Carter was in first grade when the suspensions began. His mom describes it as the year “all hell broke loose.”

As he made his way through the public school system in York County, South Carolina, the now-15-year-old, who has multiple disabilities, continued to struggle.

The situation reached a crescendo in 6th grade, when Carter was suspended out of school for 7.5 days and in school about a dozen times, according to school district records and his mother’s estimates. This was in addition to numerous lunch suspensions — during which he was forced to sit at a table alone in the cafeteria — and bus suspensions, which meant Carter couldn’t ride school-provided transportation. His offenses, Kimberly Tissot, his mom, said, ranged from minor ones,  like “incessant talking” and “cussing,” to the more extreme, including breaking one classmate’s glasses and threatening another.

While Tissot understands why these behaviors needed to result in clear consequences, she argued that every one of them was a manifestation of her son’s disabilities, which include ADHD, fetal alcohol syndrome, a disability involving written expression and a mild intellectual disability. They could have been avoided, she said, if Carter’s school had followed his Individualized Education Program, which lays out the supports and services the school is legally mandated to provide Carter so he can progress and learn.

Ultimately, her son, who has difficulty connecting his actions to their ramifications, was left confused and convinced, “he’s in trouble because he’s bad,” said Tissot, who is also the president and CEO of , an advocacy organization. 

Carter is one of hundreds of thousands of students with disabilities across the country who are suspended from school each year. It’s long been documented that this population of kids is generally more likely to face exclusionary discipline , but because of where he happens to live, Carter is particularly susceptible: No state removes students with disabilities from school for 10 days or fewer at a higher rate than South Carolina.

There, some 15% of special education students faced out-of-school suspensions for up to 10 days in the 2022-23 school year — nearly twice the national average, according to The 74’s analysis of the most recently available data.

These numbers may also be a substantial undercount, according to experts who told The 74 they’ve witnessed widespread in South Carolina — in some cases to avoid the legal protections that kick in for students with disabilities once they’ve been kept out of the classroom for more than 10 cumulative days. Tissot said she was asked to pick Carter up from school without an official suspension on multiple occasions, a practice she knew to push back on only because of her advocacy work. And she said she only learned of some of Carter’s in-school suspensions, which weren’t all officially documented, from him.

Macaulay Morrison is assistant director of a at the University of South Carolina Law School who represents special education families in their legal battles with schools.

“It’s just reflective of the state of public education of South Carolina as a whole,” Morrison said of the IDEA suspension data. “Sometimes it’s easier for schools to exclude these students than it is for them to figure out how to support them.”

In response to The 74’s findings, a South Carolina Department of Education official said they remain “committed to ensuring that all students, including those receiving special education services, are supported in safe and positive learning environments.”

The department has established a goal of working with districts to reduce suspension rates for students with disabilities to 9% or less — significantly lower than its current rate, but still higher than the national average — by working with advocacy and support groups, like the Behavior Alliance of South Carolina, to provide conferences, institutes and training opportunities.

And the department will continue to “closely monitor student discipline data to track progress toward this target … including assisting with district reviews of disciplinary referral data, revision of policies and procedures, and the development of targeted improvement plans at both the school and district levels.”

South Carolina was the only state whose numbers were not broken down by race after state officials notified the U.S. Department of Education of data quality concerns, according to federal Education Department staff. The South Carolina state education department official told The 74 that they provided corrected data once they were made aware of the issue, but that update was not reflected in the final federal dataset. 

The federal Department of Education did not respond to repeated requests for comment from The 74.

The IDEA dataset is particularly significant because it’s the first to document disciplinary rates among students with disabilities at the national level post-pandemic, a time when . The U.S. Department of Education’s more frequently scrutinized has long shown disparities in discipline between students with disabilities and their general education peers but the most current available complete numbers are from the 2021-22 school year — when most kids were back to in-person learning but some districts were still offering a hybrid model and still others were allowing kids to

The 74’s analysis of the more recent IDEA data of some 7.5 million students with disabilities across three suspension categories reveals the differences experienced within this vulnerable student group. For example, in addition to South Carolina, special education students living in North Carolina, Delaware and Nevada are far more likely to be excluded from school than students with similar disabilities living in Vermont, Utah and New York.  

The IDEA data, which is released annually, shows that race — also a well-established to suspensions — plays a role among students who are already facing disproportionate discipline. While Black students made up 16% of all students with disabilities nationally, they accounted for nearly a third (31%) of all those students suspended out of school for 10 days or less. 

