Exploring the Experiences of Florida Elementary School Counselors Implementing the Parental Rights in Education Act

Abstract

Anti-LGBTQ+ school legislation has proliferated across the United States in recent years, with potential consequences for both students and school counselors. Florida’s controversial 2022 Parental Rights in Education Act offers one such example. In this descriptive, phenomenological, qualitative study, we examined the experiences of 10 Florida elementary school counselors regarding the implementation of the Parental Rights in Education Act. We identified three distinct themes from the participants that related to understanding, implementation, and impact of the Act. We discuss these themes and implications for training, practice, and advocacy in the school counseling profession.

Schools in the United States are confronted with multifaceted social challenges concerning racism, disparities in academic achievement, discrimination, safety concerns, and inequalities in access to opportunities (Dogan, 2022; Mulyukov & Ibragimova, 2020). As a consequence, school counseling professionals are called upon to align training and practice with the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) Ethical Standards (2016) and ASCA National Model (ASCA, 2019) to ensure all students have the right to be treated in a manner consistent with their identities and free from discrimination. The role of social justice advocate has become a key element in the school counseling profession in valuing fairness in resources, rights, and treatment of individuals from marginalized groups (Abreu et al., 2022); however, some school counselors still self-report difficulties in utilizing their multicultural counseling skills to work with diverse and marginalized groups (Placeres et al., 2022). Specific reports include concerns in working with members of the LGBTQ+ community due to personal, political, or religious beliefs, insufficient training, and lack of administrative support (Simons & Cuadrado, 2018; Toomey & Carlson, 2022).

LGBTQ+ Community Experiences in Schools

LGBTQ+ students in Grades 6–12 may experience negative school encounters with peers and personnel including threats, insults, assaults, marginalization, discrimination, and lack of support (Bochicchio et al., 2022; Lardier et al., 2020; Rivas-Koehl et al., 2022). Kosciw and colleagues (2020) found that 81% of LGBTQ+ students reported verbal harassment, 26% reported physical harassment, 53% heard homophobic remarks from school staff, and 67% noted negative comments about their gender expression. Such continuous experiences place LGBTQ+ youth at higher risk of anxiety, depression, school avoidance, substance abuse, and suicide (Day et al., 2019; McNair, 2017). An estimated 35% of LGBTQ+ youth experience suicidal ideation, a rate 3 times higher than that of their non-LGBTQ+ peers (Miron et al., 2019; Raifman et al., 2020). Difficulty in addressing the needs of LGBTQ+ students and stakeholders has been further exacerbated by sweeping school-based legislation and policy.

LGBTQ+ School Legislation and Policy

Multiple laws and policies related to the LGBTQ+ community have recently come to the forefront of school settings. Laws requiring bathroom and pronoun usage that align with assigned sex at birth; banning of books and curriculum related to race, sex, and gender identity; and ensuring student athletes compete only on teams that align with assigned sex at birth have been enacted throughout the United States (Goodrich, 2022; Menchaca, 2023; Prieur, 2023; Stephenson, 2023). The impact of such legislation that strives to mandate heterosexual and cisgender identities as the norms can result in lack of safety, resources, and personhood for members of the LGBTQ+ community (Stargell et al., 2020).

Florida has been a leading state in many LGBTQ+-based legislative acts and laws, with significant attention drawn to the Parental Rights in Education Act (HB 1557), often dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay Bill.” HB 1557 was passed in 2022 with requirements prohibiting classroom discussions on sexual orientation or gender identity in Grades K–3 or in a manner that is not age or developmentally appropriate. School personnel are also responsible for contacting parents if a student discusses anything deemed a critical decision affecting mental, emotional, or physical well-being. According to the Act, parents also have the ability to revoke any school-based services. The Act does not prohibit school personnel from withholding information if they have a reasonable belief that disclosure would result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect (Oliva, 2022; Stanley et al., 2023). In 2023, the grade-level restrictions were expanded to Grades K–8 (Prieur, 2023).

