Evaluation of the government’s 2016 to 2019 anti-homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying programme in schools

Question 1

Acknowledgements

Accepted Answer

The authors would like to thank all those who supported the evaluation, including all participants, the programme’s providers (Barnardo’s, the LGBT Consortium, METRO, the National Children’s Bureau, the Proud Trust, and Stonewall), staff from the Government Equalities Office, and colleagues at Sheffield Hallam University who supported the work.

Evaluation team

Project director: Eleanor Formby

Project managers: Claire Wolstenholme (qualitative lead), Martin Culliney (quantitative lead)

Lead statistician: Sean Demack

Fieldwork team: Claire Wolstenholme, Eleanor Formby, Bernadette Stiell

Administrators: Linda Bray, Louise Glossop, Judith Higginson

Question 2

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Introduction and evaluation methodology

In 2016 the Government Equalities Office (GEO), which is now part of the Cabinet Office Equality Hub, funded a 3-year programme which aimed to:

help primary and secondary schools prevent and respond to homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying
create inclusive school environments for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) pupils and their families

Six organisations were awarded funding to deliver staff training and other whole-school activities in some schools (Model 1), and staff training only in other schools (Model 2).

The 3 intended outcomes for the programme were for:

more schools to have policies and curricula embedded, which are targeted at preventing and tackling HBT bullying, and building inclusive LGBT environments
more teachers and non-teaching staff to report that they feel supported, confident and capable of preventing and tackling HBT bullying, and building more inclusive school environments
more pupils to report that they feel confident reporting HBT bullying, to feel more resilient towards bullying, and also feel their school is inclusive towards LGBT pupils and families

As part of the grant agreement, providers were asked to work with schools towards these outcomes and did not prescribe or endorse particular whole-school activities or policy changes as part of the programme.

The programme reached around 1,800 schools in 3 years, with each provider having a target to deliver to at least 200 schools.

The Centre for Development and Research in Education (CDARE) at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) were commissioned to conduct an independent evaluation of the programme. The evaluation consisted of the following elements:

a scoping phase to gather plans from each provider for working with schools for both models.
baseline and follow-up surveys with staff (both models) and pupils (Model 1 only).
school case studies in 12 schools, involving interviews and focus groups with staff and pupils, in-site observation, and document review.
telephone interviews with 18 school programme leads (usually a member of the senior leadership team (SLT) or the Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE) lead in school).

More details about the methods used in the evaluation can be found in the Evaluation Methodology section.

This summary now presents findings from the evaluation. It begins by looking at the programme impacts for school policies and processes, school environments, support for LGBT pupils, learning about LGBT identities and HBT bullying in school, and staff confidence and capability. It finishes by presenting outcomes on HBT bullying occurrences, reporting and responses.

School policies and processes

The programme was associated with an increase in the proportion of school staff who were aware of an anti-bullying policy (from 61% to 82%) and a bullying recording system at their school that explicitly included HBT bullying (from 50% to 70%).

These findings were supported by qualitative evidence: the majority of interviewees had changed some of their school’s policies (or were planning to).

Supportive school policies were perceived to make staff feel more confident to address HBT bullying and include LGBT issues within the curriculum.

School environment

After the programme, more staff reported that their school actively tried to prevent HBT bullying (rising from 72% to 91%). Even greater change was observed on staff believing that their school actively tried to build an LGBT-inclusive environment (from 48% to 78%).

Primary school staff saw greater increases than secondary school staff regarding both HBT bullying prevention and LGBT inclusion.

Support for LGBT pupils

There was an increase in staff reporting that their school had a named member of staff responsible for LGBT matters or supporting LGBT pupils. The increase was larger for primary staff, though from a lower starting point.

Case study evidence highlighted that (secondary) school-based LGBT groups were appreciated by pupils where they were available, but there were issues about group set-up, privacy versus publicity, and whether staff should take a lead or supporting role.

Learning about LGBT identities and HBT bullying in school

At follow-up (3 to 6 months after delivery completion), more staff reported that LGB identities were included in most subject areas (from 4% to 13%). For trans identities, the rise was from 3% to 10%. The increase was greater at primary level than at secondary level.

There were also increases in schools including learning about HBT bullying in lessons. The proportion of staff reporting that homophobic or biphobic bullying was included went up from 6% to 12%. For transphobic bullying the increase was from 3% to 11%.

Evidence from case studies indicated that primary schools often taught about LGBT identities and relationships through the use of books, whereas secondary schools more often utilised assemblies, PSHE lessons and/or drop-down days.^{[footnote 1]}

Teachers reported some concerns over teaching about LGBT identities and/or HBT bullying due to potential or actual parental opposition, though only a minority of schools experienced this. Those who reported concerns found the following useful in guiding their responses:

supportive school policies which increased staff confidence
training for governors
looking at policies from other schools
citing relevant legislation

Staff confidence and capability

At baseline, 78% of staff felt either ‘very’ or ‘quite’ able to respond to HBT bullying, compared to 91% at follow-up. Improvements were larger in primary schools than in secondaries.

Prior to the programme, 56% of staff felt ‘very’ or ‘quite’ able to include LGB identities and relationships in teaching, compared to 77% at follow-up. The proportion of staff who felt the same about including trans identities and relationships grew from 38% to 62% at follow-up.

Staff said that training had aided knowledge and confidence to include LGBT identities and relationships in teaching: staff viewed training and other support from providers overwhelmingly positively. Support that was tailored, ongoing, and focused on identities was particularly valued.

Occurrence of HBT bullying

Qualitative data from pupils illustrated examples of HBT bullying experienced and witnessed (mostly before, though also sometimes during, the programme), more often in secondary schools than in primary schools.

The school-level weighted percentage of staff who reported witnessing HBT bullying ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ went up from 81% to 87%, but there was no evidence of change in the frequency of staff observing transphobic bullying.

It has not been possible to collect data from schools on the level of bullying before and after the programme. This is because not all schools had systems in place to record incidents of HBT bullying prior to the start of the programme. Furthermore, given the focus of the programme in improving the measurement and monitoring of HBT bullying, some schools only began measuring these incidents as part of the programme. As a result it is not possible to say whether the level of HBT bullying changed as a result of the programme. However, in absence of this data, the evaluation captured whether teachers agreed that HBT bullying had decreased since the programme.

Reporting and tackling HBT bullying

Staff reported little change in the frequency of them responding to, or witnessing other staff responding to, HBT bullying.

Within discussions with pupils, there were mixed experiences of how schools dealt with HBT bullying, with some feeling that not all staff challenged HBT bullying appropriately. Other pupils however were able to provide examples of more proactive responses.

Conclusions

This evaluation shows that, with support, schools can make significant steps towards HBT bullying prevention and LGBT inclusion. Evidence from the surveys, case studies, and telephone interviews demonstrates that staff confidence in responding to HBT bullying and including LGBT identities and relationships in teaching grew during the programme.

In general, improvements in programme outcomes were greater in primary than in secondary schools, though often from lower baselines. Given appropriate support, primary schools appeared to find it easier to implement change.

There were also more gains in Model 1 schools than in Model 2. This is not surprising given the greater level of support on offer to a greater number of people within Model 1 schools. The implication here is that greater levels of support, and/ or involving greater numbers of staff in that support, lead to greater levels of impact within schools.

From survey results, both primary and secondary school staff felt that their school now more proactively tried to prevent HBT bullying, and to a lesser extent, was a more LGBT-inclusive environment.

Despite the generally positive feedback from staff, pupils (more often at secondary level) were less certain about the effects of the programme, with calls for further work in the area from both LGBT and non-LGBT pupils, in order to make schools more LGBT-inclusive, and to tackle HBT bullying more successfully.

Once the programme had finished, confidence was higher among school staff in responding to HBT bullying than it was in including LGBT identities and relationships in teaching, suggesting that school staff feel more confident reacting to bullying than they do proactively trying to prevent bullying and/or increase LGBT inclusivity in lessons. Curriculum inclusion appeared to be the hardest element to implement in schools.

Overall, LGB identities and homophobic or biphobic bullying were more likely to be included in lessons than trans identities or transphobic/gender-identity based bullying.

Staff confidence appears key, both in terms of practical application and permission to do this work, for example knowing how to and that they can do this work. It was felt that appropriate support available to schools free of charge was important.

The programme was able to contribute to its intended outcomes of:

more schools having ‘policies and curricula embedded, which are targeted at preventing and tackling HBT bullying and building inclusive LGBT environments’
more teachers and non-teaching staff feeling ‘supported, confident and capable of preventing and tackling HBT bullying and building more inclusive school environments’

It is less clear, however, if the programme achieved its outcome of ‘pupils reporting that they feel:

more confident in reporting HBT bullying
more resilient towards bullying
that their school is inclusive towards LGBT pupils and families’

This is because it is harder to demonstrate a direct impact on pupil experiences, and ultimately impact on reducing HBT bullying, at least in the timeframe of this programme/evaluation.

Since the programme came to an end in March 2020, anti-HBT bullying policy has been passed to the Department for Education (DfE). The DfE will ensure any future anti-bullying interventions work for all pupils, including those vulnerable to bullying such as LGBT pupils, are a core feature to their 2021 to 2022 programmes.^{[footnote 2]} The DfE continues to fund projects and programmes which tackle bullying, including HBT bullying.

Question 3

1.  Introduction

Accepted Answer

1.1 Policy context

In 2017, the National LGBT Survey asked respondents about their experiences in education. All respondents were asked whether sexual orientation and gender identity were discussed during their education, and how well they felt this prepared them for later life. If respondents were in education in the academic year preceding the survey, they were also asked about how open they were about their lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) status and any incidents they had experienced.

A number of respondents had experienced a negative incident during their time in education. The National LGBT Survey 2017 found many people had been ‘outed’ without their consent, or been victims of verbal harassment in education. In addition, very few respondents felt that their education had prepared them for life as an LGBT person. Some of the most important findings were:

In the academic year preceding the survey, 21% of respondents in education had experienced a negative reaction involving someone disclosing their LGBT identity without their permission, and 19% involving verbal harassment, insults or other hurtful comments.
21% of respondents recalled discussion of sexual orientation, gender identity, or both at school. Of those who did, only 9% felt this had prepared them well for later life as LGBT people.
83% of the most serious incidents experienced by respondents within educational institutions in the academic year preceding the survey were not reported, primarily because they considered them too minor, not serious enough or that they ‘happen all the time’.

The government in 2018 committed, in the LGBT Action Plan, to take a variety of actions so that the education system supports every young person. This included delivering the anti-homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying programme to help LGBT young people feel their education is relevant to them, and to be able to participate fully in their education without fear of bullying or harassment.

1.2 The programme

In September 2016, the Government Equalities Office (GEO), which is now part of the Cabinet Office Equality Hub, launched the Anti-Homophobic, Biphobic and Transphobic (HBT) Bullying programme. The purpose of the programme, which built on a pilot phase that took place from 2015 to 2016,^{[footnote 3]} was to reduce the incidence of HBT bullying in primary and secondary schools in England by transforming the culture of how schools prevent and respond to HBT bullying in a sustainable way. The fund had 3 main aims:

to prevent HBT bullying from happening in the first place
to effectively respond to HBT bullying when it does occur
to create an inclusive school environment for lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) pupils and their families.

Providers were required to deliver 2 different models designed to achieve the programme aims, depending on the individual circumstances of schools:

Model 1

A ‘whole-school approach’ to addressing HBT bullying, including:

supporting school senior leadership teams to make tailored changes to their policy and curricula
provision of training to staff
engaging pupils.

Model 2

Targeted training for school staff, in order to build their confidence and capacity to prevent and respond to HBT bullying and build inclusive school environments. In some cases, this only involved one member of staff per school.

Three key intended outcomes for the anti-HBT bullying programme, were identified:

Outcome 1: More schools have policies and curricula embedded, which are targeted at preventing and tackling HBT bullying and building inclusive LGBT environments.
Outcome 2: More teachers and non-teaching staff report that they feel supported, confident and capable of preventing and tackling HBT bullying and building more inclusive school environments.
Outcome 3: More pupils report that they feel confident in reporting HBT bullying, feel more resilient towards bullying, and feel their school is inclusive towards LGBT pupils and families.