In some cases, race and geography combined in striking ways in the IDEA data, such as in Nebraska, where almost 1-in-10 Black students with disabilities were removed from school for more than 10 days (a figure which includes in-school and out-of-school disciplinary removals) in 2022-23 — more than any other group in any other state.

Other key findings of the The 74’s analysis include:

• Nationally, boys are more likely than girls to be identified as having a disability, and — even when that’s considered — are disproportionately removed from classrooms: While about two-thirds of students with disabilities are male, they account for about 75% of special education students removed from school for any duration of time.

• On average nationally, just over 7% of all students with disabilities received at least one out-of-school suspension for 10 days or fewer.

• Black students with disabilities are disproportionately suspended out of school for 10 days or less in every state, to varying degrees. In Georgia, for example, they make up 39% of those with disabilities, but 59% of those who were suspended. In Delaware, Black students make up just over a third of those with disabilities, but over half of those suspended.  In five states (Indiana, Nevada, Iowa, Nebraska and Wisconsin), at least 20% of Black students were suspended out of school for 10 days or fewer. 

• In both West Virginia and Pennsylvania, almost 1-in-10 Hispanic children with disabilities were suspended for 10 days or less outside of school — more than any other state for this group, though closely followed by Nevada, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.

• In South Dakota, 17% of students with disabilities who identified as Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander were suspended for 10 days or less in school — a greater share than in any other state.

• California suspends students with disabilities for 10 days or fewer in school at the lowest rate (0.8%), and Vermont suspends them out of school at the lowest rate (3%).
  
• No state removes students for more than 10 days at a higher rate than Missouri (4%), 2.5 times the national average.

While supporters of stricter school discipline argue suspensions and expulsions are necessary to keep schools safe, research also shows that these measures are associated with a host of negative outcomes, including , and a lower likelihood of and greater involvement with the

exclusionary discipline, which children with disabilities are more frequently subjected to, does not seem to positively impact students’ future behavior and, for younger students, may even exacerbate it. 

For students with disabilities, the loss of instruction time can be particularly devastating, said Amy Holbert, CEO of , a training and information center for families whose children have disabilities. And especially when students receive out-of-school suspensions, it can put a strain on working families who suddenly have to scramble to find child care, she added.

These challenges have only worsened since the pandemic, according to Holbert, who said referrals to her organization for educational concerns have increased 128% since 2020.

The 74’s data analysis confirms “what advocates across the country have been saying over and over again about the students most likely to experience school pushout and get deprived of access to instructional time,” said Jennifer Coco, interim executive director of .��

It holds up an “important mirror” she added, “on who is getting appropriate interventions and who are the students that we still collectively need to do better by.”

‘The Wild Wild West of civil rights enforcement’

Keisha Sims-Williams’ son, Savion, was just 2 years old when she began to suspect he might have a disability. He was hyperactive and impulsive. Sometimes she’d call his name and he wouldn’t respond. And he would often walk on the tips of his toes — a characteristic more common in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Some of these behaviors made starting school particularly challenging. 

Sims-Williams said she told Savion’s Columbia, South Carolina, school as early as pre-K that he would need extra help. But instead of having him evaluated for an IEP they repeatedly removed him from school — both formally and informally — and ultimately relocated him to a transitional program, though not one for students with disabilities, she said. 

“His pre-K year it got so bad, he was out of school more than he was in,” she said, estimating Savion was suspended for at least 30 days that year. 

Ultimately, Savion was diagnosed with ADHD and autism by clinicians outside of school, but still he wasn’t evaluated for an IEP, which meant he went through his kindergarten year without the same protections around school removals as other students with disabilities. 

As a kid with a suspected disability, though, he should have still had access to at least some of those guardrails, according to Morrison, the South Carolina attorney, who later filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Sims-Williams family.

And so, Savion had another year filled with so many removals his mom lost count. 

“At some point it was like they were on a mission to get rid of him,” she said.

In November of his kindergarten year, Sims-Williams filed a formal written request for an in-school evaluation, but his IEP wasn’t developed until May or implemented until the following August.

“It took two years of me fighting and pleading in order for him to finally get an IEP and be heard and seen as he should,” Sims-Williams said. She believes if that IEP had come along sooner, her son’s early years in school could have looked a lot different.

“No child’s experiences in their education should have been as bad as my son’s,” she added. “They ruined his good years of school. They ruined it.”

Much of this was confirmed by the state’s response to the family’s lawsuit. The South Carolina Department of Education found that the district had violated a number of Savion’s rights as a student with a suspected disability — including by not evaluating him for an IEP in a timely manner and not officially recording removals or creating a behavior plan once he hit 10 days of removals. These failures ultimately led to even more suspensions, according to court records shared with The 74.

