Protections for LGBTQ+ Youth in Pennsylvania Schools’ Anti-Bullying Policies

1. Introduction

1.1. LGBTQ+ Status and Bullying in Schools

Despite decades of study and intervention, bullying continues to be a significant and persistent issue for school-aged children in the US, with approximately 20% of high school students experiencing peer victimization at school (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2024a). Conceptualized as the use of repeated and intentional aggression with the presence of a power imbalance, bullying may potentially impact all students, no matter whether they are within the bully-victim dyad or are simply observers of the school violence (Crothers et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2015). However, researchers suggest that students belonging to minority groups (e.g., racial, ethnic, and sexual identity) experience bullying at disproportionate rates compared to their majority peers (CDC, 2024b; Kreski et al., 2022; Wells et al., 2019).

In the psychological literature base, researchers have noted that students who identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) community are recognized as a highly vulnerable population to bullying. In explanation, research conducted by the CDC (2024b) and Mallory et al. (2021) indicates that LGBTQ+ students are nearly twice as likely to report peer victimization in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts, both at school (29% vs 16%; 32% vs. 17%) and online (25% vs. 13%; 26% vs. 12%), respectively. Within the literature, this type of aggression is recognized as “LGBTQ+ bullying.” It is defined as the exhibition of intentional, repetitive aggression directed toward gender and sexual minority youth that is derived from LGBTQ+ prejudice and stereotypes (Earnshaw et al., 2018; Espino et al., 2024; Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010).

Other types of peer aggression targeting LGBTQ+ students include harassment and discrimination. While harassment and discrimination may overlap as forms of bullying, it is important to highlight the differences among these constructs. Unlike bullying, harassment and discrimination are legally defined. Discrimination is defined as the unfair treatment of an individual because of their membership in a protected class, including race, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability status, and age (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). Harassment is considered a form of discrimination and is defined as unwelcome conduct based on a person’s membership in a protected class (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.).

According to the 2025 National School Climate Survey, 68% of LGBTQ+ respondents experienced some form of peer victimization due to their gender identity or expression, and 62% reported the same because of their sexual orientation (Glisten, 2026). In addition, more than half (53%) of the LGBTQ+ students surveyed endorsed experiencing discrimination due to their minority status, with an example of being prevented from using the locker room representative of their gender (Glisten, 2026). Furthermore, the researchers suggest that a majority (57%) of assault and harassment incidents targeting LGBTQ+ students go unreported, as individuals believe nothing would come of it, or it would make the situation worse (Glisten, 2026).

1.2. Bullying of LGBTQ+ Students

In the psychological literature, four forms of bullying are typically identified, and the use of these types of peer victimization is also seen with LGBTQ+ victims. Direct bullying and indirect bullying share the tripartite definition (Gottheil & Dubow, 2001), including the normative belief and perpetration of instrumental aggression, a desire to harm another through such behaviors, and infractions that are repeated over time. Direct bullying is observable to others, including physical and verbal behaviors, while indirect bullying is typically covert, including relational and social aggression, as well as cyberbullying. It is important to note, however, that relational and social aggression may have direct aspects to the behaviors. Nevertheless, both forms of bullying encompass the range of behaviors of peer aggression.

While direct forms of bullying are overt and difficult to deny, in indirect bullying, the perpetrator(s) use more sophisticated, subtle, covert methods to antagonize their victim(s). Those engaging in indirect bullying (or relational aggression) target the victim’s relationships, social status, or reputation, whereas direct bullying (verbal and physical) focuses on the characteristics of an individual. Indirect bullying includes purposeful exclusion, spreading rumors, and intentionally embarrassing individuals in public settings, among other attacks on the victim’s social standing or reputation. Attacking an LGBTQ+ student’s sexual interests, behaviors, or reputation is a way to harm a victim’s emotional or psychological health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2023).

1.2.1. Physical Bullying of LGBTQ+ Students

In physical bullying of LGBTQ+ students, a peer with greater physical power uses their strength or aggression to kick, hit, bite, shove, punch, slap, pinch, push, or spit on another. In addition to physical assault, this form of bullying also includes vandalism directed toward a victim, threatening physical harm, hiding or stealing another’s belongings, and unpleasant hand gestures, including those of lewd sexual innuendo. These behaviors are likely to be repeated toward a victim over time.