1.3 Providers

Six civil society organisations were awarded funding through open and competitive tender to deliver the programme:

Barnardo’s
the LGBT Consortium (comprising a network of partner organisations)^{[footnote 4]}
METRO
the National Children’s Bureau
the Proud Trust
Stonewall

By the end of the programme in March 2019, providers had delivered to around 1,800 schools (with each provider having a target to deliver to at least 200 schools). Table 1 summarises the schools that were signed up within the period of eligibility for the evaluation.

Table 1: Number of schools per provider, delivery model and school phase, January 2018

Provider	Model 1	Model 2	Primary	Secondary	Total
Barnardo’s	44	145	118	71	189
LGBT	101	200	84	219	303
METRO	121	234	202	154	356
NCB	49	46	50	45	95
Proud	273	0	111	162	273
Stonewall	101	357	345	113	458
Total	689	982	910	764	1674

Source: Data supplied to SHU by GEO/providers. Model unknown for one school.

1.4 About this report

This report presents findings from the evaluation in a thematic structure. The evaluation examines programme outcomes within schools, not provider performance. Findings from the surveys, case studies and telephone interviews are integrated in each chapter. Readers with an interest in particular programme areas can read the relevant sections as standalone documents, though cross-referencing between the different sections is used where it is important to draw connections between related programme outcomes. The report mirrors the structure of the surveys: it begins with school policies and processes (Chapter 3), school environments (Chapter 4) and Support for LGBT pupils (Chapter 5). It then turns to learning about LGBT identities and HBT bullying in school (Chapter 6) and staff confidence and capability (Chapter 7). Finally, it addresses the occurrence of HBT bullying in Chapter 8, and the reporting and tackling of HBT bullying in Chapter 9.

Question 4

2.  Evaluation methodology

Accepted Answer

2.1 Overview of evaluation

The Centre for Development and Research in Education (CDARE) at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU) were commissioned to conduct an independent evaluation of the anti-HBT bullying programme in schools. Evaluation activities ran from December 2016 to March 2019. The evaluation objectives were to:

evaluate the extent to which the initiatives are associated with the programme outcomes
compare the effectiveness of each model alone and relative to each other.

The evaluation consisted of 4 phases:

Scoping phase: data was gathered about each provider’s specific plans for their recruitment of, and work with, schools. Following on from this, the survey tools were designed and piloted.
Baseline and follow-up surveys: baseline surveys were sent to all participating schools recruited by the end of September 2017. Surveys were designed for school staff (all staff in Model 1 schools, and staff expected to receive training in Model 2 schools) and pupils (for Model 1 schools only). Baseline data was collected prior to delivery beginning in schools. Follow-up surveys were conducted between 3 and 6 months after delivery had completed in school, up until the end of December 2018.
School case studies: 12 school visits were undertaken in Model 1 schools (in 6 primary and 6 secondary schools). Visits consisted of a combination of interviews and focus groups with staff and pupils. Where possible, observations of school activity and the collection of key documentation also took place.
Telephone interviews: 18 additional interviews were conducted in 2 rounds. Round 1 (in the autumn of 2017) focused on schools which faced particular challenges to participation in the programme, including participation in the baseline surveys (5 interviews, including some who dropped out and some who stayed involved in the programme). Round 2 took place between the spring of 2018 and the start of 2019 (running alongside the case studies) and focused on the process of delivery and the impact of the programme in schools (13 interviews).

2.2 Baseline surveys

Sampling

Recruitment and delivery in schools was staggered across different school years, mainly due to provider capacity. It was therefore not possible to survey a random sample of schools on the programme. For this reason, and due to the risk of small sample sizes resulting from non-response, a census approach was adopted across both models, with all participating schools contacted instead of a sample, in order to maximise the amount of data that could be collected.

Questionnaire development

Different questions were used for secondary school staff, primary school staff, secondary school pupils and primary school pupils, as experiences and perceptions related to bullying are likely to differ between these respondent groups. For instance, staff members are responsible for disciplinary responses to bullying procedures whilst pupils are not. During survey piloting concerns also emerged as to the suitability of some language for primary school pupils. Different questions were therefore produced where necessary, although the same broad topics were covered in all surveys, and in many cases, the same questions were used.

Dissemination

All staff in Model 1 schools were eligible to complete the survey, along with pupils in the relevant year groups. However, for Model 2 schools only staff due to participate in training were asked to do the survey, as it was expected that this delivery approach might not directly reach all school staff, and it would therefore be less fruitful to survey those who had no contact with providers. Pupils in Model 2 schools were not asked to complete the survey as no whole-school activities were planned for these schools.

Baseline survey data was collected from schools prior to providers starting delivery. Surveys were distributed electronically. It was agreed that the baseline survey would run during 3 separate tranches to allow providers to begin their work with schools in a timely fashion. Table 2 (below) summarises the timeline. Tranche 1 took place during 2016 to 2017 and was split into 2 parts so as not to delay the start of delivery whilst recruitment was ongoing. Tranche 1A opened in March 2017 and was due to close after 6 weeks, but the deadline was extended to June 2017 as schools reported difficulties with IT, timetabling and other issues. Tranche 1B was open from early May to mid-June 2017. For Tranche 1, Model 1 schools were asked to administer the baseline survey to pupils in Years 4, 7 and 9. Tranche 2 was open from September to November 2017. As this was in the next academic year, Model 1 schools were asked to administer the baseline survey to pupils in Years 5, 8 and 10, in addition to all staff, to ensure the survey reached the same cohort of pupils as Tranche 1.

Table 2: Baseline survey respondents by model and tranche

	Tranche 1 (Mar-Jun 2017)	Tranche 2 (Sep-Nov 2017)	Tranche 1 (Mar-Jun 2017)	Tranche 2 (Sep-Nov 2017)
All staff	yes	yes
Staff receiving training only			yes	yes
Pupils in Y4, 7 and 9	yes
Pupils in Y5, 8 and 10		yes

2.3 Follow-up survey

Follow-up survey data was collected between 3 and 6 months following the completion of delivery in a school, with an average of 4.4 months. Variation in the interval between completion of the programme and administration of the survey was due to the need to fit the evaluation around scheduled provider delivery and the school calendar. Follow-up data collection took place in 6 waves, determined by the date each school finished their work with the provider. The last wave of follow-up data collection was completed in December 2018. Staff members were sent the follow-up survey directly to the email address they supplied in the baseline survey.

It is important to reiterate that as sampling techniques were eschewed in favour of a census approach, the survey is not representative. Instead, the priority was to maximise the number of responses. Recruitment to the programme was not undertaken with any intention to achieve representativeness, at local or national level, on the part of providers. However, the profile of schools responding to the survey is summarised in section 2.4. Figures for the evaluation surveys are compared with averages for both the population of schools participating in the programme and with England overall. In section 2.5 individual level survey data are discussed according to key respondent characteristics. Although there are measures on which the survey sample appears well aligned with national and/or overall programme level averages, this is serendipitous rather than by design. Other limitations associated with the survey are discussed in section 2.7.

2.4 Analysis sample

Staff survey sample for final report

Analysis was restricted to schools that responded to both baseline and follow-up surveys. This left 374 schools for the staff survey. However, to ensure robust baseline/follow-up comparisons, staff responses were only used when email addresses provided in both surveys matched, to mitigate the risk of variation in school level responses being due to different individuals responding. This leaves an analysis sample of 318 schools for the staff surveys (see Table 3, below). Table 1 (above) shows that 1674 schools were signed up to the programme within the evaluation period. Using this figure as the denominator gives a school level response rate of 19%.

The breakdown of schools in the analysis sample by provider, delivery model and school phase can be found in Appendix 2 (Table 9). There are differences in the sample sizes used for the analysis of each variable due to item non-response. In the tables accompanying chapters 3 to 9 (found in the relevant appendices), these figures are reported alongside the descriptive statistics used to gauge the impact of the programme on the relevant outcomes.

Pupil survey sample for final report

For pupils it was not possible to take the same approach, as contact details were not collected in the surveys: the survey was distributed through programme leads in each school, who were then responsible for ensuring dissemination to the targeted cohorts. There was a low response rate to pupil surveys, particularly at follow-up. Only 28 of a possible 461 schools responded to the follow-up pupil surveys, a response rate of 6%, although this achieved sample includes responses from over 2,000 pupils. Summary figures are displayed in Appendix 2 (Table 10).

Presentation of results

As analysis of programme outcomes is conducted at the school level using aggregated individual responses, cases not identifying with a particular school could not be included in the analyses. The number of individual staff responses per school was low – 40% of schools had only one individual respondent, a further 20% had only 2. The results presented in this report are weighted school-level averages, generated through averaging the individual-level responses within each school to produce a school-level value for each variable. Some schools will have contributed multiple respondents, others only one. This approach prevents excessive emphasis on schools with larger numbers of respondents, as is appropriate for evaluating a programme with recruitment and delivery focussing on schools rather than individuals. To clarify, responses are not weighted according to the characteristics of schools or individual respondents. The weighting is simply a method of presenting data collected from individuals at school level.

Engaging schools in the survey

Continued efforts were made to engage schools in the follow-up surveys through targeted follow-up emails to individual staff members and phone calls to the programme. However, the evaluation design meant that reminders from the programme lead could not be targeted, as the programme lead was not aware who in the school had taken part in the baseline survey and therefore who had been sent the follow-up. This may be seen as a limitation but was necessary for ethical reasons. Low response rates were also likely due to staff turnover in some schools, given the length of time between baseline and follow-up.

Table 3: Responses in analysis sample (baseline and follow-up)

	Analysis total respondents	Analysis total schools
Secondary staff	626	172
Primary staff	326	146

Source: SHU survey

Sample profile

The number of schools per provider by delivery model and school phase can be found in Appendix 2 (Tables 9 and 10), along with other tables detailing the figures presented in this section. The profile of primary schools recruited to the programme before the cut-off point for inclusion in the evaluation is very similar to England overall in terms of institution type (see Table 11). For primary schools that returned staff surveys this is also generally true, although academies and maintained schools are slightly overrepresented, while independent and special schools are underrepresented. Among primary schools that returned pupil surveys, maintained schools are greatly overrepresented, while academies, independent and special schools are greatly underrepresented. However, readers should note that this is based on a small sample of only 13 primary schools from which pupil surveys were returned. In terms of secondary schools, those participating in the programme were more likely to be academies and maintained schools, and less likely to be independent and special schools, compared to England overall. The same was true for secondary schools that returned staff and pupil surveys.

In terms of attainment^{[footnote 5]} primary schools participating in the programme were very similar to the England national average, as were those who returned staff surveys, although for schools who returned pupil surveys, attainment was slightly higher. For secondary schools, those participating in the programme had slightly higher levels of attainment than the national average, as did those schools that returned staff and pupil and staff surveys (see Appendix 2, Table 12).

On average, primary schools signed up to the anti-HBT bullying programme had relatively similar proportions of deprived^{[footnote 6]} pupils (27%) compared to England overall (25%), which was also the case for those who returned staff and pupil surveys. Secondary schools who took part in the programme, and who returned staff surveys, also had similar levels of deprivation to England overall, but those who returned pupil surveys had lower levels of pupil deprivation (24%) compared to the national average (34%). These figures can be found in Appendix 2, Table 13.

For Ofsted ratings, both those primary and secondary schools who participated in the programme, and who returned staff surveys, were relatively similar to the national average. However, primary schools that returned pupil surveys were more likely to be rated as ‘good’, and less likely to be rated as ‘outstanding’, while secondary schools who returned pupil surveys were more likely to be rated as ‘good’ and less likely to be rated as ‘outstanding’ or ‘satisfactory’ (see Appendix 2, Table 14).

Primary and secondary schools participating in the programme were somewhat more likely to be based in urban areas compared to the national average. This was also true for schools that returned staff and pupil surveys, and particularly so for secondary schools that returned pupil surveys (74% of whom were in an urban area, compared to 57% in England overall). These figures can be found in Appendix 2, Table 15.