Since extra supports were implemented, school has been significantly better for Savion. He’s been on honor roll, won awards and no longer cries when she drops him off each morning.

Still, “he’s had some bumps here and there,” she said, noting the now-7-year-old was suspended out of school for about eight days throughout first grade, but “compared to 20 or 30, that’s progress to me.”

“I’m hoping next year we’re down to five. Or none.”

Savion’s race, gender and disability status all make him particularly likely to be suspended, as does the fact that his family also lives in South Carolina. The Palmetto State leads the nation in , as well.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides protections to students who have been removed from school for more than 10 days, but much of the enforcement is left up to schools, districts and states, leading to a patchwork landscape, according to interviews with over two dozen advocates, experts, parents and attorneys. 

“Schools don’t seem to have any incentive to improve their processes and procedures because there isn’t anybody holding them to task,” said Mike Mathison, a juvenile justice resource attorney at the Children’s Law Center at the University of South Carolina Law School.

And in certain cases — like Savion’s — even if a student has a documented disability, it can be challenging to get schools to provide an IEP in a timely manner, leaving vulnerable kids unprotected. 

The disproportionate removal of students with disabilities — especially for boys and those who are Black — experts told The 74 is the result of a confluence of systemic issues including discrimination, teacher and school counselor shortages and a dearth of training in positive behavior management techniques, like establishing strong relationships with students and clear routines. Added to that are administrators not understanding or enforcing students’ IEPs or the law, parents not knowing their kids’ rights, a return to top-down “zero tolerance” disciplinary policies and a lack of federal accountability.

This trend of disproportionality is well established: In the 2017-18 school year, 9% of students with disabilities were suspended, compared to 4% of their general education peers, according to a 2022 from the Learning Policy Institute — largely based on analyses of four years of Civil Rights Data Collection. For Black students with disabilities, that figure was even higher: 20% were suspended. 

Students with disabilities are also more likely than their peers to be punished for “broad and subjective categories” of behavior like defiance, according to a 2024 investigation by  .

“There’s disadvantages of being Black when it comes to disciplinary outcomes, and there’s a disadvantage of being a student with a disability as well,” said Richard Welsh, associate professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University and author of “You can times that together … and that’s the definition of intersectionality.”

While disparities are cause for closer inspection — and can be evidence of discrimination — they alone are not proof of bias, cautioned Paul Morgan, director of the at the University of Albany. That being said, he added, even when controlling for differences in behaviors, Black students appear to be more frequently suspended than their peers. And a recent GAO report determined that Black girls are more likely to be removed from class than their white female peers for similar behaviors in the same schools.

Regardless of whether or not active discrimination is at play, the disparities are at least “a sign of weak systemic practices” and “a call to action,” said Coco, from The Center for Learner Equity.

Despite this, in April, President Donald Trump released an saying he intended to roll back Biden administration discipline guidance, which encouraged school districts to collect, analyze and adjust their policies in light of disproportionate racial outcomes. Trump argued that approach actually weaponized federal civil rights laws in ways that discriminated against white students.

Critics have the executive order, titled Reinstating Common Sense School Discipline, will only further widen disparities for students of color and students with disabilities, especially as  more than consider a return to stricter student discipline policies, including four that have already done so. 

“Common sense is students in school every day learning, and students can’t learn if they’re not in school,” Coco said. “I recognize we need to keep schools safe, so to me a common sense investment is saying, ‘How do we ensure that schools are a place where students are getting access to what they need to thrive and be successful, both in terms of education and wraparound supports?’”

Trump has also been systematically working to dismantle the Education Department, which could mean even less federal accountability and data collection moving forward, said Dan Losen, senior director of education at the National Center for Youth Law.

“We’re in the Wild Wild West of civil rights enforcement,” he said.

A ‘huge oversight’ in IDEA enforcement

The federal law defining the rights of students with disabilities was first passed in 1975 and then updated and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1990. IDEA mandates a “free appropriate public school education” for eligible students ages 3-21. In the 2022-23 school year that included or 15% of all those attending public schools — a two percentage-point increase from the 6.4 million students covered under IDEA a decade ago. The federal guidelines provide baseline regulations that states must follow, but some — like New Jersey — have implemented stronger protections as well. 

Under IDEA, states must submit annual data about students who receive special education and related services to the Education Department, including the data analyzed by The 74.