Consistent with similar legislation introduced across the nation, Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act does not introduce significant changes to existing policies and procedures regarding how school counselors address sexual orientation or gender identity in most school districts; however, the vagueness in the delivery and implementation of the Act has perplexed counselors, administrators, and parents (Oliva, 2022; Prieur, 2023; Stanley et al., 2023). In particular, inconsistency with maintaining confidentiality and mandated reporting resulted in mass confusion for school counselors. A further controversial aspect of the Act is the censorship regarding the discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity in certain grade levels. The Parental Rights in Education Act demonstrates the turmoil, division, fear, and confusion that can arise in providing school counseling services for students from disenfranchised and diverse backgrounds such as those from the LGBTQ+ community. In response to such legislation, school counselors can seek to identify and advocate for change to any barriers that can affect students’ personal growth and development (ASCA, 2016, 2022; Oehrtman & Dollarhide, 2022; Stargell et al., 2020). Consequently, we sought to understand the experiences of Florida elementary school counselors in implementing the Parental Rights in Education Act in their schools.

Methodology

Research Questions

We used a qualitative design in this research study to explore the lived experiences of elementary school counselors through a descriptive phenomenological lens. This type of qualitative research approach allows for a robust recognition and understanding of perceptions, experiences, and insights of the participants grounded in the current human experience, resulting in more meaningful knowledge (Beck, 2020; Bryman, 2016; Crotty & Poth, 2017; Patton, 2015). This method of qualitative inquiry allows participants to serve as experts on their own experiences, resulting in more in-depth, relevant, and purposeful insights (Marshall & Rossman, 2014; Miles et al., 2020). The following research questions guided the study:

(1) What are elementary school counselors’ experiences in implementing the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act?

(2) How did implementation of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act impact the delivery of elementary school counseling services?

Participants

An initial purposeful sample of 15 Florida elementary school counselors with experience in implementing the Parental Rights in Education Bill agreed to participate in the research. Ultimately, 10 school counselors participated, with 5 withdrawing from the study due either to time constraints (n = 3) or to personal concerns of possible ramifications for discussing the topic (n = 2). The participants were recruited through the Florida School Counselor Association, the ASCA Scene online community, researcher school district connections, and social media posts. The study sample of 10 participants met the qualifications for this phenomenological qualitative research methodology focused on exploration of experiences for this specific population in the state of Florida (Crotty & Poth, 2017; Miles et al., 2020). Demographic information collected from the participants included years of experience as an elementary school counselor in Florida, self-identified gender, and self-identified race. All participants reported their gender as female. Regarding racial identity, participants self-identified as Hispanic/Latina (1), White and Hispanic/Latina (1), and White (8). The range of elementary school experience was 1 to 30 years, with an average of 8.2 years.

Procedures/Data Collection

The principal investigator obtained approval from the university’s Institutional Review Board prior to participant recruitment and data collection. The research met all requirements regarding the ethical treatment of participants outlined in the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics (2014). Participation in this study was completely voluntary. Each participant was provided with a $25 gift card code to a national retailer following completion of the data collection process. Participants were allowed to withdraw from the study at any point in the data collection without repercussion. Our research team developed an open-ended set of interview questions based in current and comparable research to explore the participants’ experiences and perceptions. The interview consisted of 13 questions/prompts to garner the participants’ demographic information and their perceptions and experiences related to implementing the Parental Rights in Education Act in Florida elementary schools. The open-ended questions used by the research team included:

(1) Share some of your experiences in learning about this Act and how it has been implemented in your school setting.

(2) Can you tell me about the school counseling confidentiality process for students in the school prior to and following the Act?

(3) What are your experiences in working with students and stakeholders regarding LGBTQ+ issues? Considering this Act specifically addresses sexuality and gender identity, how have these interactions changed since the implementation?