Turning lastly to faith status, schools (and particularly primary schools) participating in the programme were more likely to be faith schools than the national average. This was also true for schools that returned staff and pupil surveys. This may partly be because one of the providers, Stonewall, chose to deliver a programme specifically aimed at schools with a religious character (see Appendix 2, Table 16).

2.5 Profile of individual respondents

This section profiles individual survey respondents. Comparing these survey findings to national figures is not possible as equivalent data is not available. Detailed tables can be found in Appendix 2 (Tables 17 to 20).

School staff

Across all providers, more respondents identifying as female than male completed the staff survey, though this may partly reflect the composition of the workforce. More females than males responded from both secondary and primary schools. The difference was more apparent at primary level, where 84% of respondents identified as female and 15% as male. Less than 1% selected non-binary and 1% preferred not to say. Among secondary school staff, 72% of respondents identified as female and 25% as male, with the remainder identifying as non-binary, in another way, or preferring not to say.

In terms of sexual orientation, the majority of secondary staff respondents (87%) identified as heterosexual. 7% identified as gay or lesbian, 3% as bisexual, and 1% ‘in another way’, whilst 2% selected ‘prefer not to say’.

A similar pattern emerges among primary staff, of whom 90% identify as heterosexual. The proportion of gay and lesbian respondents is lower than among secondary staff (4%), and a slightly higher number prefer not to say (3%) than are bisexual (2%) or self-defined ‘in another way’ (1%).

Pupils

In the analysis sample, 57% of secondary pupils identified as female, 36% as male, 2% ‘in another way’, 4% as trans and 2% as non-binary. Among primary pupils, 46% were female and 45% male, 3% self-defined ‘in another way’ and 5% said they ‘prefer not to say’ (see Appendix 2, Table 19).

Overall, 81% of secondary pupils identified as heterosexual. It is noteworthy that 7% of pupils self-report their sexual orientation ‘in another way’, and 5% ‘prefer not to say’, which is higher than for staff. This may indicate issues with the veracity of this data, though previous research has suggested similarly high numbers of young people identifying as not (solely) heterosexual (YouGov, 2015).

2.6 Qualitative data collection

Survey open comments

Baseline and follow-up surveys had one open question at the end, which asked respondents if they would like to make any comments about HBT bullying or LGBT inclusion. Comments were analysed thematically and, where relevant, are discussed in each chapter.

Case studies and telephone interviews

Case study visits were conducted in 6 primary and 6 secondary schools, drawn from across the 6 different providers. Case studies sought in-depth understanding from staff and pupils in engaged schools about how the programme had been implemented, support received from providers, activities following delivery of the programme, and any perceived early impacts.

In addition to the case studies, 18 telephone interviews were also undertaken with school programme leads (usually a member of the senior leadership team (SLT) or the PSHE lead in school). These were split into 2 rounds: 5 initial interviews were conducted in autumn 2017, focusing specifically on the challenges faced by particular schools in taking part in the programme, and a final round of thirteen interviews was conducted to provide further qualitative data to complement the case studies. The focus was on schools that had been less actively engaged than case study schools, in order to obtain a wider range of views. A purposive sampling approach was used to recruit schools for fieldwork. Providers were asked to give contact details of a sample of schools who were either actively or less actively involved in the programme for recruitment to case studies or telephone interviews respectively.

Sampling

Schools were contacted by email initially to request either a case study visit or a telephone interview. Follow-up calls were made to schools that did not respond. For the case studies in particular recruitment was difficult, with many schools not responding and others declining due to workload or feeling that not enough progress with the programme had been made.

Data collection

The case studies and second round of telephone interviews were completed between May 2018 and February 2019. For case study visits, we requested the following from schools:

an interview with a member of the senior leadership team.
a staff focus group (including where possible teaching and non-teaching staff), ideally including the school’s programme lead (a member of teaching staff, SLT, or inclusion leader responsible for the programme in school).
a pupil focus group with around 8 pupils from Years 5 and/or 6 for primary schools, and for secondary schools, drawn from Years 8 to 11.
where possible, an observation of any programme-related activities (for example, PSHE lessons, assemblies, diversity celebrations) and/or activities involving the community/parents.
the collection of any new/updated policies or curriculum documentation.

In addition, we welcomed the opportunity to interview any other groups such as governors, parents or other members of the community who were available on the day (though in the end it was not possible to include any parents or other community members during our fieldwork visits). Details of the achieved sample of case study schools and the data collection that took place within them are described in Table 4 below.

Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and then uploaded into NVivo 10. A coding frame based on the programme objectives was created and the interviews were coded to this ‘high level’ coding frame. Once this first round of coding was complete, the project team held an analysis meeting to discuss the coding, including areas of potential overlap. Coding to sub-codes was then undertaken separately, and key quotes highlighted to use to illustrate key areas and themes discussed throughout the report.

Table 4: Case study school details

Case studies	School details	Provider	Case study details
Case study 1	Primary school	METRO	Interviews: Deputy head, 2 members of staff Focus group: Y6 pupils (mixed genders and ethnicities) Observation: PSHE lesson. Also given school ‘tour’ of relevant displays etc. Deputy head present throughout
Case study 2	Secondary grammar school	METRO	Interviews: 2 members of Senior Leadership Team (SLT), 2 members of staff Focus group: Y9 to 11 pupils (all female, mixed ethnicities) Observation: school-based equality group meeting. SLT member present throughout
Case study 3	Primary school	Proud Trust	Interview: Headteacher Focus groups: Y5 to 6 pupils (mixed genders and ethnicities), 2 members of staff (PSHE lead and higher level teaching assistant)
Case study 4	Primary Church of England school	Stonewall	Interviews: Headteacher, LGBT champion and anti-bullying lead Focus group: Year 5 to 6 pupils (mixed genders, all white) Observation: International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT) whole-school assembly
Case study 5	Secondary Pupil Referral Unit - special school for pupils with emotional and mental health needs	Barnardo’s	Focus groups: a Y8 and Y10 pupil (both male), 2 staff members Observation: a PSHE lesson focused specifically on homophobic bullying
Case study 6	Secondary school	Barnardo’s	Focus groups: 2 teachers, pupils from across year groups
Case study 7	Secondary school	National Children’s Bureau	Interviews: SLT and inclusion lead Focus groups: staff and pupil focus group with Y8 to 11s Observation: Y9 PSHE lesson on LGBT issues/anti-HBT bullying
Case study 8	Primary Church of England school	METRO	Interview: Headteacher Focus groups: Y5 to 6 pupils, staff, governors Observation: Y6 PSHE lesson on anti-HBT bullying
Case study 9	Primary school	LGBT Consortium (East London Out Project)	Interview: Headteacher Focus groups: teaching staff, Y9 pupils
Case study 10	Secondary school	LGBT Consortium (East London Out Project)	Interviews: Teacher, SLT Focus group: pupils (mixed year groups)
Case study 11	Primary school	National Children’s Bureau	Interviews: PSHE lead, Y1 and Y2 teacher, Y5 teacher, headteacher Focus groups: lunchtime supervisors, Y5 and Y6 pupils
Case study 12	Catholic secondary school for girls	Stonewall	Interviews: Deputy head and head of Juniors Focus groups: pupils from mixed year groups, informal (not recorded) with governor and secretary of deputy head, informal (not recorded) with teaching staff Observation: PSHE lesson focused on LGBT-related content

2.7 Limitations of the evaluation

Survey-specific limitations

Evaluation findings should be treated with caution for the following reasons. First, there was a low response rate to the follow-up surveys, despite repeated attempts through email and telephone chasing to boost survey completion. This was especially true for the pupil follow-up survey. Due to the low response rate, and as the profile of schools with responding pupils was somewhat different to the overall profile of schools in the evaluation, the pupil survey data was not deemed sufficiently robust for inclusion in the main report. However, in the interest of transparency, tables relating to pupil survey data can be found in the relevant appendices for each chapter.

Some of the measures used in the survey, for instance on LGBT-inclusive policies, were based on awareness rather than any ‘direct’ measure, and therefore it is difficult to know if staff were simply not aware of the existence of a policy, or perhaps thought one existed where it did not. The responses given by individuals to survey questions were also aggregated to the school level. As such, these variables provide a measure of the extent of awareness, for instance of anti-HBT bullying policies within each school.

As schools were not selected randomly to take part in the programme, it would be inappropriate to generalise findings from this evaluation to the wider population (for example, through inferential statistics such as p-values). Findings are therefore descriptive – in other words, conclusions drawn from the analysis presented in this report are not necessarily applicable to schools in England that did not take part in this programme.

Other limitations

There were no control groups used in the evaluation, and therefore we cannot be sure that any changes observed over the course of the programme were directly as a result of the programme. However, the qualitative data does support the findings in most cases, which adds validity and rigour to the quantitative findings.

There is also the possibility of response bias given that participation in both the evaluation and the programme overall was voluntary. As the support for schools offered through the programme was not conditional upon compliance with the evaluation, this is unavoidable. The effect on the results is difficult to gauge. On the one hand, respondents may have wished to portray their schools favourably at baseline, which would dilute positive effects associated with the programme. On the other hand, individuals involved in the programme may seek to exaggerate its benefits. Free text responses to the survey show that respondents did not always speak highly of their school or the programme, however, so it is our hope that these factors are evenly balanced, yet the reader should bear in mind the risk of bias inherent in a study relying on voluntary participation.

Although there was a gap between programme implementation and follow-up data collection, the effects of the programme may not yet have become embedded in some schools. This may particularly be the case where substantial changes need to be made in the school in order for impacts to happen.

Question 5

3.  School policies and processes

Accepted Answer

Summary

Evaluation survey findings suggest that the anti-HBT bullying programme was associated with an increase (from 61% to 82%) in the proportion of staff who were aware of an anti-bullying policy at their school that explicitly included HBT bullying.

Most interviewees had changed some of their school’s policies (or were planning to do so), with support from their provider. These changes included clarifying procedures around HBT bullying, and equality policies being more explicit and inclusive in relation to LGBT identities.

Supportive school policies were thought to empower staff, making them feel more confident to address HBT bullying and include LGBT people within the curriculum. This was the case for a small number of schools who felt some resistance from parents, governors, or the wider community.

The case studies suggested that strengthening school policies was a central component in measures to address HBT bullying and LGBT inclusion in schools.

The programme was also associated with an increase (from 50% to 70%) in the proportion of school staff aware of a bullying recording system in their school that explicitly includes HBT bullying.

Case study evidence indicates that some schools were recording instances of HBT bullying prior to their involvement in the programme, but that other schools began to record (and address) instances of HBT bullying as a direct result of the programme.

However, case study findings also pointed to some concerns about differing definitions and/or understandings of bullying between individual school staff members, with some staff keen to distinguish between repeated and one-off incidents.

3.1 Anti-HBT bullying policies

Quantitative findings

Staff awareness of anti-HBT bullying policies increased. At baseline, a school-level weighted average of 61% of staff said ‘yes’ in response to the question ‘Are you aware of an anti-bullying policy in your school that explicitly includes HBT bullying?’. This figure increased to 82% at follow-up. Among secondary school staff, the school-level weighted average increased from 61% at baseline to 78% at follow-up. For primary school staff, the gains were greater, with the figure rising from 61% to 86% (see Appendix, Table 20).

Overall, Model 1 schools saw slightly greater improvements in awareness of school anti-HBT bullying policies compared to Model 2 schools. At baseline, the school-level weighted percentage of staff aware of an anti-bullying policy in their school that explicitly includes HBT bullying was slightly lower in Model 1 (60%) than in Model 2 schools (62%). At follow-up, the values were 81% and 82% respectively. The main finding is that substantial gains were observed at the overall programme level, with minimal differences between the 2 delivery models on this variable.