And the law provides certain protections around disciplinary removals: If a student with a disability is removed from their classroom for more than 10 days, IDEA mandates a process called a Manifestation Determination Review, a hearing during which a group — including the parents and the student’s  IEP team — meets to determine if the child’s behaviors were either related to their disability or the result of a failure to implement their IEP. 

If the answer to either of these questions is “yes,” the school can’t move forward with the removal and has to instead make a plan to provide updated support.

Experts and parents told The 74 that once a student is diagnosed with a disability, schools tend to become particularly cautious about hitting that 10-day mark and triggering the legal review process. In some cases, that means educators pay closer attention to implementing a student’s IEP. But, in others, schools attempt to skirt the system by suspending students “off-the-books.” 

And when schools do implement the hearing process, they don’t always do so thoroughly or with intention, sometimes just “doing [it] to check the box,” said Morrison, the South Carolina attorney.

A recent , for example, found that New York City’s public schools routinely flout these federal guidelines by not properly considering a student’s disability during hearings. 

It can be challenging to hold schools and districts accountable for faithfully implementing these hearings, since the federal government isn’t collecting data around them, according to Losen, from the National Center for Youth Law.

“For monitoring the enforcement of these supposedly important protections, we don’t get to see any of that data,” he said. “Nothing. And I think that’s a huge oversight.” 

Carter, the South Carolina student suspended multiple times throughout his school career, is now leading his own IEP meetings and learning to control his behaviors, his mother told The 74. 

Tissot said he made it through the past school year without any suspensions — a first for him — and this fall he’ll start high school. His mom describes the teenager as a sweet, talkative kid who loves to try new foods — “He’s a little foodie!” — play video games and make people laugh.

While Tissot is proud of Carter’s progress, she also worries he’s still not where he needs to be academically, and his history of repeated suspensions has heightened his anxiety at school. 

“He has told me that he tries so hard to control himself that he’s unable to concentrate,” she said.

And she worries for other students with disabilities who don’t have the same resources Carter has — like a mom who’s an advocate in the field — a fear that’s only intensified under the Trump administration.

“The future is not looking good for kids with disabilities who require IEPs,” she said. “It’s very scary because they’re taking away the federal oversight right now so really relying on parents to enforce it. And, I mean, that’s not going to work at all.”

Over the last three years, hundreds of bills seeking to strip protections from LGBTQ youth have rolled through statehouses.

In the opening weeks of the 2023 legislative season alone, more than of — most of them targeting schools — were introduced throughout the country. 

It’s no surprise that queer students in where these laws have passed are profoundly impacted. But less visible is the dramatic effect the steady drumbeat of headlines has had on youth in places with even strong anti-discrimination laws. Newly released data from the advocacy groups GLSEN and The Trevor Project show increases in hostility, victimization and discrimination experienced by students in blue states as well as red.

The effects are devastating. of LGBTQ 13- to 17-year-olds considered suicide last year, as opposed to of high school students overall, according to The Trevor Project. Eighteen percent actually attempted it. Seventy percent report anxiety, and 57% experienced depression.

Strong in-school relationships are a well-known protective factor. LGBTQ students who say their teachers care a lot about them are to consider suicide and 43% less likely to be depressed than those who don’t feel cared for, according to The Trevor Project. 

Rates of self-harm are much lower among students who feel affirmed in school, and acceptance of LGBTQ students had risen steadily — if unevenly — following legal recognition of same-sex marriage. But the number of youth who see their schools as affirming has fallen dramatically over the last four years. 

In California — where the first gay couples married in 2008 and schools began teaching LGBTQ history a decade ago — found that the number who reported hearing homophobic remarks from adults in school rose from to 49% in 2021. That’s an increase of 408%.

, where same-sex marriage has been recognized for almost 20 years, the number of youth exposed to anti-LGBT remarks is up 686% over the same time frame.

In Minnesota, where queer youth are protected by strong human rights laws, the number is up 520%. In Connecticut, it’s 482%. In New Hampshire, 545%.

The increases are so big in part because acceptance had been on the rise in many places. In red states, the rise in anti-gay and anti-trans speech is smaller — but only because the starting numbers were much higher.

According to the surveys, anti-trans remarks are pervasive. , the number of students who report hearing transphobic remarks from school staff rose 235%, from 34% to 80%. , the number rose by 190% to 76%. In Missouri, 197% to 73%.  

In fact, when reports of hostile speech by peers are added to the rate of problematic adult remarks, there is no state in the nation where fewer than 93% of LGBTQ students reported hearing slurs in school. Nationwide, 83% were harassed, 54% were sexually harassed and more than 12% assaulted. 