1.2.2. Verbal Bullying of LGBTQ+ Students

One of the most used forms of bullying toward LGBTQ+ students is verbal aggression, such as name-calling, verbal slurs, teasing, insulting, sexual comments, aggressive verbalizations, mocking names, verbal harassment, and threats. For gender- and sexual-minority students, they may receive the treatment of deadnaming or misgendering. Again, the power differential favoring the perpetrator can take the form of physical size, verbal acumen, economic status, intelligence, or majority status (culturally, ethnically, linguistically, or majority gender-based). Like physical bullying, verbal bullying usually occurs between perpetrator and victim more than one time.

1.2.3. Relational Aggression of LGBTQ+ Students

In relational aggression, the individual’s primary focus is to influence or directly control the person’s behavior within that one-to-one relationship. Relationally aggressive behaviors are psychologically more intimate than social aggression, which relies upon the group context to inflict emotional hurt. The intent to harm another may be expressed through the exploitation of a friendship, sarcasm, speaking to another in a cold or hostile tone, ignoring, staring, eye-rolling, and “mean” facial expressions. Those using relational aggression may threaten a victim with the loss of the relationship to influence their behavior. For LGBTQ+ students in particular, non-consensual “outing” of their sexual or gender identity or behaviors may be threatened or executed. Typically, the perpetrator makes repeated threats to out or shame.

1.2.4. Social Aggression of LGBTQ+ Students

Social aggression is the intent to manipulate and damage another’s social status or group membership through either covert or overt means. Social aggression requires manipulating a social group to create alliances and inflict emotional damage, such as gossiping, spreading rumors, the silent treatment, and social isolation. Other forms of social aggression may be insulting “jokes” about sexuality or gender-atypical behaviors told in front of others, or a perpetrator threatening peers not to associate with an LGBTQ+ student. Those using social aggression leverage the in-group/out-group bias so that a victim is perceived as an out-group member. This type of bullying is more sophisticated than relational aggression since it requires knowledge of social dynamics and the ability to subtly influence or orchestrate others’ behavior to achieve desired outcomes. Social aggression damages children’s social standing among peers, and it is frequently ongoing without intervention.

1.2.5. Cyberbullying of LGBTQ+ Students

In cyberbullying, the perpetrator(s) use technological methods such as smartphones, the internet, social media, and other forms of electronic communication to victimize someone or compromise their digital privacy. Although meeting the components of instrumental aggression and a power differential between perpetrator and victim of direct bullying, because of the permanence of content posted online and the severity of its potential to affect the victim(s) detrimentally, cyberbullying does not necessarily require repetition of behaviors. The power imbalance between the perpetrators and their victim(s) can stem from differences in the technologies available to each in the dyad. Direct forms of cyberbullying may include messages, images, or threats sent directly to the victim. Indirect forms of cyberbullying may be rumors, lies, or gossip on public forums. Again, outing someone’s sexual or gender identity to others is a common cyberbullying tactic. Also, the use of sexually explicit images or videos that may or may not include the target of bullying, but are used to attempt to embarrass an LGBTQ+ student.

1.3. The Impact of Bullying on LGBTQ+ Students

The associated outcomes of peer victimization can be detrimental to LGBTQ+ youth. As previously stated, bullying of LGBTQ+ students most commonly stems from their perceived gender or sexual orientation, and is often presented in verbal bullying through the form of verbal homophobic name-calling (e.g., homo, gay; Black et al., 2012; Kosciw et al., 2022; Poteat & DiGiovanni, 2010). Researchers demonstrate that being victim to homophobic name-calling can be harmful, with several studies finding associations between this form of aggression and poor mental health outcomes (e.g., distress, depression, suicidality, anxiety), substance abuse, and negative educational consequences (Espelage et al., 2008; Martin-Storey & Crosnoe, 2014; Rinehart et al., 2017; Tucker et al., 2016). Another common tactic is forced outing, in which a peer intentionally reveals the sexual orientation or gender identity of a LGBTQ+ student, resulting in significant emotional harm and has been associated with risk for subsequent suicidality (Meyer et al., 2021).