(4) Have you had any reactions from students or stakeholders (parents, teachers, administrators) regarding their opinions and reactions about the impact of this Act on students? If so, what were they?

(5) How does your experience with LGBTQ+ students and stakeholders relate to your school counselor training in providing services and maintaining confidentiality?

(6) What kind of interventions do you typically use with LGBTQ+ students? Has this been impacted by the passage of the Act? If so, how?

(7) What are some of your experiences working with LGBTQ+ students compared to other students in the school before and after passage of the Act?

(8) What do you see as some of the major challenges in working with LGBTQ+ students and stakeholders? How about any benefits in working with this population? How do feel the passage of the Act has impacted either of these?

(9) Do you have any additional insights or thoughts about this topic that you think would be helpful for me to know?

Elementary school counselors who agreed to participate were contacted via email by a member of the research team to set up a convenient time for the interview. The individual interviews were conducted virtually via Zoom, which meets requirements for proper confidentiality and storage of private materials in conducting interviews for qualitative research (Miles et al., 2020). The interviews lasted approximately 30–45 minutes and were recorded and transcribed for the data analysis process. Each participant was provided and accepted an informed consent document prior to scheduling the interview. The interview results were stored on a password-protected computer and were only accessible by the primary investigator. Pseudonyms were assigned to each participant to preserve confidentiality.

Data Analysis

The research team employed reflexive thematic analysis, which involved a reflective examination of the researchers’ subjectivity to analyze the collected data. Such a reflexive and collaborative data analysis aligns with a descriptive, phenomenological, in-depth investigation of current lived perceptions and experiences of participants (Beck, 2020; Bryman, 2016; Marshall & Rossman, 2014). This flexible process also allows researchers to actively identify, analyze, and report patterns or themes within the data to assimilate the perceptions, experiences, and conceivable needs of the participants (Clark & Braun, 2018; Guest et al., 2012). Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six phases for analyzing data through an inductive thematic analysis lens served as a guide in this study. The six phases are: (a) familiarizing yourself with the data; (b) coding the data; (c) generating initial themes; (d) developing and reviewing the themes; (e) refining, defining, and naming the themes; and (f) producing a report of the results.

Before conducting the coding process, each member of the research team independently reviewed the responses from each participant. Based in this qualitative research process, the researchers completely immersed themselves in the data, utilizing a constant review of the materials and maintaining extensive notation of actively created themes (Braun & Clark, 2021Braun & Clarke, 2021; Clark & Braun, 2018). We each used open coding to identify and sort distinct segments of the participants’ responses into appropriate categories (Guest et al., 2012). Throughout the process, data were parceled into recurring words and phrases to assemble repetitious themes or patterns. The research team met on three separate occasions to collectively review the coding process and separate the identified themes into organized categories. We then grouped the data into new combinations by identifying relationships between categories. Finally, we integrated the categories into a specific set that directly addressed the research questions followed by a review and refinement of the results to ensure complete consensus on the themes and phrasing of the results.

Positionality

Our research team consisted of the principal investigator, a qualitative research consultant, two doctoral students, and a master’s student. The principal investigator identifies as a White, heterosexual, cisgender male counselor educator with 10 years of qualitative research experience and 4.5 years as a school counselor. The qualitative research consultant identifies as a White, gay, cisgender male counselor educator and a clinical mental health counselor by training. He has experience conducting focus groups with school counselors around LGBTQ+ competencies. The first doctoral student identifies as an able-bodied, Latina, heterosexual, cisgender adult female in educational leadership policy studies. The second doctoral student identifies as a White female and is a counselor education graduate student with qualitative research familiarity; she has served 1 year as an elementary school counselor. The master’s student identifies as a White, bisexual, cisgender male and is a current school counseling student completing practicum in an elementary school.