Kids in the crosshairs

A new data analysis by The 74 shows how this , aimed at a relatively , is having an outsize effect. The number of youth who identify as something other than cisgender is growing, but it’s still a tiny number of children. 

Of the approximately 16 million high school students in the United States, an estimated 1.8 million, or 11.6%, identify as LGBTQ. Just 300,000 are gender-nonconforming. 

Ten years after became widely recognized, a sizeable majority of Americans with gay, lesbian and bisexual co-workers and neighbors. Experts say it’s harder to attempt to undo LGBT rights overall than to about the experiences of a very small subset of people.     

And unlike past campaigns to vilify LGBTQ people, this time, the rhetoric targets kids, not adults. Even though some of the new policies take aim at bathrooms and gymnasiums, the impact spills over to classrooms, hallways and libraries, affecting a much larger number of children.

They are bullied and assaulted; subjected to increasingly negative remarks even from teachers who are supposed to protect them; silenced from raising LGBTQ topics — even talking about their families during class discussions; discouraged from participating in sports or other activities; forbidden from wearing with supportive messages or forming gay-straight alliances or other affirming student clubs; disciplined for identifying as LGBTQ and for wearing clothes deemed “inappropriate” for their gender.

And while queer students often consider their schools safer than even their own homes, too often, they don’t report victimization or discrimination is because they don’t believe the adults will do anything about it. 

“They rely on these peer support groups, they rely on sympathetic teachers, counselors, coaches,” says Austin Johnson, a sociology professor at Kenyon College and director of the Campaign for Southern Equality’s Research and Policy Center. “Folks who are meant to be their resources, institutions that are meant to serve them and provide resources to them, actively rejecting them, stigmatizing them — those kinds of things are really damaging.”

Nor can kids simply decide — without repercussions — to stop attending a school that no longer feels safe, he says: “They’re stuck in this environment of hostility and negativity, with no way out.”

Despite the role an affirming school culture plays in protecting LGBTQ students’ mental health, policies prohibiting bullying and discrimination and newer laws requiring positive representations of gender and sexual minorities in classroom materials are poorly implemented. The reasons range from local political pressure to a lack of state and federal oversight. Too often, laws on the books are no match for negative rhetoric and the fear that comes with it.

by Educators for Excellence found that the number of teachers who say their schools are meeting the needs of their LGBTQ students is falling. The survey showed a sharp decline in educators’ perceptions of how well schools are serving LGBTQ youth, with 41% of respondents in 2020 saying their schools often meet these students’ needs, versus 22% this year. The survey also found that teachers of color and older educators were more likely to approve of  instruction on LGBTQ people and topics and to criticize their schools for not doing enough.

Using and the Movement Advancement Project, The 74 created a series of interactive maps. The first shows the increase in the number of youth who are the targets of hostile remarks from school staff, with state-by-state breakdown of the percentages and the status of laws and policies affecting LGBTQ students.

Student Experience Map

Increase in Homophobic & Transphobic Remarks from Educators Heard by Students Between 2019 & 2021

Data from the Movement Advancement Project and GLESN’s 2021 National School Climate Survey; downloaded May 18, 2023.

Administered since 1999, GLSEN’s school climate surveys are among a few datasets that include information about LGBTQ youth, although a 2022 Biden administration executive order has directed federal agencies to begin collecting and disseminating information on gender and sexual minorities. 

GLSEN’s findings are echoed by data collected by organizations that measure the well-being of all young people, not just LGBTQ students. In Fiscal Year 2022, the U.S Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights received 633 allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity, according to a department spokesperson. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has long found gay, lesbian and bisexual youth of in-school harassment and violence. 

In short, researchers say, regardless of whether the so-called culture wars are a coordinated political strategy aimed at voters, they are endangering queer students’ sense of safety even at schools with strong anti-discrimination protections.

‘Don’t Say Gay’ and mental health

Four years ago, for the first time, The Trevor Project, a queer youth suicide prevention group, started asking questions about the political climate and kids’ mental health on its annual survey of LGBTQ youth. Eighty-five percent of those said they pay attention to news stories about LGBTQ rights. A third said their well-being was poor most or all of the time because of the legislation and policies, and 2 in 3 said hearing about potential “Don’t Say Gay” laws make their mental health worse.

Teens in the survey felt the impact regardless of where they live. For example, 86% of respondents in and — both sites of over LGBTQ rights — as well as in progressive said the rhetoric has affected their well-being. 

Nine in 10 teens in Minnesota and Massachusetts, states with strong civil rights laws, said politics weighs on them — the same number as in Oklahoma, where a number of policies curtailing LGBTQ youth rights have been adopted. 