Qualitative findings

Although this evaluation only measured awareness of, and not presence of, policies, evidence from the qualitative data suggests that the increasing awareness seen above may be driven by the development of policies. The majority of interviewees reported that, with support from their provider, they had changed some of their school’s policies, or were planning to do so following advice. However, a small number of interviewees already felt they had up-to-date and inclusive policies and therefore decided not to change them. Policies that were most often mentioned were anti-bullying or equality policies. Changes were mostly reported to include increased clarity around procedures with regard to bullying and HBT bullying in particular, and being more explicit and inclusive in relation to LGBT identities in the equality policy.

For some school staff, the rationale for making the changes to policies was related to empowering them and their colleagues to feel confident in addressing HBT bullying and including LGBT people within the curriculum, and having this ‘backed up’ officially:

I think it’s also empowering for staff to have the views that they already hold given more weight because they’re in the policies (Case study, secondary staff member).

This was particularly the case for a small number of schools who had reportedly felt some resistance from parents, governors or the wider community. One telephone interviewee, for example, said their school had previously experienced difficulties with making policy changes due to it being a faith school. They commented that school governors had halted progress in relation to sex and relationships education (SRE) and related policies. They further reported that provider training for governors, and looking at ‘model’ policies that fit with the Church of England ethos, had been particularly helpful. This school and others found that using language in updated policies such as ‘This meets the requirements of the Equality Act’ was helpful in making clear to parents that the emphasis was coming from government and associated legal obligations, rather than just from the school:

On every single one of our policies, that’s spelt out… We’re looking at the protected characteristics, which of course includes homosexuality… Any policies that I’ve reviewed since then I’ve inserted that as the opening paragraph now (Telephone interview, primary headteacher)

[A parent] came in to tell us how absolutely disgusting it was that we were teaching about homosexual relationships, and we said, ‘This is the school policy, this is what the government demands of us’ (Case study, primary headteacher).

A small number of evaluation participants wanted there to be stronger or more explicit guidance on LGBT inclusion coming from national policy, so that they felt they had a solid justification for the change(s) they were making:

Everything is ‘well, in the Equalities Act…’ Yes, but it doesn’t state specifics, so it would be good if the government would state some specifics and say ‘schools have to do this’ so that when you do get that, you can say, ‘but this is what we have to follow, this isn’t our decision, this is a national [policy]’ (Case study, secondary senior leader)

Sometimes I think that parents get to the point where they don’t listen to schools and maybe it does need to come directly from government. Actually, this is something that the Church of England, the DfE, Ofsted, all these partner agencies and organisations are proactively helping schools get better at dealing with (Telephone interview, secondary headteacher).

Overall, the case studies suggested that strengthening school policies was a central component in measures to address HBT bullying and LGBT inclusion. For some, this transformed the school, whilst for others it at least ensured staff conformed to new ways of working:

[That] had the biggest difference because it really made us sit down and think about ‘well, for the next 3 years what do we want to achieve with the school’… We pretty much drew them [policies] up from blank and made sure they really covered everything… because we hadn’t really had anything in there about LGBT… Looking at the policies and the action plan was really useful for us because… it’s something that’s planned in now… It’s part of our school ethos… She [provider staff member] really made us think about the bigger picture, rather than just coming in and doing this one-off little bit of work which wouldn’t have had the ongoing impact (Case study, primary headteacher).

3.2 HBT bullying recording systems

Quantitative findings

The programme was associated with an increase in the proportion of school staff that were aware of a bullying recording system that explicitly included HBT bullying within their school. Overall, the school-level weighted percentage of staff aware of such a system in their school increased from 50% to 70% over the evaluation period. At baseline, 49% of secondary staff were aware of such a system in their school. This figure increased to 64% at follow-up. For primary school staff, the picture is similar, rising from 51% at baseline to 76% at follow-up. Model 1 schools observed greater gains on this measure across the study period compared to Model 2, in both primary and secondary schools (see Appendix, Table 21).

Qualitative findings

Evidence from the case studies appears to support the finding that whilst some schools were already recording instances of HBT bullying prior to their involvement in the programme, other schools began to record instances of HBT bullying as a direct result of the programme:

[We have] updated our behaviour incident report forms. Before it never used to have homophobic bullying on it, and… transphobic… and biphobic. Now these have all been added onto our behaviour list (Case study, primary lunchtime staff member)

Since the training, we have made it explicit whether it’s homophobic bullying or not. It might just have been recorded as inappropriate language in previous years, but it’s more explicit now (Case study, primary headteacher).

Since beginning to record instances of HBT bullying more clearly in their school, some staff felt that HBT bullying was also now responded to more robustly:

We have a system where for kids it’s internal exclusion, so for homophobic incidents they get, it depends on the incident, but it can be 2 or 3 days in internal exclusion (Telephone interview, secondary PSHE lead)

Teachers now know that it’s dealt with in the same way as racism, that there are forms to fill in… and actually escalating matters a little bit quicker… It led to a few conversations I think at the end of last year with students that would say kind of homophobic language and we stamped on it really quickly… It’s had an effect on students not actually saying silly things (Case study, secondary SLT staff member).

However, evaluation participants sometimes raised concerns about bullying with regard to definitions and understandings, which speaks to debates elsewhere about whether HBT language can automatically be considered bullying if there is no intent to offend or upset (Formby, 2013, 2015, McCormack, 2012, Warwick and Aggleton, 2013). Some staff were therefore keen to distinguish between repeated and one-off incidents:

Sometimes bullying is confused with a single act, where in my definition bullying is about an act that happens more than once to the same person by the same person or by a group of people. So sometimes the B word [bullying] is used when in actual fact it is not bullying in its arguable sense of the word. It’s an event that’s happened – a single event (Telephone interview, secondary SLT member)

We’ve been educating parents and children as to what bullying actually is. It is not a fall-out with your friends one day and then playing the next day and going round to each other’s house for tea. That is not bullying. So we’ve given the definition of what bullying is, because it’s very, very serious (Case study, primary teacher).

Similarly, others also distinguished between ‘incidents’ and bullying. Within these discussions, the need for clarity within a school about what is considered bullying and/or problematic language (as opposed to ‘banter’) was clear:

I was hoping… that there would be some more clarity in the [school] behaviour policy about using the word ‘gay’ in lessons. But that didn’t really happen… I think there’s still mixed views around when it becomes homophobic and when it’s just banter. My line is that we don’t do it at all, but that isn’t necessarily the view of everybody (Telephone interview, secondary PSHE lead).

It should be noted that whilst a number of the schools said that they clearly record any instances of HBT bullying, there were differing opinions amongst staff about how effectively (or not) different members of staff responded when they witnessed such behaviour. This issue is explored in more detail in Chapter 9.

Question 6

4.  School environment

Accepted Answer

Summary

Over the study period, more staff believed that their school actively tried to prevent HBT bullying, rising from 72% to 91%.

Greater improvements were seen in terms of staff feeling that their school actively tried to build an LGBT-inclusive environment (48% at baseline, 78% at follow-up).

Primary school staff saw greater increases than secondary school staff regarding both HBT bullying prevention and LGBT inclusion, but from a lower baseline.

Within the case studies, prevention was seen by staff to be achieved through education and the creation of an inclusive and caring school environment.

4.1 Active prevention of HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

As part of the baseline and follow-up surveys, school staff were asked ‘Do you think that your school actively tries to prevent HBT bullying?’. The results from this question are displayed in Figure 1 (see also Appendix, Table 24). Across all respondent groups, there is evidence that the programme had a positive impact, with the school-level weighted average rising from 72% at baseline to 91% at follow-up. For secondary schools, the school-level weighted percentage of staff reporting that their school actively tried to prevent HBT bullying increased from 76% to 91% between baseline and follow-up. The increase was greater among primary school staff, from 68% to 91%.

It should also be noted that, in absolute terms, slightly greater improvements were observed among Model 1 schools on the question ‘Do you think that your school actively tries to prevent HBT bullying?’ (baseline = 71%, follow-up = 91%) than for Model 2 (baseline = 73%, follow-up = 91%). The main finding here is that substantial improvements were made across both delivery models.

Figure 1: Do you think that your school actively tries to prevent HBT bullying?

Qualitative findings

From the analysis of open comments from the baseline survey, secondary pupils tended to state that they felt staff could do more to actively prevent HBT bullying by raising awareness and teaching more about this area. This was echoed in the case studies and later telephone interviews, where there was a common belief amongst staff that a key cause of HBT bullying was a lack of understanding amongst pupils about LGBT identities. Prevention was therefore viewed as being about ensuring that pupils are aware as early as possible of key terms, including what is and is not appropriate language to use, thus creating an early expectation that HBT language will not be tolerated. Staff commented on how younger pupils especially may have heard homophobic language from home or the media and be repeating it without an awareness of its meaning, and that educating pupils about meanings was therefore key before they started to use certain words:

They might have some lovely turns of phrase because that’s what they’ve heard at home. If we say ‘oh you don’t use that word’ they haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about, so we say ‘we don’t use this word’ and we teach them the words that they’re not to use… You have to be direct, you can’t be subtle… I think because we are using those words a lot more in assemblies and added onto all other types of bullying in a more overt way, then they’re learning and they understand, so it’s preventing (Case Study, primary SLT member)

I think it’s the education. From early on, they’re used to hearing about it and hearing those words. Because it starts early, they’re used to whether it’s a right thing or a wrong thing to say, so they already know that it’s the sort of language they shouldn’t be using in a derogatory way (Case study, primary staff member).

One school held assemblies where they tried to enforce the message ‘bullying not banter’ to highlight how using words that may be seen as a joke or funny to some pupils may be more serious and hurtful to others.

Primary pupils in one school felt that rules around HBT bullying should be strict and tightly defined and be based around values so that pupils are aware that there will be consequences if they break these rules. Pupils across schools also discussed the importance of teaching about HBT bullying through lessons and visual displays so that other pupils are aware of the potential pain that may be caused through bullying of this type:

I think they just need to learn how much it hurts when they say stuff like that, because they don’t know how much it hurts (Case study, primary pupil)

We were doing, I think it was bullying, and then we got a piece of paper and it had like a person on, and we wrote rude things to that person and we crumpled it up and then we unfolded it out and then those creases would be there for the rest of their life (Case study, primary pupil).

Pupils from a secondary school discussed how teachers perhaps needed to be more aware of the signs of LGBT bullying and how this might affect pupils, to ensure they could spot where this might be happening. It was felt that opening up the conversation could be helpful, particularly when linking this to negative mental health consequences often associated with HBT bullying:

I feel like it’s not talked about enough… they don’t go into detail about why it happens, what are the effects of it. Because LGBT is – unfortunately – it’s linked very much with mental health and how mental health affects how you feel (Case study, secondary pupil).

In some schools, staff felt there was such a small amount of HBT bullying that there was not a need for much emphasis on prevention as they felt they could tackle a problem if and when it emerged.

Other conversations were around ensuring visibility of LGBT families and normalising LGBT identities in order to prevent bullying through building up a sense of empathy and understanding in pupils:

[In] even just our afternoon assemblies, we have our [value of the month] for example, maybe compassion or resilience or tolerance, and those sorts of things celebrating people’s understanding of each other, or acting in kind and considerate ways, so promoting that, accepting differences, and all that sort of stuff… A lot went into it (Case study, primary staff member).

Instilling a sense of understanding and compassion in pupils was done in schools through both informal classroom conversations, such as asking pupils how they might feel in a particular situation, and more formally, in assemblies and through key texts to promote the message that everyone should be accepted regardless of difference:

I think having the conversation about having 2 dads or 2 mums has enabled the children to think actually yes it is just a different family. My family is different to yours because I’ve got whatever. It’s just a different family… it’s like asking the children if they know what the word means. We don’t fudge it… It doesn’t matter whether it’s LGBT inappropriate or just not nice, rude, whatever, language. It’s dealt with in the same way (Case study, primary SLT member)

It just makes the environment obviously a place where we’re not going to tolerate HBT bullying, as opposed to making sure we really clamp down when it happens, which is one side of it. I think the main prevention comes from just the environment being a place which is really welcoming and inclusive. So I suppose there’s that difference. I think the more work you put into supporting the students and empowering those students, then the rest of it just comes afterwards really (Case study, secondary inclusion lead).