For many LGBTQ+ students, being targets of bullying can greatly shape their views on school. Among the data collected from the 2025 National School Climate Survey, only a third of LGBTQ+ respondents reported often or frequently looking forward to school, with the primary reasons being attending specific classes and seeing their friends or certain teachers (Glisten, 2026). In addition, 66% of LGBTQ+ students reported feeling unsafe at school due to their gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation, and 86% of transgender participants reported avoiding certain areas within their schools (Glisten, 2026). Collectively, these findings highlight the need for schools to implement effective strategies to foster safe, inclusive, and supportive learning environments for LGBTQ+ students.

1.4. School Response to LGBTQ+ Bullying

The methods schools use to prevent and address bullying of LGBTQ+ youth can significantly impact the experience of the victims and perpetrators. Researchers argue that implementing protective factors, such as enforcing safe school policies and school-wide initiatives, can reduce peer victimization (Black et al., 2012; Liboro et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2021). Policies that are considered effective in promoting safe school climates are those that are inclusive and assert that violence and discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, or the perceived sexual or gender identity, of an individual will not be tolerated (Chesir-Teran & Hughes, 2009; Russell et al., 2021). In addition, universal intervention that targets the needs of LGBTQ+ students, while also identifying potential perpetrators, supports marginalized students, and creates opportunities for individuals to learn about their misconduct before experiencing harsher disciplinary action (Liboro et al., 2015).

Support from school staff, including teachers and administration, is also required to create safer learning environments for LGBTQ+ students (Kosciw et al., 2022). While most school personnel aim to support LGBTQ+ youth and other marginalized populations, they may not fully understand their needs. Providing staff with training opportunities to support these students effectively is essential for addressing this gap (Greytak & Kosciw, 2010; Payne & Smith, 2011; Russell et al., 2021). Several studies have demonstrated that LGBTQ+ students who view school personnel as supportive tend to feel safer and experience better educational outcomes (Greytak et al., 2013; Kosciw et al., 2020; Russell et al., 2021; Seelman et al., 2012). Taken together, these findings highlight that a multifaceted approach is needed to combat LGBTQ+ peer victimization.

With such findings in mind, how many states offer specific protections of LGBTQ+ students from bullying by peers? As of 2022, 24 states were identified as having anti-bullying statutes or regulations that specifically identified protections for LGBTQ+ students. Furthermore, nine other states had implemented policies to encourage state or district model policy development or professional development opportunities to support LGBTQ+ students in schools. Seven states included affirming policies regarding the inclusion of LGBTQ+ individuals in educational materials, as well as enacted suicidal prevention policies with specific mention of LGBTQ+ students (Cahill et al., 2022).

1.5. Title IX

In addition to individual school policies, there are federal protections enacted for LGBTQ+ students. As part of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex in any education program or activity that receives federal funding (U.S. Department of Education, 2026). With the interpretation of “sex” up for debate, in June 2021, the U.S. Department of Education asserted that discrimination “on the basis of sex” includes discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, 2021). While acts of discrimination may not always overlap as forms of bullying, this inclusion holds significant meaning for LGBTQ+ youth, as it offers greater security from victimization and helps hold perpetrators accountable.

1.6. PA Law for School Districts

In addition to federal protections, many states, including Pennsylvania (PA), enforce antibullying policies in schools through legislation. According to the PA Public School Code (Unfair Educational Practices Act, 1949/2009), all school entities are required to include antibullying policies in their student handbooks. Within these policies, three key components must be addressed: 1) a clear definition of bullying, 2) specified consequences for violating the policy, and 3) a detailed outline of procedures for reporting and investigating bullying incidents.

While this policy protects students from bullying, it fails to recognize that marginalized populations, including LGBTQ+ students, are at higher risk for experiencing peer victimization. Without explicit protections for vulnerable populations, these individuals are likely to be disproportionately affected by bullying.