“It’s not enough anymore to say, ‘These laws don’t exist here,’ ” says Johnson. “Even when a law doesn’t exist, the rhetoric around it creates this environment of hostility, fear and confusion.”

According to GLSEN, more than four-fifths of queer teens have experienced in-person harassment or assault and almost as many say they feel unsafe in class and avoid school functions. A fifth have changed schools because of the climate, and a third miss one or more days a month. 

Research has long established that the resulting student absenteeism, lack of participation in sports and other school activities, depression and stress are direct causes of lower grade-point averages and graduation rates, dramatically higher discipline rates and other factors that can impact a student’s life trajectory. 

A 2023 Trevor Project survey of found of LGBTQ students who said they were affirmed at school than at home: 54% vs. 38%. Youth who perceived either setting as supportive were 4 percentage points less likely to attempt suicide.

Queer adults and their supporters often describe the political furor as a backlash against steadily expanding civil rights protections. But the current wave of legislation targets kids — and the schools where many find a supportive community. 

Proponents cite a number of reasons why the new laws are needed. They seek to shield students from materials they deem inappropriate; to combat supposed “indoctrination” and “grooming” by sexually predatory educators; to stop children from using a new name or pronouns in school without their parents’ consent; and to protect cisgender girls from trans girls in bathrooms and locker rooms, among other reasons. 

But LGBTQ-rights advocates counter that the impact of the laws is much broader. To understand how both restrictive and protective policies trickle down — or don’t — to affect LGBTQ students, GLSEN regularly asks queer teens throughout the country about their experiences in school. 

The maps below, based on an analysis by The 74 of data from GLSEN’s 2021 National School Climate Survey — the most recent available — depict more than 22,000 students’ responses regarding 10 key experiences, broken down by state. Five of the maps focus on episodes of discrimination and harassment, five on access to in-school support.

2021 National School Climate Survey

Discrimination & Harassment

Percentage of students who experienced at least one form of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination at school

Unchanged since 2019, 59% of queer students nationwide experienced at least one form of discrimination in school, ranging from assault to being stopped from talking or writing about an LGBTQ topic or person. That average, however, obscures a wide variation. Almost 80% of queer students in Tennessee, the state with the highest reported incidence, experience discrimination in school — twice the rate as in Massachusetts, the lowest, at 40%. 

The numbers are , researchers say. Students are hesitant to report harassment and discrimination, while school systems frequently don’t fulfill state and federal reporting requirements. Students may not be out and often fear reprisals, particularly when complaining about a teacher.

“The barriers that young people face to speaking out are very real,” says Aaron Riding, GLSEN’s deputy executive director for public policy and research. “At the school level, there’s still a lot of stigma and shame.”

But research also has found that non-LGBTQ staff may not recognize that something they are doing or that’s taking place is discrimination — even in their own classrooms. Educators in schools with policies specifically prohibiting discrimination against LGBTQ people are more likely to receive training and may be better able to recognize bias.

Percentage of students who say they reported victimization and received effective staff intervention

A common reason students don’t report victimization or discrimination is that they don’t believe the adults in their school will do anything about it. 

“What we’ve learned over the years is that oftentimes, young people will speak out and the adults will turn around and say that they’re not going to do anything about it,” says Riding. “That is particularly harmful, because educators are the ones who set the tone for the experiences that young people have in schools.”

A 2015 GLSEN survey of educators found that only 26% said they had engaged in efforts to support LGBTQ students. Of the rest, more than half said they did not think those efforts were necessary or appropriate. More than a quarter said they feared a backlash from parents or administrators. 

Historically, when “Don’t Say Gay” laws and policies are enacted, many educators are unsure if all in-school speech about LGBTQ people is outlawed and whether intervening in victimization constitutes a prohibited show of support. Twelve years ago, confusion over a policy in Minnesota’s largest school district, Anoka-Hennepin Public Schools, prevented educators from intervening against bullying, contributing to at least . 

Adding to the uncertainty, guidelines handed down in some states go beyond their new laws. For example, last year, Florida lawmakers passed a “Don’t Say Gay” bill prohibiting in-school discussion of LGBTQ topics in elementary grades. In April, the state Board of Education — whose members are appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis — extended the ban through high school. Soon after, the state legislature voted to enshrine a K-8 ban in law. It was not immediately clear whether the board’s policy remains in effect.

Adding to the confusion, rules handed down by the state Department of Education have taken aim at a number of in state law, such as allowable library and classroom books, student access to anti-bullying materials, and school- and district-level guidance on supporting LGBTQ youth. 