Some primary schools used the transition to secondary school as a way to discuss issues of acceptance and difference, making pupils aware that they were likely to meet others who may look or act differently to themselves and teaching them about the importance of understanding and accepting them:

We talk about like if when you go to secondary school, there’s going to be… boys that are wearing makeup or girls that look like boys, but you shouldn’t be rude to them, because then you don’t know what they’re going through or if their family doesn’t like it or something like that. So if you see them being bullied or feeling sad, then you go to them and help them (Case study, primary pupil).

4.2 LGBT-inclusive school environment

Quantitative findings

At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff participants stating that their school actively tried to build an LGBT-inclusive environment grew from 48% to 78% over the programme period. Results are shown in Figure 2 (see also Appendix, Table 26). The rise was greater among primary school staff despite a lower baseline value, from 40% to 75%, compared to an increase from 54% to 80% among secondary staff. It is worth noting that a far lower proportion of staff overall are likely to agree that the school actively tries to build an LGBT-inclusive environment than agree that the school actively tries to prevent HBT bullying.

Figure 2: Do you feel that your school actively tries to build an LGBT-inclusive environment?

Comparing the 2 delivery models, slightly larger improvements were witnessed in Model 1 schools, where a school-level weighted average of 48% of staff at baseline believed that their school actively tried to build an LGBT-inclusive environment, rising to 82% after the programme was finished. For Model 2 schools an increase from 47% to 74% was observed on this measure.

Qualitative findings

From the baseline survey open text responses, the majority of pupils who discussed ‘coming out’ reported that their school was not a place where they or other pupils would feel comfortable and confident in coming out as LGBT. Reasons given for this were that other pupils were often perceived to act differently around those who had come out, from making ‘jokes’ and comments, to actively bullying (see further discussion in Chapter 8). Pupils also reported that school staff might be unsupportive or oblivious to the needs of LGBT pupils:

I can name at least 20 different pupils within my school who identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, myself included. Most teachers are completely unaware that these students are at all of a different sexuality or gender identity… I want to see all of my friends being able to evidently express themselves without feeling ashamed about who they are or what others will say. It is not an open topic of discussion within school, it is not recognised well enough within Pride month, and it is certainly not well taught throughout the school. A few half torn down posters is all I see (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

I would not call it inclusion. Inclusion involves recognition, support and help that is clearly identified. While LGBTQ bullying does not happen at our school (as far as I know), there is not much effort to recognise this community either (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

In the baseline survey, staff similarly highlighted a difference between tackling HBT bullying and fostering LGBT equality:

LGBT inclusion at my school is entirely passive. Although the school would absolutely back an LGBT pupil to the hilt, and HBT bullying would - and is - absolutely clamped down on, the school does not really take any proactive measures, as far as I can see, to foster LGBT openness and equality (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

This might partly be explained by desire on the part of some staff to keep issues of inclusion more generic:

Children should be taught not to treat anyone in an unkind way - no matter who they are - I don’t feel there needs to be a specific focus on HBT bullying or LGBT inclusion (Primary staff baseline survey respondent).

Others similarly indicated somewhat of a contradiction between education around inclusivity and a concurrent invisibility of LGBT identities:

As a school we promote inclusion of everybody, which includes gender, race, religion, so LGBT comes in the same remit - however there are no specific activities solely for LGBT purposes (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

One primary teacher, for example, mirroring a few secondary staff respondents, thought it was counter-productive to give “additional prominence” to LGBT issues, as it was preferable to discuss them “alongside different faiths, appearances and all manner of lifestyle issues”. Other staff also demonstrated a belief that LGBT inclusion is only relevant to LGBT pupils, in doing so showing a lack of awareness of LGBT parents and wider families:

As we are a primary school, LGBT inclusion is not really a problem as ALL children are included and we have no LGBT pupils (Primary staff baseline survey respondent).

Motivations and future plans for work on LGBT inclusion

For some, knowledge of LGBT parents was a specific motivation for work around LGBT inclusion:

Both HBT bullying and LGBT inclusion is a high priority of the school and is built into the guiding principles of the school, its ethos and the wider community, and is actively voiced and considered and responded to on a daily basis. The school has identified that within the community there are a number of same-sex parents and that the needs of children to be educated and given full understanding and appreciation of this, is of vital importance to promote a safe school for all (Primary staff baseline survey respondent)

We have a higher than average number of LGBT parents and students and we look for ways of celebrating and promoting equality at every opportunity (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

Similarly, the identities of pupils were also sometimes considered. A teacher in a secondary school, for instance, commented that pupils feeling like they could not be open about their identity could negatively impact their academic attainment, as well as emotional wellbeing, and therefore it was crucial to foster an atmosphere of inclusivity:

Over many years, I’ve seen students that are clearly struggling with some kind of identity crisis or sexuality issue, and that particularly in boys manifests itself as pure aggression… [but] I’m seeing less aggression in those that are comfortable to say that they’re gay. I’ve seen a difference in the way that they approach their work. I can think of one in particular who would be quite happy to sit here and say I’m gay, but since he has taken that step forward, he’s found his identity. I just find that everything has massively changed with regards to his work, and his confidence… That difference is quite significant between how it used to be… There is now an environment where students feel comfortable, and openly say, ‘this is who I am – I’m gay’ (Case study, secondary staff member).

There were differences in opinion amongst case study participants about how LGBT inclusive their schools felt after delivery of the programme. In one secondary school, for example, the consensus in the pupil focus group seemed to be that the school did not feel fully inclusive of LGBT people at the time, however there was an acknowledgement that the staff were trying, but were “still not there yet”:

[I’ve] only identified as LGBT for a very short amount of time, but I think that the only thing I know about it and I can say is that it’s still a huge problem. I don’t feel that the school is inclusive, especially for LGBT people (Case study, secondary pupil).

There was, however, a discussion of future plans that these pupils were aware of in the school, including one teacher planning to use a number of LGBT symbols throughout the school, such as rainbow shoelaces, noticeboards and Pride flags. Staff in this school acknowledged that they had not yet been able to make much progress in the area after the training, due to a significant amount of staff turnover, particularly pastoral staff, but did talk about future plans for events and activities as well as the possibility of gender-neutral uniforms and toilets. The staff in the secondary school leading on this area of work, felt that ideas that came from the pupils would be the ones that would work best and were therefore keen to include pupils in planning. By contrast, pupils elsewhere said that their school felt very inclusive, and always had done, and therefore they had not noticed any particular change following provider support.

In one secondary school, pupils felt that the school becoming aware of the diverse nature of the pupil population was a facilitator to their school being supportive and inclusive:

The more people have been open about it, the more the school puts in place (Case study, secondary pupil).

Pupils also mentioned that having school staff members who were LGBT themselves, who they could view as positive role models, was helpful to make the school feel more inclusive. Similarly, staff felt that having pupils who were out and happy to talk about their sexual orientation or gender identity was a facilitator in having these discussions with other pupils.

In some schools there had been much debate about whether and how to change toilets to become gender-neutral, whereas in other schools the signs on particular sets of toilets were simply changed to gender-neutral so that there were both gender-specific and gender-neutral toilets available. Once again, particular parents or pupils were sometimes a motivation for this work:

In a governors’ meeting we looked at our policy and we realised that actually we had 2 trans parents that were coming into school as visitors and our toilets were very much male and female… You wouldn’t think there could be so much, so many meetings and so much talk around toilets! (Telephone interview, middle school SLT member)

When asked about the LGBT-inclusivity of their schools, primary school staff members talked about the small ways they were changing to build more inclusivity, and challenge stereotypes. This was usually more related to gender than sexual orientation – for example, avoiding gender-based queues, using more gender-neutral language, and avoiding terms such as ‘big strong boys’ and ‘beautiful girls’. Some teachers were also attempting to challenge social norms around colours associated with particular genders:

When I did ask the question, ‘is pink a colour for girls only?’ they were like, ‘no, no’… whereas when I talked about this last year, it was like ‘yeah’. It was a different response, so you can already see the changes towards the attitude of the kids in school (Case study, primary staff member).

This type of work is useful, as research has identified how anti-HBT language can often be rooted in gender stereotypes (Donelson and Rogers, 2004). Schools can also unintentionally perpetuate gender stereotyping through their policies, practices, and in their curriculum (Formby, 2015, Priest and others, 2014, Ward, 2017).

Changing the uniform policy was also seen as an easy way to become more LGBT-inclusive by some teachers. Not having specified ‘girls’ and ‘boys’ uniforms, but instead just a single uniform with options that any gender was welcome to wear worked well. Staff members described particular examples of a boy wearing a dress in class, and how other pupils “did not bat an eyelid”, which they felt was indicative of their inclusive environment:

I know it’s perhaps not the be-all-and-end-all… [but] we’ve done the [uniform] policy so it’s gender-neutral, so if boys want to wear a dress they can wear a dress. Technically, we’re not going to say ‘boys can wear a dress’, but we’re going to say all children may choose from trousers, pinafore dress, skirt, and just people can make up their own minds like that, but we’ve agreed as a staff that if a boy comes in in a pinafore dress, we carry on, we don’t even make reference to it (Case study, primary programme lead).

Another school had changed sports day, deciding not to have separate boys’ and girls’ races but to combine them instead. This was described as “quite a risk” in terms of anticipated adverse parental reaction, though teachers felt that physically it would make no difference to pupils of primary age.

In secondary settings, teachers felt that pupils’ seeming more willing to talk openly, listen and respect each other was a sign that the school had built an inclusive environment where there was a feeling of safety and a confidence to talk honestly.

Question 7

5.  Support for LGBT pupils

Accepted Answer

Summary

There was an increase in staff reporting that their school had a named member of staff responsible for LGBT matters or supporting LGBT pupils (from 35% to 66%). The increase was larger for primary staff, though from a lower starting point.

Case study data highlighted that school-based LGBT groups were appreciated by pupils where they were happening, but there were issues about group set-up, privacy versus publicity, and whether staff should take a lead or supporting role.

5.1 Named member of staff responsible for LGBT matters or supporting LGBT pupils

Quantitative findings

At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff reporting that their school had a named member of staff responsible for LGBT matters or supporting LGBT pupils went up across the evaluation period, from 35% to 66%.

The figure increased from 39% at baseline to 63% at follow-up for secondary staff, and from 31% to 69% for primary staff, a larger increase but from a lower baseline.

Greater gains were made in Model 1 schools, where an increase from 35% to 70% was observed, compared to an increase of 36% to 62% in Model 2 schools, though this difference is largely accounted for by smaller gains among Model 2 secondary staff. The school-weighted gains for Model 1 secondary schools (from 39% to 68%) were far greater than for Model 2 secondary schools (from 40% to 57%). For primary schools, the gains were more similar for Model 1 (from 30% to 71%) and Model 2 schools (from 31% to 67%). These figures are displayed in Table 28 (see Appendix).

Qualitative findings

In the baseline survey a large number of comments from secondary pupils included references to there not being enough support in schools for LGBT pupils, be it safe spaces or simply members of staff pupils would feel comfortable talking to:

There’s hardly any visible and actively talked about forms of help for people who aren’t heterosexual or cisgender (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

We need someone who can help others like we do with general bullying. No one really helps out LGBT people in this school. We need a club after school or somewhere all LGBT people can feel safe and be who they are (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

There were also some similar views expressed by staff:

Our staff have had zero targeted training in supporting students questioning their sexual and gender identity in a school with several out transgender students… We have no lead member of staff co-ordinating training and providing resources (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

There was little qualitative data related to a named member of staff in the school responsible for LGBT matters or supporting LGBT pupils. Interviewees sometimes alluded to the idea that the responsibility to take this area of work forward was solely on them, however this seemed to be due to personal interest or a feeling that if they did not do it, nobody else would, rather than them having been given this role as a nominated person. There was a sense that perhaps in some schools, LGBT support was viewed as a minority or unimportant issue, and not a more shared responsibility for all staff:

A designated person for LGBTQ issues is a great idea… I don’t think older members of SLT see LGBTQ issues as important, and some have made comments that are, at best uneducated and at worst transphobic in relation to a child with gender identity issues (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

In one case study school, pupils talked about how one member of staff seemed to be taking forward the learning and support needs of LGBT pupils:

She’s the only teacher that I’ve had for PSHE that actually incorporates LGBT into it. So right now we’re doing sex and relationships, and she’s actually talked about like same-sex couples, different sexualities, she talked about [being] asexual (Case study, secondary pupil).

