

Shi

Doud

(2017). An examination of school counselors’ competency working with lesbian, gay and bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 11(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2017.1273165

31.

Stewart

D. W.

Shamdasani

P. N.

(1990). Focus groups: Theory and practice. Sage.

32.

Tennessee General Assembly . (2023). HB 1269. https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1269&GA=113

33.

Texas Legislature Online . (2023). HB 4534. https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=88R&Bill=HB4534

34.

Trevor Project . (2022). 2022 National survey on LGBTQ youth mental health. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/

35.

Yurcaba

(2022). Texas governor calls on citizens to report parents of transgender kids for abuse. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/texasgovernor-calls-citizens-report-parents-transgender-kids-abuse-rcna17455

School Counselors’ Reflections on Supporting LGBTQ+ Students

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

LGBTQ+ Student Disparities

School Counselor Competence with LGBTQ+ Clients

Method

Design

Research Team

Participants

Data Collection Procedures

Data Analysis

Trustworthiness

Results

Theme 1: School Counselor’s Familiarity with the LGBTQ+ Population

Theme 2: School Counselor’s Challenges Addressing Students Identifying as LGBTQ+

Theme 3: Tension Between Counseling Ethics and Policies

Theme 4: Pressure

Pressure Felt by School Counselor

Pressure Felt by Students

Theme 5: Power of Discussing LGBTQ+ Topics in a Group Setting

Discussion and Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Footnotes

Author’s Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References