In some places, officials send mixed signals. For example, Virginia law specifically prohibits discrimination against sexual and gender minority students. But in September 2022, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin requiring schools to restrict trans students’ bathroom access and preventing students from using a new name or pronouns without parental permission, among other changes. 

Critics have said Virginia’s new rules, which have , are likely unenforceable. Some districts have said they will not follow the guidelines if they are put into place. But individual educators may not understand this legal and regulatory landscape. 

Percentage of students who were prevented from discussing or writing about LGBTQ+ topics in assignments

Seven states require schools to include LGBTQ history and culture in lessons. Yet, up to 15% of sexual and gender minority students in those states still report being prevented from discussing or writing about queer people or topics in class assignments. Similar numbers of youth were prevented from introducing LGBTQ topics in extracurricular activities. 

The message students hear, Johnson adds, is, “We don’t want LGBTQ people to be a part of our society.” If a child’s parents are not accepting, the new laws choke off their other sources of support. They may no longer turn to their doctors or find a safe haven at school.  

“Think about that,” he adds. “You’re not even allowed to write about your personal experience in a class where it may be relevant, or allowed to see yourself in books that are in your library…. Where can you exist?”

The youth surveyed by GLSEN are teens, but separate research suggests younger kids hear the same message, albeit likely in different ways. from the UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute found that 15% of queer Florida parents surveyed say their children — the vast majority under age 18 — worry about talking about their families, drawing pictures of them or completing writing assignments that depict their parents. 

Percentage of students who say their school’s anti-bullying/harassment policy includes sexual orientation and gender identity

Arkansas is one of 22 states with a law on the books specifically outlawing bullying and harassment of gender and sexual minority students. Yet, only 8% of youth there believe they attend a school with a policy prohibiting such victimization. 

The existence of the policy, then, doesn’t make Arkansas youth any safer than students in Missouri, one of two states that has a law prohibiting schools and districts from including LGBTQ children in local anti-harassment policies. There, 6% of students say their schools have anti-bullying rules. 

Most state anti-bullying laws require districts to develop their own policies, create procedures for reporting harassment and make sure students and educators understand the system for addressing complaints. When young people don’t know the policies exist, by definition there is an implementation problem, says Riding. 

“School districts have a lot of autonomy and not a lot of enforcement in terms of adopting a policy and implementing it in schools,” he says. Surveying students to gauge awareness, Riding adds, “helps us know that districts and schools are ignoring those standards.”

While there is no federal anti-bullying law per se, the U.S. Civil Rights Act prohibits in-school discriminatory harassment. Sexual and gender minorities are , which outlaw hostile environments that interfere with a student’s ability to benefit from a school’s activities and opportunities.

Percentage of students who were prevented from wearing clothing deemed ‘inappropriate’ based on gender

In Louisiana, 40% of students surveyed said they were prevented from wearing clothing school staff did not think was appropriate for their gender. Rates were nearly as high in Mississippi and Alabama, and above 30% in numerous other Southern states. Slightly lower numbers say they were told they could not wear clothing with LGBTQ-supportive messages. 

To queer kids, this sends the same message as excluding LGBTQ topics and people from assignments and class discussions, says Johnson. “If you wear a rainbow shirt to school, and you are sent home for it, or you are made to change that shirt, it’s not just about the shirt,” he says. “It’s about saying, ‘People like you … are not welcome here. And not only does it say it to the one kid who is forced to take a button off their backpack, it says it to all the other kids: That kid isn’t welcome here.’”

But it also reinforces traditional gender roles, he says. In Utah, which last year banned transgender students from playing on girls’ sports teams, officials have heard from parents who say their daughters lost to competitors who did not seem feminine enough to be cisgender. 

2021 National School Climate Survey

Access to in-school support

Percentage of students who have access to a gay-straight alliance

Gay-straight alliances — in-school clubs for queer kids and their allies — have flourished since the late 1980s, in part because courts have repeatedly ruled that federal law guarantees students at public schools the right to form them. Virtually all the relevant lawsuits were brought by students.

GSAs provide a supportive network of peers for students who are exploring their identity or attempting to survive discrimination or harassment. They are organized by students, who typically approach a sympathetic staff member — often the school librarian — to be the club’s adviser. 

A trove of research confirms the clubs’ positive impact for non-LGBTQ students, too. found that all students at schools with GSAs have 30% lower odds of experiencing homophobic victimization than peers at schools without a club, 36% lower odds of fearing for their safety and 52% lower odds of hearing homophobic remarks. Other reports have found GSAs on a school’s overall environment. 