1.7. The Present Study

The inclusion of both federal and state legislation in school policies not only ensures legal compliance but also demonstrates the districts’ commitment to recognizing and supporting LGBTQ+ students. While these mandates seek to address discrimination and bullying, it is not clear how these protections translate into district policies or whether they are effectively implemented. In the current study, we reviewed all 499 PA school district bullying policy documents that were published and in effect during the 2024-2025 school year. The current research explores in PA 1) the percentage of schools that have fully adopted an antibullying policy, 2) the percentage of these policies that reference Title IX, and 3) the proportion of policies that go beyond Title IX to specifically protect LGBTQ+ youth from bullying.

2. Methods

2.1. Data Sources

An Excel spreadsheet containing a list of all the 499 public school districts within PA was obtained from the PA Department of Education’s website. The respective antibullying policies mandated by the school board for each district were obtained from each district’s website.

2.2. Data Collected

The research team gathered data on the following pieces of information from each of the antibullying policy documents: 1) The activation status of the policy, 2) The year in which the policy was made active, 3) The inclusion of Title IX, and 4) The presence of language explicitly protecting LGBTQ+ students (e.g., “It is the policy of the District Board of Education to fully support the regulations and laws prohibiting discrimination, bullying, harassment, hazing, and intimidation because of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, color, national origin ancestry, marital status, familial status, disability, medical condition, age, as well as sexual harassment, and to maintain a learning environment which is free of any area listed in the purpose statement”; Conneaut School District School Board, 2025, Bullying, Cyberbullying, Harassment and Intimidation, para 2).

2.3. Procedures

Four independent researchers divided the total number of school districts equally among themselves and obtained each school’s antibullying policies by accessing their respective websites. The researchers then examined each policy for the areas of interest and recorded their findings in a shared Excel spreadsheet. If the primary researcher needed clarification about a policy, a second researcher also reviewed that particular district’s policy, and the two researchers would seek consensus.

2.4. Data Analysis Plan

As previously stated, the purpose of this study was to determine 1) the percentage of schools that have fully adopted an antibullying policy, 2) the percentage of these policies that reference Title IX, and 3) the proportion of policies that go beyond Title IX to specifically protect LGBTQ+ youth from bullying. To answer each question, percentages were calculated by counting the number of districts with this information in their policies and dividing by the total number of PA school districts (499). To examine whether districts that reference Title IX were more likely to include LGBTQ+ protections than districts that do not, a chi-square test of independence was conducted.

3. Results

Results obtained from the researchers’ examination of the 499 PA school board policy documents from the 2024-2025 school year indicate that 100% of the PA school districts reviewed had fully adopted an antibullying policy. Of those antibullying policies, 422 school districts (84.5%) directly referenced Title IX, while 85 (15.5%) omitted it or referenced it in a different policy (e.g., harassment). Furthermore, only 14 school districts in the state (2.8%) include explicit written protections for LGBTQ+ youth. Protections addressed in the antibullying section mirrored federal anti-discrimination laws and included other protected students, in addition to LGBTQ+ minorities (see Table 1). To illustrate, the Pittsburgh School District Board writes (Pittsburgh Board of Public Education, 2024, Prohibition Against Bullying/Harassment Section, para 2):

The Board recognizes that some conduct that qualifies as bullying may also trigger responsibilities under one or more federal anti-discrimination laws. Peer harassment based on race, color, age, creed, religion, gender (including gender identity or expression), sexual orientation, ancestry, national origin, marital status, pregnancy, or disability is specifically prohibited. Gender-based harassment may include acts of verbal, nonverbal, or physical aggression, intimidation, or hostility based on sex stereotyping. Thus, harassment of a student for failing to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity and femininity constitutes sex discrimination. Gender-based harassment can rise to a violation of District policy and/or Title IX when such conduct denies or limits a student’s ability to receive educational aid, benefits, services, or treatment; or when such conduct is sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive that it has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the school’s program (i.e., creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive educational environment)

When school districts did include specific protections for LGBTQ+ students, it was within the context of prohibiting bullying based on other protected statuses according to federal law (i.e., disability, race, ethnicity, religion, etc.). However, the vast majority of school districts in Pennsylvania, or 485 school districts (97.8%), do not describe or detail any safeguards for LGBTQ+ students.