Having only one person willing or able to deliver this work can be problematic, however, as it can become overly burdensome and leaves the area vulnerable to being ‘dropped’ if that member of staff moves on from the school.

In another case study school, named members of staff were identifiable due to wearing rainbow lanyards to signify to pupils and parents that they are the people they can speak to about any LGBT-related issues.

A safeguarding lead in one school discussed the importance of arming all staff with important knowledge about how to support young people dealing with their gender or sexual identity without unnecessarily compromising confidentiality and potentially ‘outing’ them:

There’s still a lot of misconceptions for young people and I think that’s something I’m going to take forward next year. Being the safeguarding lead, this idea that if you tell somebody that you’re gay that that’s a safeguarding concern, we’re going to contact… I always say to my students, the only time I would contact home is if I was concerned and you were on Grindr searching for, you know, older males, females. However, even then the conversation would be – approaching older adults. But equally I would be concerned about staff’s perception of that as well, because I think some staff do immediately think ‘this is a safeguarding concern’. Well it’s not. So that’s something I think a bit wider is actually getting clear messages out to young people and staff about where we have concerns and where we don’t, actually, and how to have those conversations without actually outing a young person (Case study, secondary senior leader).

The quote above illustrates how same-sex relationships can, but should not, be treated differently to heterosexual relationships, and in fact staff can unintentionally create safeguarding issues by ‘outing’ a pupil.

In one school, instead of having a named member of staff, a group of engaged sixth form pupils were trained as listeners who could be approached and signpost other younger pupils to support available in the school.

5.2 Organised groups for LGBT pupils

Qualitative findings

From the qualitative data, a small number of schools had either pre-existing or newly-formed (as a result of provider support) LGBT groups. Often run during lunchtime in the week, and for all year groups, these were said to be a safe space where pupils could talk and be themselves. Groups could also be used as a place for pupils to talk if they were having problems:

You go in and you say your name and your pronouns and then you just kind of chat about if it’s just issues, or if it’s just like a safe space where you can just hang out (Case study, secondary pupil)

It was the first time in a while when you sat down and talked about like being gay and stuff, and that was nice. That was welcomed, like a little family (Case study, secondary pupil).

For those who did not have such a group, this was sometimes something they said they wanted (at both baseline and follow-up):

I think [my school] should have an LGBTQ+ club and should talk more about this subject. I would love to also talk to people like staff about this subject and about myself… If my school started an LGBTQ+ club and actually bothered to deal with this I would really appreciate it… It would help so much. Please make an LGBTQ+ club and talk about this more and deal with all of the people that cause suicides, cutting, depression etc. (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

There is no LGBT society to support LGBT people even though the demand for one has been brought to the school’s attention MANY times. They consistently refuse to set one up, lumping all social issues into one [single] discussion group (Secondary pupil follow-up survey respondent).

Groups being pupil-led was considered to be appropriate by staff, to help make pupils in attendance feel accepted by their peers. However, previous research has suggested that pupils involved in such groups can sometimes feel that they lack sufficient staff support and/or that they are being tasked with LGBT inclusion as opposed to the school taking responsibility (Formby et al, 2016). There was some evidence of this here too:

It was more like the LGBT group of the sixth formers rather than the actual school, so I think if those sixth formers and that kind of group wasn’t there, I’m not sure we would do anything (Case study, secondary pupil).

In one of the case studies, there were also clear tensions between what school staff thought the group should focus on and how it should be run, versus what the pupils said they wanted.

In another case study school, the inclusion lead spoke about how having this LGBT group was written into the school improvement plan and therefore had to be implemented as it was “actually in writing”. In this school, the LGBT group was thought to be an important part of the school’s support in place for LGBT pupils, and one that had clear impacts:

I’ve heard them describing the group as being ‘everything’ to them. I think that a student coming into the school in Year 7 or 8, how long it might take until you find someone who’s sympathetic to you, having the confidence to go to the group and having some role models in older years, already must just be a huge help to them (Case study, secondary inclusion lead)

It’s amazing to see how some of the students having that group are so super-confident now and there’s quite a few who are quite openly gender-fluid or have different gender identity and are open in school about that. They’ve changed their name and they feel accepted I think, to quite a big degree (Case study, secondary SLT member).

One difficulty of running these groups discussed by pupils and staff was how to advertise the group safely. There was a concern by some that allowing the whole school to know the time and location of the group could potentially lead to ‘outing’ pupils who might not be ready to come out to the wider school. Another potential difficulty was ensuring that the group could meet the differing needs of pupils.

In one school, a group was set up for sixth form pupils only, who were very engaged in issues of inclusion. This was different to a specific LGBT group and was arranged for pupils to be available to provide advice and signposting for pupils who needed support.

Some school staff felt that the groups could be expanded to run events, such as a mini Pride, or be involved in activities for LGBT history month. Other ideas mentioned included:

Our plans for the LGBT group were to get speakers in, watch films, and also for the group to train staff (Case study, secondary staff member)

We’re going to do something for the Christmas fair and we do something for LGBT awareness [history] month… And then we do something for Pride month… We do some charity work… It’s not like we just go there and we just mess about. Part of it is that, and that’s what makes it so fun, and less like, ‘oh you’re like a group of people meeting twice a week’. It’s more like, you’re a group of people, you know? (Case study, secondary pupil).

The above quotes illustrate staff and pupil desire to utilise LGBT groups to effect change and work with others outside of school environments, but using pupils to train staff may present some challenges for all those involved.

5.3 Adverts or information about external support for LGBT pupils

Qualitative findings

The amount of signposting to outside agencies who specialise in support for LGBT individuals appeared to be low in the qualitative data collection, which mirrors findings in previous LGBT-related research (Formby et al, 2016). This was rarely mentioned by evaluation participants when asked about inclusion or support. Where this was mentioned, it was talked about by pupils as something that they felt the school should be doing but was not. In one secondary school focus group, for example, one pupil pointed out that there were LGBT groups in the area local to the school and that this was something the school could get involved in. Another pupil pointed out the benefits of making pupils aware of LGBT specific support available outside of school in order to make LGBT pupils feel less isolated:

I think if it’s made known the things that can happen outside of school and things, such as [the] LGBT group, because if there’s people around you that are the same as you, you don’t feel as different. But even if it’s that you know there’s an LGBT group, that makes things better, even if you don’t go to it - you know that it happens, like I’m not the only one (Case study, secondary pupil).

Another pupil at this school emphasised the need for the support systems to be better publicised:

It has to be treated in a very different way to any other issue… I don’t know how good the support system is at the moment but, like, when I was Year 8 and didn’t accept myself, I didn’t know anything about any support systems. I think it definitely needs to be more well-known (Case study, secondary pupil).

One member of staff talked about signposting to external support but not in relation to LGBT services specifically:

Sometimes I’d put things up like that, like mental health clinics or sexual health clinics, stuff like that where they’ve got phone numbers, because they don’t always want to talk to us (Telephone interview, secondary deputy head).

We do not know why there was a lack of advertising to external support groups but it could be due to a lack of staff awareness of outside agencies, or concern among staff about recommending pupils to external support that they had no involvement in.

Question 8

6.  Learning about LGBT identities and HBT bullying in school

Accepted Answer

Summary

At follow-up, there was an increase in staff reporting that LGB identities were included in lessons where possible across most subjects from 4% to 13%. For trans identities, the rise was from 3% to 10%.

There was a greater increase in including LGBT identities and relationships in lessons at primary level than at secondary level.

Modest increases in schools including learning about HBT bullying in lessons were also observed. At follow-up, 12% of staff reported that homophobic and biphobic bullying were discussed in lessons, compared to 6% at baseline. For transphobic bullying the increase was from 3% to 11%.

Qualitative data showed that primary schools were more likely to teach about LGBT identities and relationships through the use of books, whereas secondary schools were more likely to utilise assemblies, PSHE lessons, and/or drop-down days.

Teachers in a minority of schools reported some concerns in teaching this area due to perceived or actual parental opposition.

There was a fairly large reported increase in schools displaying posters or noticeboards about LGBT identities (from 25% to 55%).The largest increase was at secondary level. Primary schools had a very low baseline for displaying posters or noticeboards about HBT bullying, though saw larger increases here than secondary schools.

Marking LGBT-related events such as LGBT history month or Pride varied across schools, from small events and displays to larger celebrations, though staff felt that the inclusion of LGBT identities should not be restricted to only one month a year.

6.1 Learning about LGBT identities in lessons

6.1.1 Learning about LGB identities in subject lessons – Quantitative findings

As part of the surveys, school staff were asked if their school covered LGB identities and relationships in subject lessons. This multiple-choice question offered 5 possible responses:

‘Yes, where possible across most subjects’
‘Yes, where possible in some subjects’
‘Yes, only as a specific session within a subject such as PSHE’
‘No’
‘Don’t know’

At the programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that said ‘Yes, where possible across most subjects’ increased from 4% at baseline to 13% at follow-up. In primary schools, the gains were greater, with an increase from 3% at baseline to 17% at follow-up. An increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 4% to 10%. Overall, Model 1 schools saw greater gains (baseline 4%, follow-up 14%) than those in Model 2 (baseline 4%, follow-up 12%).

Overall, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that said ‘Yes, where possible in some subjects’ increased from 20% at baseline to 33% at follow-up. Primary schools saw larger gains, from 15% at baseline to 33% at follow-up, yet an increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 25% to 34%. Model 1 schools saw slightly smaller gains (from 21% at baseline, to 34% at follow-up) compared to those in Model 2, which saw a rise from 19% at baseline to 33% at follow-up.

The school-level weighted percentage of staff that said ‘Yes, only as a specific session within a subject such as PSHE’ decreased from 42% at baseline to 37% at follow-up. In secondary schools, the decline was greater, from 43% at baseline to 36% at follow-up, compared to a drop from 41% to 38% among primary staff. Model 1 schools saw slightly less change, from a baseline figure of 37% to 35% at follow-up, compared with those in Model 2, for whom the baseline figure of 47% fell to 38% at follow-up. Overall, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that said LGB identities and relationships were not included in subject lessons decreased at the overall programme level, with this pattern replicated among both school phases and both delivery models. These figures are presented in Figure 3 (see also Appendix, Table 30) and show that LGB identities or relationships were included in lessons more frequently after the programme than beforehand.

Figure 3: At your school, are LGB identities or relationships included within any subject lessons?

6.1.2 Learning about trans identities in subject lessons – Quantitative findings

Staff members were also asked if their schools covered trans identities and relationships in lessons. This multiple-choice question offered the same 5 possible responses as listed above.

At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that said ‘Yes, where possible across most subjects’ increased from 3% at baseline to 10% at follow-up. In primary schools it increased from 2% at baseline to 12% at follow-up. An increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 4% to 8%. Overall, Model 1 schools saw greater gains (from 3% at baseline to 11% at follow-up) compared with those in Model 2 (from 3% at baseline to 9% at follow-up).

The school-level weighted percentage of staff that said ‘Yes, where possible in some subjects’ grew from 11% at baseline to 25% at follow-up. In primary schools, the increase was greater, from 9% at baseline to 29% at follow-up, compared to a rise from 12% to 21% among secondary staff. Model 1 schools saw slightly more change, rising from a baseline figure of 12% to 29% at follow-up, compared to those in Model 2, rising from 10% at baseline to 21% at follow-up.