Braun and Clarke (2021) assert that researchers should be aware of how their assumptions affect the overall data collection and analysis processes yet acknowledge that researcher objectivity is never fully realized in the context of qualitative inquiry. Thus, our positions as counselor educators, school counselors, and doctoral students; our advocacy experiences with LGBTQ+ students and stakeholders at school districts; and our other identities drew us to this line of inquiry and served as an evaluative filter at each stage of the research process. Operating within the framework, we remained mindful of how our races, cultures, sexual orientations, and gender identities would impact our interaction with a diverse sample and potentially affect the overall results. For instance, during the data analysis meetings, we constantly discussed and evaluated how our identities as members or allies of the LGBTQ+ community could potentially impact our perceptions of the data to ensure that we provided accurate findings based in the lived experiences of the school counselor participants.

Trustworthiness

Our team took various trustworthiness actions to establish credibility and rigor throughout the data collection and analysis. For example, we used member checking as a means of gauging the accuracy and trustworthiness of the data analysis (Miles et al., 2020). We also emailed initial findings of the data analysis to each participant to review for potential feedback, thoughts, or questions. Although only three participants responded, all of those reported consensus with the accuracy of the themes and comments provided by the research team. We implemented an audit trail of the data analysis process with reflective journaling for transparency, and we used a constant comparison method during the data analysis to represent a meaningful and cogent emersion into the data (Guest et al., 2012).

Results

The research team identified three themes based in the participants’ perceptions and experiences regarding the implementation of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. The themes exemplified and reflected the research questions through the following components: (a) What is this? Learning about the Act (RQ1); (b) How do I do this? Implementing the Act (RQ1 and 2); and (c) Is there any hope? The impact of the Act (RQ1 and 2). We explore each theme further in the following sections.

What is this? Learning About the Act

The principal origin of this theme derived from the school counselors’ learning about the Act and its vague nature. The flustered school counselors naturally sought guidance from their district leaders; however, many districts were also perplexed with providing feedback on the Act, resulting in inconsistent guidance that led to school counselors’ self-censorship and misunderstanding in the application of the Act. For many of the study participants, the Act’s lack of clarity combined with its potential consequences were disconcerting. Laurie exemplified this sentiment, stating: “It is so vague and it comes with such high stakes. . . . We’re talking about people losing their jobs and their licensure and their entire livelihood.”

Such concerns were further exacerbated by the perceived lack of guidance from school districts regarding the interpretation and application of the Act. For instance, Nancy shared:

I feel like my district provided very poor information as to the implications of this bill last school year. It was very confusing. I mean, I first heard about the bill on the news, that was my first source of information.

The turbulence of the Act’s introduction and implementation placed the school counselors in a place of uncertainty regarding how to understand, communicate, and apply the Act in the school setting. The experience of Rosita highlights the frustration with the inconsistent response from school leadership. She noted: “My district is a very parent-pleasing district,” which led to her experience of “admin across the board has just run with this bill and created procedures and policies that are difficult for teachers, difficult for staff to maintain.” Consequently, Rosita felt conflicted about this path, sharing: “and while they are very much like ‘do what the parent wants,’ in my head I'm not here for the parents. So, I found that kind of difficult.”

The ambiguity of the language in the Act resulted in inconsistent guidance from school leadership that led to misunderstandings by the school counselors and incidents of self-imposed censorship. This censorship impacted the participants across school settings. Donna described taking steps in the classroom: “Personally, I just kind of have stopped doing lessons with reading books, and just been a little more cautious with what I've been doing as far as classroom guidance lessons.” In Rosita’s school, the Act was interpreted as avoidance of any symbolism that could be misconstrued as inappropriate. She noted: “We changed our office decor, which used to have rainbows. We changed this to be like flowers or something like that.” She reported that this change resulted in conflict because the decision seemed to be based in fear: “We don't want to get in trouble as staff” while dealing with fairly innocuous subject matter that “should be harmless.”