A chi-square test was conducted to determine whether there was a significant association between a school district’s explicit mention of Title IX in its antibullying policy and the inclusion of specific protections for LGBTQ+ students. Results indicated a significant association between these two variables, χ² (1, N = 499) = 19.21, p < .001, φ = .20, Cramer’s V = .196). However, one of the expected cell frequencies was less than five. Fisher’s Exact Test was conducted, and the results were validated (p < .001). Further investigation into the observed frequencies (Table 2) shows that school districts that explicitly referenced Title IX in their antibullying policies were less likely to additionally include LGBTQ+ protections (6 of 422; 1.4%) than districts that did not explicitly reference Title IX (8 of 77; 10.4%). However, the magnitude of this association was relatively small. These results should be interpreted with caution, as the number of school districts that include specific protections for LGBTQ+ students is limited; therefore, the associations are based on a small number of cases.

4. Discussion

First, all 499 districts were found to have an anti-bullying policy, although this study was not focused on its enforcement in schools. Therefore, while school districts in PA are legally complying with the PA Public School Code, there may be variations in the quality or specificity of these policies from district to district, leading some districts to have a stronger anti-bullying infrastructure. In contrast, others have less rigorous systems in place. Our review found that most school districts (84.5%) reference Title IX in their bullying policies. Further, findings suggest that school districts that mention Title IX were less likely to protect LGBTQ+ students explicitly. It is unknown whether the referencing of Title IX is used to protect LGBTQ+ students or whether such language is used as boilerplate policy to provide compliance in deterring sex-based discrimination. Title IX’s coverage of sexual orientation/gender identity is related to a 2021 OCR interpretive letter rather than a statute, and thus district-level policy may not reflect deliberate LGBTQ+ inclusion.

4.1. Specific Protections Against Bullying of LGBTQ+ Students

Furthermore, only 14 schools, a minority (2.8% of school district policies analyzed), include specific language that includes or directly describes protecting LGBTQ+ students. Since the anti-bullying policies are required in PA, they are a compliance formality and may not be written to enhance protections for vulnerable groups. Such a finding is worrisome, as schools arguably are unsafe for LGBTQ+ students. Sexual- and gender-minority students are likely to report the experience of unfavorable or hostile school climates, which include bullying and discrimination at school related to sexual orientation and gender identity. Unfortunately, discriminatory behavior and a negative school climate threaten the well-being of LGBTQ+ students (Russell et al., 2021). One strategy to support LGBTQ+ students at school is to specifically name protected groups in policies that prohibit bullying and discriminatory behavior (Russell et al., 2021).

4.2. The Association Between Title IX Protections and Protections for LGBTQ+ Students

Of those that included Title IX protections for students in their antibullying policy, these school districts were also less likely to have LGBTQ+ students named in policies prohibiting bullying and discriminatory behavior. One hypothesis for this finding is that, by specifying Title IX protections, the districts may have felt that these protections were sufficient to provide an umbrella of protection for targeted groups. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that enumerated policies for LGBTQ+ students in antibullying codes of conduct are necessary to provide a safe school experience for these pupils.

4.3. The Importance of Enumerated Policies

Enumerated policies are those that explicitly identify characteristics or traits of students who may be targeted through bullying and harassment at school. Russell and colleagues (2021) cite Biden’s Executive Order on Guaranteeing an Educational Environment Free from Discrimination based on Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity (Exec. Order 14021, 2021) as the basis for such enumerated policies. In further explanation, Russell et al. (2021) note that the Executive Order was the first time federal policy identified legal protections against discrimination for LGBTQ students in K-12 education across the US. The insufficiency of a presidential action, however, is that it lacks permanency. Indeed, in 2025, a federal judge struck down the Biden administration’s Title IX rule on LGBTQ discrimination. President Donald Trump officially revoked the order on January 20, 2025, through Executive Order 14148, titled “Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions”. Individual states must pursue enumerated policies to protect LGBTQ+ students at the time of this publication. In 2022, 24 states had LGBTQ+-specific statutes (Cahill et al., 2022), and PA was not among them, which may explain why so few districts went beyond baseline compliance, as noted in this study’s findings.