The first GSAs were started in Massachusetts, where 68% of teens now report having access to one. In several Southern states, that number drops as low as 8%, but there are some red states with strong GSA movements. A third or more of students in Florida, Arkansas, Kansas and Arizona, all of which recently have passed anti-LGBTQ laws, report their school has a GSA.   

Percentage of students who can identify six or more supportive school staffers

Even in the most inhospitable schools, most LGBTQ students can name one teacher they believe to be supportive. The number drops, though, when youth are asked whether they can identify six. While it’s not an exact barometer — small schools or schools in small districts may not employ enough teachers for six to be LGBTQ-accepting — this survey question is a rough measure of school climate. A student’s ability to name one affirming teacher can mean that individual student has a lifeline, but the existence of several suggests a school welcomes queer adults and kids alike.    

In Louisiana, 91% of LGBTQ students surveyed could name one supportive staff member, while only 37% could identify six or more. In Washington state, 99% could name a single staffer, while 73% knew of six.

One possible factor, says Ryan Watson, a professor of human development and family studies at the University of Connecticut, is that the schools that have several are places where LGBTQ-supportive teachers want to work. Teachers who themselves are sexual and gender minorities also risk repercussions in schools with hostile climates. 

In a 2020 GLSEN survey, 75% of LGBTQ teachers said they had implemented affirming practices such as serving as a GSA adviser, making sure stickers and other signs of support are visible, advocating for inclusive practices or informally discussing queer topics with students. Of non-LGBTQ educators, 49% had engaged in a supportive activity.

Percentage of students who reported their school administration was supportive

Surveys have consistently found that in the face of possible parental backlash, district and school administrators often tell teachers to limit classroom discussion of hot-button topics. Even when they don’t, teachers frequently fear that their department head or principal will not back them if there are complaints from parents and anti-LGBTQ protesters. 

A 2022 RAND Corp. found it did not matter if the opposition came from just “a vocal minority” of parents. Some said their administrations have limited the materials they can use, instituted vetting processes and begun conducting — or allowing parents to conduct — classroom “audits.” 

In 2020, GLSEN found that a third of LGBTQ teachers and one-fifth of non-LGBTQ educators said community backlash and fear of it prevented them from supporting sexual and gender minority students. Ten percent of straight, cisgender educators and 21.5% of queer ones cited unsupportive administrations.

More than a third of LGBTQ teachers said they feared they would lose their job if they came out to an administrator, despite a Supreme Court ruling that this is illegal discrimination.

Percentage of students who were taught positive representations of LGBTQ+ people, history or events

Attending a school in one of the seven states that mandate positive depictions of LGBTQ people and history in classroom instruction is no guarantee a student will receive it. In Massachusetts and Oregon, slightly less than a third of youth reported being exposed to such material, a rate that falls to just 7% of students in California, which 10 years ago became the first state to require inclusive curriculum.

There are a host of reasons for this disconnect. Large publishers balked at revising their textbooks to meet California’s standards, for instance. The companies said they were unable to verify how historical figures might have identified, but critics pointed out that the change would have impacted their bottom line, since they could not sell the same materials in states that explicitly forbid LGBTQ content. 

A found that half of English language arts teachers said they are comfortable using literature that contains LGBTQ characters or storylines in their lessons, but only 24% of them actually incorporated such materials.

More educators — 61% — were comfortable with students choosing queer-themed books to read for pleasure, the report noted. While this may be a safer choice for a teacher who is unsure what book to assign, it’s not ultimately as helpful to students as having everyone read and discuss the same text.  

Separately, a report published last summer by the group Educators for Excellence found 1 in 3 teachers doesn’t think LGBTQ history and experience should be taught in schools, while 11% believe their school does not enroll any gender or sexual minority students.   

Percentage of students with access to inclusive library resources 

Libraries have long been sanctuaries for queer youth, and in part because of the special training they typically receive, school librarians often serve as GSA advisers. The American Association of School Librarians has an entire division devoted to evaluating the quality, content and age-appropriateness of LGBTQ books and other school resources. 

According to the free-speech advocacy organization PEN America, between July 2021 and June 2022, there were , with the largest number occurring in Texas, Florida, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. Forty-one percent were of books featuring LGBTQ themes or characters. 

The ferocity with which the bans are pursued can create the impression that school libraries are replete with LGBTQ titles. But even in Maine, the state where the most students have access, one-third say their school library lacks books with queer characters or themes. 

Interactive maps and graphics by Eamonn Fitzmaurice / The 74.