Ultimately, the participants felt a collective sense of dismay in the confusing language and introduction of the Act leading to inconsistent guidance from school leadership, with the impact directly focused on inclusion and diversity in the school setting. Laurie described feeling that “teaching acceptance has kind of been tampered. And we're really not allowed to teach a whole lot about diversity.” Sidney reported that the inconsonance of the Act further muddled the school counseling role, standards, and resources she was striving to expand:

I think the challenging part has been every time we feel like we know we're solid with the bill, something changes. . . . And like the way we have to inform parents about curriculum and the books that we use in our offices, so it’s like every time I feel like we find solid resources and solid books to use, especially with that community, curveballs get thrown in.

The confusion for Sidney and other participants only grew as the process moved from learning about and making sense of the Act to actually implementing it within the school setting.

How do I do this? Implementing the Act

The second theme specifically related to the school counselors persevering through the lack of clarity and guidance with the Act and addressing how they dealt with practical elements regarding confidentiality, providing services, and interacting with parents. Considering that limits of confidentiality were a paramount aspect of the Act, concerns arose over this topic for several of the participants. Much of the conflict with confidentiality for the participants stemmed from the diversion of the Act’s language from their training and standards. Carol described the Act as putting “a heavy-handedness on what is already something where we have to use our best professional judgment as far as when to call the parent, when not to, how to protect the students’ confidentiality.” For Laurie, the questioning of her professional determinations of confidentiality was further complicated by her personal knowledge of some students’ situation and how to navigate the ambiguity in the Act’s language. She shared: “But I know this kid’s situation. And I know this kid does not have a lot of safe people in their life, and it just breaks my heart.” At this point, Laurie became emotional discussing the topic but continued her story: “Sorry. I’m just super emotional about it, that these kids need somebody to just listen. . . . I worry about how that is going to affect them long term.” Ellen further debated the Act’s focus on reporting LGBTQ+ aspects, positing: “Sometimes people don’t feel comfortable reporting that because it’s not meant to be a negative thing.”

Beyond the confusion of confidentiality, the participants connected long-term potential effects with the process of providing school counseling services to students while adhering to the Act’s obscure language. Nancy exemplified this incongruence: “We’re just, in many different ways, cutting back our access to students, and the ability to do the job as a school counselor, if we’re going to be following the guidelines as they're written.” Laurie reported a similar experience: “It's becoming very, very tricky to know how to actually help the children with the things that they are personally experiencing in any sort of relevant manner” with the added caveat of potential consequences mentioned in the Act, including “well, trying to keep your job, and not have a felony charge for reading the wrong book.” Sally echoed this sentiment, noting the “fear-based mentality” and the impact of being a novice in the profession: “I'm so new to this . . . I don't want to make the wrong moves. I don't want to do anything wrong.” Rosita perceived that personal counseling relationships were transforming along this confusion continuum, demonstrated in her feeling the need “to plead with the student to say ‘hey, this is required of my job,’ instead of being like, ‘hey, what will be best for you?’” This resulted in her “trying to get them on board to keep that relationship with me, instead of saying ‘hey, let's do it best for you.’”

School counselors’ interactions with stakeholders were also impacted by the Act and the inconsistency associated with its understanding and implementation in the school setting. Parents provided some of the most contentious interactions for Laurie:

We have had more angry parents in our office this year than I have seen in the past 10 years of being in education, and they will come in the office, “I know my rights! I know that House Bill!”

Rosita acknowledged similar difficulties, reporting that she “had like 3 or 4 [parents] that are like ‘this new bill says you have to tell me whatever.’ So that's been hard to navigate.” Despite the struggles, the school counselors were able to navigate stakeholder interactions, provide school counseling services, and maintain confidentiality to combat the pessimism of implementing the Act.