The school-level weighted percentage of staff that said trans identities and relationships were included ‘only as a specific session within a subject such as PSHE’ increased from 32% at baseline to 40% at follow-up. In primary schools, the gains were greater, reaching 42% from a 36% baseline. An increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 27% to 37%. Model 1 schools saw similar gains (a 9 percentage point increase from a baseline figure of 27%) to Model 2 schools (an 8 percentage point increase from 36% at baseline). Overall, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that said trans identities and relationships were not included in subject lessons decreased at the overall programme level, with this pattern replicated among both school phases and both delivery models. These figures are presented in Figure 4 (see also Appendix, Table 32) and show that trans identities or relationships were included in more subject lessons more often after the programme than before.

The survey data shows that, prior to the programme, teaching about trans identities and relationships was less commonplace in schools than teaching about LGB identities and relationships. For both areas of teaching, there was an increase associated with the programme. These gains were of similar magnitude. The overall weighted percentage of staff reporting that trans identities and relationships were included either ‘in most subjects’ or ‘in some subjects’ grew from 14% to 34.5% (+21.5%). For LGB identities and relationships, the figure rose from 23.8% to 46.5% (+22.7%). While these figures show a slightly stronger improvement for trans compared to LGB, the main findings are that trans teaching was far less widely reported at baseline, and that similar increases were witnessed in both areas of teaching over the evaluation period.

Figure 4: At your school, are trans identities or relationships included within any subject lessons?

6.1.3 Teaching methods – Qualitative findings

As part of the case studies, school staff and pupils were asked about the (post-programme) activities they had been doing in school related to LGBT identities. The majority of pupils were not aware of the programme having taken place in their school, likely due to programme support being focused predominantly on staff members in schools, and only a small number of providers having worked directly with groups of pupils. For this reason, pupils were asked about what types of learning about LGBT identities had happened in their school more recently, and whether they felt like this had changed from earlier experiences. The general pattern emerging from this was that, whilst both primary and secondary schools made use of assemblies to teach about LGBT identities, secondary schools mostly utilised PSHE and drop-down days, whereas in primary schools LGBT identities were most often taught through the use of particular books. Books had frequently been purchased by school staff that dealt with the theme of ‘difference’. Primary schools used these books across classes, from nursery up to Key Stage 2, to look at different family situations. The books were used in a variety of creative ways to plan lessons that looked at different families and identities:

So I actually got my Year 5s writing dating adverts for the king advertising that he didn’t want to marry a princess. He wanted to marry a prince. So we do look directly at same-sex relationships in that way (Telephone interview, primary assistant head).

One headteacher described how the school had used equality books focused on LGBT identities throughout the school to discuss the question ‘Is it ok to be different?’. This question was chosen as a direct result of the training they had received.

As outlined above, in secondary schools, learning about LGBT identities was most likely to be incorporated into PSHE, or through a drop-down day which focused on this area. Pupils in secondary schools commented that they found lessons to be helpful where they had to match up LGBT-related words with their meaning:

You learn about things you had no clue about 5 minutes before (Case study, secondary pupil).

Pupils also thought that films were a good way to teach about LGBT identities, as they were easy to understand, and they enjoyed small group discussions, as this enabled them to gain other people’s perspectives and to think more about the issues. Where LGBT identities were taught directly in PSHE, this was appreciated by pupils:

I hate PSHE… but the fact that she introduced that, I was like, you’re talking for me… I’m learning something… she’s teaching about same-sex couples, like sex, how it works, what you need to protect from. The only way I was actually learning about that before was a book I bought, and that’s really dodge… It was nice to actually have another human speaking about it, who I actually know, instead of like a celebrity or an author or something (Case study, secondary pupil).

In addition to teaching the area through PSHE, there was some discussion during conversations with both staff and pupils about how to embed LGBT identities across the curriculum. In one school, staff explained how they were planning to look at personal identities by focusing on the prominent artist Frida Kahlo and her change in image throughout her life. Staff from another school discussed how this was done using a variety of writers:

From Oscar Wilde to ‘How not to be a boy’, Robert Webb, I got all of these extracts. I had a read and directed them to… have discussions about how others feel and how writers have expressed their identity or their problems with identifying and in life. And that sort of opened up, that freedom gave them the opportunity to sort of talk about their own and plan their own responses. We haven’t had that before and I think to be honest, I think even 3 years ago I don’t think we would have been allowed that opportunity. So I think for Year 10 as well, to have that oracy and that articulacy throughout that term was really helpful for them (Case study, secondary staff member).

Staff across case studies talked about making an effort to include LGBT identities across subject areas, with one primary headteacher commenting that it needs to be “fundamental to the curriculum”. Another telephone interviewee discussed how teaching staff had created departmental action plans which outlined the different ways each member of staff can bring this area of teaching into their subject. It was felt that this way of working the subject into the curriculum helps to normalise LGBT identities for pupils and ensure that it is not seen as something different that is taught as a one-off:

I think because they do see it as part of just their normal learning, that’s really helped to make them think this is just as normal. This person we’re reading about who’s transgender is completely normal. Then when we had discussions with the children… I guess because it was the first year we were introducing it, I thought to myself this is going to be a big thing, this is going to cause a big stir in school and all the rest of it, but actually – nothing (Case study, primary headteacher)

It’s not that we do a theme week and then we never talk about it again. It’s the opposite of that… we were able to say OK how could you pick up this issue in history, how could you cover it in art, what other subjects does this link with? So we did try to plan and discuss all of those and my mind-set and my theory behind it is gradually embedding it into my colleagues’ heads and way of thinking (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

Pupils in a secondary school concurred with the notion of integration into lessons, and were able to see clear ways to ensure the curriculum was more inclusive, including within subjects such as maths, as the below example of a potential maths problem illustrates:

This is John and his husband Jim and they’re buying a house… See, that would help. Try incorporating it somehow (Case study, secondary pupil).

Other schools at the early stages of making changes after their training had historically only touched on LGBT identities separately through drop-down days and/or by using outside agencies. These schools were therefore thinking about how to incorporate the area across the curriculum. One telephone interviewee acknowledged that they were unsure of how to embed it, commenting that it was a “tricky thing” to do.

Another interviewee had utilised provider support as an opportunity to have their lesson plan examined which resulted in them changing some of the language they had planned to use. This was described as a “learning curve” for staff on language that they had not previously known. In addition to knowledge, the training also helped teachers to feel that this was an area that they were both allowed, and furthermore obligated, to teach. There was a concern for many about how to teach about LGBT identities in a sensitive way without offending anyone:

I think for teachers there’s always the worry that you’re going to put your foot in your mouth and say something that maybe I shouldn’t have said it that way, or whatever. So it’s given us that validity, that validation to say yes you are legally required to do it this way actually, and it’s fine and the children do need to know and do want to know. That’s quite liberating (Case study, primary programme lead).

However, one teacher specifically mentioned that they had concerns that their Year 7 pupils may not be mature enough to deal with the content, and therefore felt they needed more training on how to deliver the area to younger age groups. This speaks to ongoing concerns about how to achieve age appropriateness, which schools may need continued support with.

In a separate interview, a staff member discussed how staff in general needed to learn more about identities, commenting on how different members of staff had different levels of knowledge and awareness, but that all staff have a responsibility to ensure they are well versed in this area in order to teach it competently. This was echoed by some secondary pupils who had experienced a teacher admitting they did not know about same-sex relationships, and so could not teach pupils about them.

Use of outside speakers

When discussing what could work well in schools in the future, pupils (predominantly from secondary schools) talked about the value of having speakers from outside of the school, particularly those with direct personal experience:

It’s like [with] someone else speaking, someone who has more experience than us, we can think about how other people feel or maybe how we’ll feel (Case study, secondary school pupil).

However, the use of outside speakers was not without some risks:

There are also people that they bring into the school that are really homophobic and who spread their views as if it’s a true fact… It’s good for people to understand that there are different views, but bringing in someone who is just going to say, ‘oh you’re going to hell’, and just spout homophobic things… If you are part of the LGBT community and in the same room as someone saying, ‘oh this is wrong, this is not good’, that makes you feel horrible (Case study, secondary pupil).

Drawing on the experiences of LGBT people was seen to be something that would help pupils to understand how it might feel to be LGBT, and bring insights that (non-LGBT) teachers may not have. Teachers also felt that guest speakers coming in to present may be more impactful for pupils to have someone who may be seen as more expert and not their regular school teacher speaking. However, for the headteacher and a class teacher in one primary school, there was a degree of unease that this may conversely be seen to potentially highlight the issue in an unintentionally negative way:

One of the things that we want to do is make sure we do have guest speakers … [but] in my mind it kind of clashes with what I think is right… like… here’s this person at a one-off assembly. It really should be coming from the wider staff. I think there’s more power in the units of work, discussing it with people they are comfortable with and know really well (Case study, primary headteacher)

I mean, obviously, there is the unfortunate side-effect of that is… well, [it] could verge on the, ‘you’re this, come and talk to us about it’, and that in a way is sort of counter… (Case study, primary staff member).

In a small number of schools, teachers said that they had learned a lot from pupils in the school who were LGBT, and in some cases these pupils had been asked to lead assemblies talking about their experiences. Pupils also thought it would be beneficial to hear from other young people who they could relate to more easily.

6.1.4 Lack of inclusion – Qualitative findings

The baseline survey prompted staff in one primary school to reflect on their lack of teaching in this area to date, and the assumptions that they had made about what the children did or did not know. Staff commented that they were surprised to learn that pupils did not know what the terms in the survey meant and how their pupils wanted to be better informed about LGBT identities:

One of the questions was about do you do assemblies and things on… and they just looked at me and… I said you’re not going to be in trouble! I know that we don’t do enough of that. In the end she [a pupil] said, ‘oh are we doing this so that we can know more and then we’ll be a better person when we leave school?’ (Case study, primary senior leader).

Where this was not the case, pupils vocalised their concerns that LGBT identities were not covered enough throughout the curriculum or within their PSHE lessons:

This lack of education is terrible for people because it makes them feel like their feelings are not real, not acknowledged and not accepted… I think we should have lessons about LGBT sex and relationships. These lessons could be incorporated into the standard lessons on sex and relationships as to feel more normal and again not alienated (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

The only lesson they’ve mentioned LBGT is RE… Instead of acknowledging that you’re learning about homosexuality, it’s about Catholics don’t like homosexuality (Case study, secondary pupil).

For some pupils, this was particularly pertinent as it meant they were denied access to important information about how to adopt safer sex practices:

For me, because I am not straight, it would greatly help me if I learnt about like 2 people who are of the same sex who wanted to have sex, because it’s a lot different from like a male and a female having sex… I don’t know how it works… so if there came a time when I wanted to have sex with someone who wasn’t a man, then it would be like, help! And so, yeah, it would be refreshing to learn about that, because I haven’t learned about that yet (Case study, secondary pupil).

Pupils from another school also mentioned that LGBT identities were a topic rarely touched upon in their sex education and that where it was mentioned it felt “tagged on rather than integrated”. Teachers in this school acknowledged that they were still at an early stage of implementing work in this area:

We’re trying to integrate it… but it’s really got a long way to develop. It’s in RE but largely from a focus of a religious rather than an LGBT-inclusive perspective, and it’s in sex ed but it’s not integrated through. It wasn’t in the drop-down day at all, actually, it was just completely missing (Case study, secondary staff member).

Instead, teachers in this school discussed their plans for the future, and how they intended to have a large focus on the area within the curriculum in the next month (to coincide with LGBT history month).

6.1.5 Impact of inclusive teaching – Qualitative findings

Within the case studies, it was noted that some (primary) pupils who were emotionally mature enough could interpret inclusive books as a message about acceptance and LGBT identities, whereas others may not have had this level of understanding but would enjoy the stories regardless. Often the teaching in primary schools seemed to then open up more informal class conversations that may not have come about otherwise, where pupils seemingly felt comfortable to ask a variety of questions and talk about their own family members who were LGBT. Pupils noted that learning through books had impacted on some of their peers more than others, as this focus group discussion shows:

It changed some people… Some people… they took it in… Some people’s first impressions were [to] laugh… I liked the book because most books… there’s books like you know fairy-tale books, the prince gets married to the princess. I think there should be fairy-tale books where like 2 princes get married, or 2 princesses get married… Yes, just to show it’s OK (Case study, primary pupils).