The value of enumerated policies is to protect students by providing implementation guidance for anti-bullying policies and practices, ensuring that school communities are notified that LGBTQ-based discrimination will not be tolerated, and providing students with an unambiguous understanding of their rights to safety at school. Research has revealed that when enumerated policies are present, teachers provide more support for LGBT students (Swanson & Gettinger, 2016) and intervene more frequently when hearing anti-LGBTQ statements (Kosciw et al., 2020). Of additional value is that students protected by enumerated policies are less likely to report homophobic and transphobic attitudes, remarks, and behaviors toward LGBT peers (Horn & Szalacha, 2009; Kosciw et al., 2020).

Other researchers have found the strengths in such approaches. Greytak et al. (2013) noted that several safe school policies and practices were associated with less victimization for all LGBTQ students, and the positive impact of inclusive policies and Gay/Straight Alliances was even more beneficial for transgender youth than for LGBT youth. Other state (Meyer et al., 2019), national (Kosciw et al., 2020; Kull et al., 2016), and international (Berger et al., 2017) initiatives have realized that enumerated policies are correlated with improved educational environments for LGBTQ and all students. When protected under an enumerated policy, LGBTQ students feel safter at school, are less likely to hear homophobic language, are less likely to experience identity-based victimization (Kull et al., 2016), enjoy better school attendance (Greytak, 2013), and are also less at risk for suicidal ideation or behaviors as well as substance use (Frost et al., 2019; Hatzenbuehler & Keyes, 2013; Konishi et al., 2013).

Finally, an advantage of enumerated policies for LGBTQ+ students may be to provide a forum for their parents and loved ones to advocate on their behalf. Some students, parents, and school staff may be unaware of safe schools’ policies and do not hold the knowledge of the explicit protections for students who are or are thought to be LGBTQ (Schneider & Dimito, 2008). The uncertainties held by school personnel may negatively affect LGBTQ+ students, who may realistically doubt the support to be offered by their school communities (Swanson & Gettinger, 2016). Russell and colleagues (2021) advocate promoting school safety by disseminating information about school policies to students and teachers so that both understand how public policies affect their day-to-day experiences (Hall & Chapman, 2018).

4.4. Geographic Areas Seen as Promoting Enumerated Policies

Interestingly, the 14 school districts that include protections for LGBTQ+ youth also tended to be in more urban or suburban areas near Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. One hypothesis for this finding is that urban/suburban areas closer to city centers have larger populations and, therefore, a greater likelihood that students in those school districts would identify as LGBTQ+. Thus, policy is required to address schools for which there are many LGBTQ+ identifying students, as opposed to more rural school districts where there may be only one or two students who have identified as LGBTQ+. To add further nuance to this issue, in an investigation of the behavioral health variations in urban and rural sexual-minority adolescents (SMA), Goldbach et al. (2022) found that SMA in rural areas reported greater lifetime minority stress, depressive, and PTSD symptoms than those SMA living in urban areas. The researchers explained that the experience of minority stress for rural SMA indirectly connected rural living to these symptoms, accounting for 16.8% of the variability in anxiety, 18% of the variability in depression, and 24% of the variability in PTSD symptoms. Minority stress lifetime experienced fully mediated the relationship between urban living and depressive and PTSD symptoms, and partially mediated the relationship between urban living and anxiety. These authors speculated that rural SMA in their investigation may be exposed to less supportive environments as well as increased rates of victimization and social isolation.

4.5. Societal and Political Pressures Against Enumerated Policies

Another hypothesis for this finding is related to political and societal attitudes toward the LGBTQ+ community and youth. Along with the experience of rural SMA residents potentially living in less supportive environments than those in urban areas, the social and political climates may also differ depending on the LGBTQ+ student’s geographic area of residence and school (Smalley et al., 2018). Cultures tend to mirror the societal and political beliefs of a particular community, and when conservative, would likely not be favorable to including LGBTQ+ protection policies in anti-bullying mandates. Indeed, such protections may be removed due to political pressures or from state or federal mandates. For example, the Delaware Valley School District school board, housed in a rural district in Pennsylvania, voted to remove protections for transgender students following a federal mandate (Ma, 2026).