Is there any hope? The Impact of the Act

Despite the overwhelming confusion, trepidation, and uncertainty they shared, the school counselors reported working through the challenges of understanding and implementing the Act while finding positive reframes including opportunities for increased advocacy; gaining valuable insights into their identities, ethics, and values; and enhanced communication with parents. The ability to engage with parents in a more meaningful manner was key for Sally, who stated that she was actually able to increase her interaction with students because she received “more parent requests for individual and group counseling this year than I did last year.” Similarly, Selena found the Act beneficial, noting “it's given us a chance to give parents a little bit more education about what we [school counselors] do.” Laurie demonstrated ability to identify assets of the Act as she sought justification for the legislation in that “keeping parents informed and allowing them to come to the table . . . I think there's a lot of value in that, and that's something that I'm hoping was more the spirit of the law.”

The unclear “spirit of the law” was an additional source of inspiration as the participants found motivation for enhanced advocacy work, particularly with members of the LGBTQ+ community. Sally expressed concern that “support is lost, and it’s going to continue to be lost.” She expanded on this concern, sharing: “I think we’re going to see a lot of negative repercussions from kids not feeling like they can be themselves anymore.” Sidney also signaled unease with such legislation and advocacy needs: “There’s so much negative that comes from the media and stakeholders, and not enough advocacy for that [LGBTQ+] group.” The interview provided Carol with the chance to ponder potential advocacy routes for future acts of legislation:

I think the only way we're going to move forward, either having better answers about how to address it, how to approach it, but also, maybe, improving future legislation, or giving feedback hopefully to some of the legislators who are making these decisions and helping them understand what the issues are.

Perhaps the most resounding revelation expressed by participants involved an increased clarity of their school counseling responsibilities and ethical obligations. Selena and Nancy outlined their priorities to students by noting, respectively: “I'm not going to be outing anybody to their parents. That's for sure. I know that about myself” and “I would quit my job, or I would leave before I would call out, or single out a student, or make a student, like, feel unsafe.” Ellen further elaborated on the mandated component of the Act with a developmental view:

I don't feel like it should have to be a mandated reporter unless it's something that a child wants to share with their parent or needs help sharing with their parent. I don't like that. We're almost supposed to out them in some way, shape or form. I also think a lot of the times children are kind of still figuring it out.

Ultimately, Ginny was able to align her ethical viewpoints with exceptions to mandated reporting in the Act: “If safety is still a factor, if I don't think that they're going to be safe at home, because I disclose something, then I will still maintain confidentiality in those situations.”

Discussion

The findings of this research study illustrate the concerns, strengths, and needs of elementary school counselors regarding the understanding and implementation of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. Participants shared an overall consensus of confusion, uncertainty, fear, and hope related to the vague language and inconsistent implementation of the Act in delivering school counseling services to all students. These findings correspond with existing literature concerning increasing school-based legislation and policy particularly focused on providing services to members of the LGBTQ+ community and how school counselors can address needs for more effective training, education, support, practice, and advocacy (Beck & Wikoff, 2020; Johns et al., 2019; Luke et al., 2022; Moe et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2023). Elementary school students are in particular need for advocacy because they often lack voice due to age, development, and institutional constraints (Brown et al., 2022).

An additional consideration involved the political ideologies inherent in the development and adoption of the Act. As noted by participants, and even some respondents who decided not to participate, the navigation of ethical conflict related to breaking confidentiality for LGBTQ+ students and the potentially harsh consequences of the Act was at the forefront of their experiences. Providing school counseling services to students has become increasing politically polarized due to increased anti-LGBTQ+ school-based legislation and policies (Moe et al., 2022). Consequently, school counselors must now implement strategies and political savvy to negotiate power dynamics, process difficult dialogues with stakeholders, build alliances in the school and community, and advocate for all students (Dogan, 2022; Johns et al., 2019; Oehrtman & Dollarhide, 2022).