4.6. The Role of Parents in Promoting Enumerated Policies for LGBTQ+ Students

Parent interest is another explanation for the lack of current protection. In our findings, we discovered that more school districts included safeguards and protections related to social media use (62) than had LGBTQ+ protections (14). Parental interest drives policy, as parents are often vocal about which school policies most impact their children. Parents who attend school board meetings and petition for district-wide changes are agents of change at the school level. Indeed, parents can serve as powerful advocates for their children and push for protections of LGBTQ+ students, including against bullying, in school district policy and enforcement of such policy.

Clearly defined protections improve policy enforcement by providing clear guidance on responding to incidents involving both bias-based bullying and harassment. Researchers demonstrate that when states directly address LGBTQ+ youth through their antibullying protections, in combination with the establishment of a gay-straight alliance in schools, there is a decrease in poor outcomes for LGBTQ+ youth, such as reduced physical threat and harm (Krantz et al., 2024). Our findings also suggest that Title IX applications are not universal. It was often unclear when protections applied and under what circumstances. This confusion makes enforcement difficult, if not impossible. Regardless of the etiology of this artifact, school policies should consider including language that explicitly protects marginalized groups to safeguard them from harm and victimization.

The language specificity necessary to address bullying of LGBTQ+ students likely exceeds what would be associated with Title IX guidance. The PA Department of Education or state legislature is called upon to mandate more specific model policy language, as has been accomplished in other states (e.g., Cahill et al., 2022). First, there should be confidentiality protocols that are followed in reporting bullying related to students’ sexual or gender identity. Second, the explicit naming of sexual orientation and gender orientation bullying and examples of prohibited conduct, such as outing students’ sexual or gender identity, deadnaming, and the use of homophobic harassment and slurs should be included in anti-bullying codes of conduct. Third, PA school boards and district administrators should work with the PA Department of Education in staying abreast of the issue of bullying of LGBTQ+ students and actively engaging in reviewing and revising policy language accordingly.

4.7. Limitations

Some of the limitations of the study are inherent to the data-gathering and analysis, as we measured the language of policy in school districts’ anti-bullying codes and were unable to assess policy enforcement, educators’ behavior, or students’ perceptions of their school climate. These are significant limitations to the understanding of the effects of a limited number of schools offering specific protections to LGBTQ+ students.

Another limitation was the time-restricted analysis, in which we assessed only the policies available during the 2024-2025 school year in PA. Policies may shift with legal and political changes. However, another is the precision of language. Some policies may use coded or oblique language that signifies inclusion of LGBTQ+ students without explicitly saying so, which may result in some undercounting of actual protections provided.

Finally, although four independent researchers examined the policies in PA school districts, if they did not identify questions about their interpretation of a district’s policies, none of their decisions were checked by another researcher. Only districts in which there was apparently contradictory information, incomplete information, or ambiguous information resulted in two or three researchers all independently examining the data, and using a discussion to come to a consensus.

4.8. Future Directions

In later research, it would be valuable to compare studies across states both with and without LGBTQ+ specific language to ascertain whether the specificity of policy is related to differences in reported bullying and school climate outcomes. Such research could be paired with student and educator perceptions from these districts to provide a fuller picture of the practical implications of language differences. Other research that is needed is to longitudinally study this issue as the federal interpretation of Title IX continues to evolve. It is currently unknown whether school district policy language will follow suit.

5. Conclusions

Our research shows that formal compliance with the PA requirement of anti-bullying policies is high. At the same time, explicit and meaningful protections for LGBTQ+ students are very limited in PA school districts’ policies. As school districts work to provide a safe, supportive environment where all children can thrive, they will likely need to continue developing policies tailored to the needs and risks faced by LGBTQ+ students.