The focus on gender identity and sexual orientation in the Act and the impact on members of the LGBTQ+ community were also integral in the narrative of the participants. Several of the school counselors expressed concern over potentially outing a student to their parents and how this could be detrimental, even dangerous, in some circumstances. These concerns correspond with literature reflecting LGBTQ+ students as being less likely to seek school counseling services due to fear of misunderstandings, stigma, and unfair treatment (Lardier et al., 2020). Disclosing the identities of LGBTQ+ students can be quite conflicting, as several of the participants shared, because this can have significant implications related to a student’s level of support, access to comprehensive sexual education, failure to recognize stigma, and lack of mental health and social resources (Redcay et al., 2021). Lack of school-based support can be detrimental because as LGBTQ+ students progress through the educational system, they can experience difficulties including more absences, lower self-acceptance, higher dropout rates, and lower GPAs (Abreu et al., 2022; Stargell et al., 2020).

The participants did note benefits in the implementation of the Act. Increased focus on advocacy for members of the LGBTQ+ community was a key realization for many of the school counselors. Perpetuating the societal norm that heterosexuality and gender are strictly binary can reinforce the stigma of gender/sexual minorities as inferior (Meyer et al., 2021; Rivas-Koehl et al., 2022; Wikoff & Wood, 2022). Several participants shared their concerns for the current and future mental health of LGBTQ+ students if schools maintain such environments; this concern aligns with literature exploring the potential dismantling of support opportunities and compromising of student health and wellness (Beck & Wikoff, 2020; Day et al., 2019; Placeres et al., 2022). With sexual identity and development presenting at younger ages, elementary schools have a vital role in being a place of support, non-judgment, and inclusivity (Wikoff et al., 2021).

Implications for the School Counseling Profession

According to the ASCA Ethical Standards (ASCA, 2016) and ASCA’s position statement on working with LGBTQ+ youth (2022), school counselors are expected to be open and affirming of all students, including LGBTQ+ youth. Further, all school stakeholders must be attentive to any potential marginalization of students that could impact academic, personal, social, or cultural outcomes. The results of this research study provided insights into possible training, advocacy, and practice strategies school counselors could utilize to serve students amid expanding anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and policies. For example, school counselors can engage in professional advocacy by staying abreast of applicable legislation and engaging in purposeful conversations with local and state representatives (Mullen et al., 2023).

Training and Professional Development

Preparing and maintaining cultural competence for school counselors is a key element in providing effective and meaningful services. Many of the participants in the study described how “tricky,” “frustrating,” and “confusing” it was to understand, implement, and provide beneficial school counseling services in light of such legislation. As such, school counselors could benefit from enhanced training in addressing school-based legislation and working with members of the LGBTQ+ community. Initiating courses to inform future school counselors on the specific identity development, counseling, confidentiality standards, and advocacy needs of the LGBTQ+ community is critical for counselor education programs (Abreu et al., 2022; Lardier et al., 2020; Luke et al., 2022). Specifically, emphasis is needed on elementary populations and difficulties for school counselors including high caseloads, lack of societal knowledge of child mental health needs, and stigma of children’s sexual orientation and gender identity issues (Brown et al., 2022). Counselor education programs can also include information and skills related to navigating increasingly politically influenced schools and school-based legislative advocacy strategies (Mullen et al., 2023). Practicing school counselors need continuing education and support upon entering the field. To start, the development of elementary curriculum based in a broader and more inclusive understanding of gender across disciplines could provide more support for all students (Kull et al., 2019; Vilkin et al., 2020). School counselors may also benefit from ongoing professional development to enhance their knowledge and skills in supporting diverse and marginalized populations (Stargell et al., 2020) because one third of school counselors have reported having no professional development on LGBTQ+ topics (Beck & Wikoff, 2020; Simons, 2021). Further, the inclusion of assessments such as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Development of Skills Scale (LGBT-DOCSS) to measure school counselor clinical competence could provide data-based information to gauge areas of deficit in school counselor skills and knowledge (Moe et al., 2022).

Practice and Collaboration

Providing purposeful and impactful school counseling services to all students is requisite to the profession. The school counselors in this study were clear about their desire to “protect confidentiality” and avoid a “fear-based mentality” while providing services to all students. Such revelations are meaningful because being approachable and inclusive is vital for school counselors: 58% of youth report comfort in discussing LGBTQ+ concerns with school mental health professionals (Moe et al., 2022). Further, school counselors should be active in collaborative efforts with all school stakeholders. Although our participants did note some difficult interactions with parents, they also recognized an increase in parental engagement based in a sincere desire to help students navigate their mental health issues. Building upon such opportunities through peer collaboration and cooperation with supportive teachers and parents can be essential supportive resources, especially for novice school counselors. Further, the development of a supportive leadership advocacy team can help school staff come together to ensure all voices and concerns are heard in making relevant and appropriate decisions in delivering the most culturally appropriate services for all students. Having more supportive school staff results in positive mental health and educational outcomes for LGBTQ+ students, especially when considering factors such as age, gender identity, sexual orientation, and sociocultural context (Bochicchio et al., 2022; Kosciw et al., 2020). Overall, when schools emphasize protective factors, including education curriculum focused on identity development, comprehensive antibullying policies, professional development, and visible allyship that encourages help seeking, all students benefit from positive academic, personal, and social outcomes (Rivas-Koehl et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2023).

Advocacy

Navigating the political and legislative landscapes in school settings has become increasingly formidable in recent years. To start, school counselors can engage in professional advocacy by staying abreast of applicable legislation and engaging in purposeful conversations with local and state representatives (Mullen et al., 2023). As noted by many study participants, the “lack of clarity” and “confusion” in the legislation and among school leadership significantly impacted school counseling aspects such as maintaining confidentiality. A pivotal role for school counselors is being comfortable in addressing gender issues while being cognizant of applicable laws and policies (Meyer et al., 2021), with the goal to increase social capital in the schools to share norms, values, and understanding, resulting in more confirming school environments (Oehrtman & Dollarhide, 2022; Wikoff & Wood, 2022). School counselors also need to enhance collaboration skills to assist all school staff in developing proficiency in discussing potentially contentious issues, allowing for exploration of strategies and increased understanding among all students and stakeholders (Stargell et al., 2020). Garnering administrative support based in professional standards, ethics, and data-supported school counseling advocacy initiatives is also necessary for success in developing safe and inclusive schools for diverse and marginalized students (Wikoff et al., 2021). The participants in our study echoed many of these needs with the ultimate goal of providing the most effective and purposeful school counseling services to all students while maintaining a positive reframe of the “spirit of the law.”

Limitations and Future Research

This research study had some potential limitations. Although qualitative methodology does not seek to provide generalizable results, it does attempt to engage in a meaningful exploration of the authentic experiences of each participant. Thus, even though we found meaningful experiences from the participants, results of this particular study should not be generalized to all school counselor experiences in similar situations. Further, the number of participants was limited due to the focus on a potentially controversial personal, political, ethical, and legal topic in one specific state. Another limitation lies in the fact that the participants voluntarily responded to a professional organization email list and personal communications regarding willingness to engage in the research study. Consequently, a self-selection bias could have impacted the study.

Considering the growing amount and influence of similar school-based legislation across the United States, we see a need for continued investigation. Future research could focus on school counselors’ experiences from other states enacting similar legislation and policies. Researchers could also explore administrator, teacher, student, and parental experiences of such school-based legislation and policies. Future research endeavors could potentially include observations, surveys, or document analysis for enhanced triangulation.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates a qualitative pursuit to gain insights into the experiences of elementary school counselors in implementing the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. From this research, multiple areas surfaced related to understanding and addressing the needs of students to confront increasing school-based anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and policy. The findings support the need for continued enhancement of practice, advocacy, and collaboration training for elementary school counselors. Continuing the education and advocacy for working with LGBTQ+ students and stakeholders is a crucial obligation for all school counselors to ensure an inclusive and secure school setting while demanding accountability in school-based legislation and policy.