Pupils also took away messages about learning to be themselves in the face of potential adversity, and about the development of empathy, for example looking at puberty and how that process might feel for a trans person:

We read a book called I Am Jazz and it was about a little boy and he was wearing girls’ clothes. And his mum and brother thought he was being silly. When he grew up they took him to the doctor’s and he told them that he was transgender. He wanted to use the girls’ bathroom but the teachers wouldn’t let him (Case Study, primary pupil).

Primary pupils in focus groups across the case studies talked about the learning that had occurred for them as a result of this work. Pupils discussed how they had previously been confused when they had seen men or women who did not look or act like the gender they were perceived to be. The work in this area had helped them understand the notion of transgender and that people may not always look the way they might be expected to look. Similarly, some pupils had not been aware of what the word gay meant and therefore said they had felt confused if they saw a gay or lesbian couple either in real life or on television. Learning had included how being gay was illegal in some countries, and pupils commented:

[You] should be able to love who you want to love… [and be] really supportive to all the gay couples (Case study, primary pupil).

Pupils also talked about how they or their peers had previously found the topic funny if it was brought up in class or assemblies, but now they felt more aware and that they could be mature about it. Primary pupil familiarity and confidence with terminology was evident in some of the case studies, including in one where they sang a song about it being ‘OK’ to be LGB.

Some primary teachers emphasised the importance of starting to teach about this area at a young age, so that issues do not become ‘entrenched’ by the time pupils move to secondary school:

Yes, I think it was necessary, I really do. And I think because children see this stuff in the media, they’re seeing that they’re confused about things and who’s going to answer those confused questions if you’ve got parents who don’t know the answer or don’t want to discuss it with them. Some do, obviously, and that’s fine, but you’ve got a big group of children who otherwise… where would they go to? (Case study, primary programme lead).

Another teacher made the point that pupils will be aware of LGBT identities from adult conversations and the media, and that many would not be in a position to receive input from their parents, and therefore learning accurate information in primary schools was important. In contrast, there seemed to be general agreement from lunchtime supervisors within one primary school that some of the pupils in lower key stages may be too young to understand this area and possibly not be interested. These staff felt that children should be “kept innocent” and felt that there may be concerns from parents about what and how this area would be taught. Another concern from a primary lead was about “overdoing” the teaching in this area, which may “plant ideas in their head” about their gender identity, perhaps reflecting wider public ‘debate’ at the time of the research:

You don’t want to lead them into something that they wouldn’t normally choose, but you want them to understand that it’s OK (Case study, primary programme lead).

By contrast, others did not see curriculum inclusion as ‘teaching’ or ‘implanting ideas’, but felt it was merely “informing them about equality. It’s not a lesson they have to learn, it’s just something that is there” (Case study, primary SLT member). However, in one secondary school, a teacher had been told by a more senior colleague that it was ‘inappropriate’ to discuss a painting of a gay couple. Similarly, some secondary pupils experienced their questions within PSHE being deemed ‘inappropriate’:

When we are in lessons such as PSHE, people ask relevant questions about LGBT but teachers class it as inappropriate and choose not to answer which everyone thinks is out of order. It is like we aren’t allowed to talk appropriately and openly about gay people (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

In other cases, pupils felt that the teaching they were subject to was inappropriate:

Especially in like RS and stuff, whenever we do bring up LGBT issues, it’s treated as more of a debate than a discussion… Because you can’t change who you are, I don’t think that should be treated as something, as like a debate… You can’t really disagree with someone that’s been born that way. It’s like disagreeing with someone because they have ginger hair or something… It’s treated as more like a novelty than like an actual thing (Case study, secondary pupil).

6.2 Posters or noticeboards about LGBT identities

Quantitative findings

At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff reporting that posters or noticeboards about LGBT identities were displayed in their school increased from 25% at baseline to 55% at follow-up. In primary schools it increased from 15% at baseline, to 43% at follow-up. A substantial increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 33% to 65%.

Model 1 schools saw similar gains, from 23% at baseline, to 55% at follow-up, to Model 2 (baseline 26%, follow-up 54%). Although both sets of schools saw large increases in the display of relevant posters and notices (see Appendix, Table 34).

Qualitative findings

The qualitative data highlighted how many primary schools adopted the ‘different families, same love’ campaign, originally conceived by Stonewall, for their posters and noticeboards (even those who did not receive support from Stonewall directly). This was seen to be a positive way to get messages across to young people about different identities, particularly for younger children in these schools. In some primary schools, pupils also created posters with messages such as ‘It is OK to be different’, or focussing on inclusion and diversity:

We used some of the resources, age-appropriate, and we found things online and we made diversity inclusion noticeboards, and they include references to a huge variety of differences and why we need to be inclusive… With the older ones there’s more for them to read and think about, it’s quite reflective. It’s to promote deeper thinking maybe about their behaviour and their assumptions and stereotypes. With the younger ones, they’re sort of pictures from picture books and the message is it’s OK to be different, and it’s very visual obviously, just recognising that we are all different and that’s good. So we’ve put those up ready for September. So we had the training in the summer term and we felt that was a good place to start (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

Posters were often based around the books that classes had been reading and basing their work around (discussed in 6.1.3 above). Often a display would be erected in the library to go alongside and highlight the addition of equality or diversity-themed books. Staff in primary schools felt that pupils making posters as an activity was helpful to clarify their learning, ensure their understanding, and to be able to reflect on and promote their own ideas and feelings about identities. For one interviewee, posters and visual displays were seen to help contribute to the general ethos of the school:

So, displays… we’re very much a school that talks about just being who you want to be. If you’re different, so what? We celebrate individuality. And parents certainly when they come round the school and say that you certainly get that feeling it’s about that uniqueness and that as long as you’re not offensive to people and you’re not chucking it down people’s throats, that you can just be who you want to be (Telephone interview, middle school deputy head).

In secondary schools, posters and visual displays had been made depicting notable LGBT thinkers or personalities:

In terms of visual displays, we’ve got these huge murals of various independent thinkers around the school. The LGBT network did a campaign and survey [in order to] put an LGBT thinker up, so we’ve got Alan Turing in a very prominent position in the [social area] of the school (Telephone interview, further education deputy head)

I put one up last year using the [provider] stuff, of successful people from the LGBT community. It was in the corridor. The older kids have seen that all the time and the parents walk past it. I think having that presence is really important (Telephone interview, primary assistant head).

A number of secondary school staff members said they had put posters up as part of a Pride wall or Pride display. Overall, secondary pupils and staff welcomed the display of posters, for example reflecting on the messages that they hoped having these types of posters would portray to visitors and pupils in the school:

I think for other people, say if they’re bringing their kids here for an open day, they see that, they’re sort of like, ‘oh hey I have a feeling my kid might be like this’…(Case study, secondary pupil)

I think the presence of that wall in itself is hugely validating for somebody who is going through a confusion around their identity and just wants to explore it, or is clear on their identity, because it’s saying that, it’s giving it that respect and that weight of importance. So I think just its presence is quite comforting and says a lot about the culture in this school in terms of respect (Case study, secondary staff member).

Secondary pupils felt that the posters should be clearly visible - as one pupil commented, “over the top huge” - and placed in conspicuous locations often frequented by staff, pupils and visitors to the school, such as a main stairway. However, secondary pupils in one school discussed the potentially sensitive nature of the topic for some pupils, and that visual displays would have to be very carefully designed in order to ensure that no offence or upset be caused to a pupil who is struggling with their own feelings or identity:

Going back to the posters and assemblies and raising awareness, I would personally be quite afraid, depending on who would be presenting the assemblies or designing the posters or putting them up, because… everyone has different opinions. It’s very easy for someone to say the wrong thing or just miss… something, especially for someone who is maybe not accepting of themselves, who they are, at all, is worried that people won’t accept and are quite fragile. It’s very hard, if then someone says the wrong thing, it can completely turn someone’s life around (Case study, secondary pupil).

Similarly, staff in a primary school had concerns about how increasing LGBT visibility could be experienced in the context of their school:

[We] talked about whether we did a display in the school where we had LGBT figures, and I actually went away from that, because we’ve got a family - and in a [rural area] everyone knows they’re a same-sex family - but I didn’t want to highlight it as an issue, because I felt for their children it made it an issue… So what we did was we did displays but it wasn’t just on an LGBT basis, it was on a gender basis, on a race basis (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

More generally, some pupils and staff also had some scepticism about whether posters or noticeboards were successful, perceiving them as “not a big enough gesture to have an effect”. There was some caution that posters and noticeboards could become a passive or tokenistic practice, rather than something actively promoting inclusion.

In a small number of schools there was discussion from staff about difficulties with creating noticeboards or posters pertaining to LGBT identities, for example because of a lack of a central space to display posters in one school. Also, needing more posters provided to schools as a resource as it was commented that buying these types of posters was “almost impossible”, despite them being viewed as useful for information and to plan activities:

Also posters of famous people, like scientists and things like that, would be really helpful (Telephone interview, secondary programme lead).

When talking about visual displays relating to LGBT identities, a telephone interviewee reflected on the change in their school over time and the help of the training that had enabled them to promote LGBT identities through displays, without fear of reprisal from colleagues or the senior leadership team:

We’ve had experiences in the past with staff that have been quite, ‘why do we need to know all this? This is all very complicated, you’re either straight or you’re gay or you’re not’. I’ve been here 20 years and getting past that barrier from - most days when I used to come back from Stonewall conferences and things and we put these posters up, and SLT would be like, ‘no, or, you can, but can you hide them?’ - to kind of suddenly be in the position where actually not only can I actually just do that, but I can only do that with the support of everybody else (Telephone interview, middle school programme lead).

6.3 Learning about HBT bullying in lessons

Quantitative findings

As part of the surveys, school staff were asked if homophobic or biphobic bullying were included in lessons. This multiple-choice question offered 5 possible responses: ‘Yes, where possible across most subjects’, ‘Yes, where possible in some subjects’, ‘Yes, only as a specific session within a subject such as PSHE’, ‘No’ and ‘Don’t know’. The results are summarised below in Figure 5 and presented in full in the appendix (Table 36).

At the programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that said ‘Yes, where possible across most subjects’ increased from 6% at baseline to 12% at follow-up. In primary schools, the gains were greater, increasing from 4% at baseline to 16% at follow-up. An increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 7% to 9%. Overall, Model 1 schools saw greater gains (from 4% at baseline to 12% at follow-up) than Model 2 (baseline 7%, follow-up 12%).

Overall, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that said homophobic or biphobic bullying were included ‘where possible in some subjects’ increased from 19% at baseline to 30% at follow-up. In primary schools, the gains were greater, increasing from 17% at baseline to 30% at follow-up. An increase was also recorded among secondary staff, from 21% to 29%. Model 1 schools saw similar gains (from 18% at baseline, to 29% at follow-up) to Model 2 schools (baseline 20%, follow-up 30%).

The school-level weighted percentage of staff reporting that homophobic or biphobic bullying were included ‘only as a specific session within a subject such as PSHE’ changed from 40% at baseline to 41% at follow-up. In secondary schools, there was a slight decline, from 41% at baseline to 39% at follow-up, compared to a rise from 40% to 42% among primary staff. Model 1 schools saw a small decrease (baseline 41%, follow-up 39%), while Model 2 schools witnessed a small increase (baseline 40%, follow-up 42%). These figures, along with those presented earlier in this section, show that homophobic or biphobic bullying were included in more lessons more frequently after the programme than before.

School staff members were asked about whether their school covered transphobic or gender-identity based bullying in lessons. This multiple-choice question offered the same 5 possible responses as listed above.

At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that responded ‘Yes, where possible across most subjects’ increased from 3% at baseline to 11% at follow-up. In primary schools it increased from 2% at baseline to 14% at follow-up. An increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 5% to 8%. Overall, Model 1 schools saw greater gains on this variable, from 3% at baseline to 12% at follow-up, than Model 2 (baseline 3%, follow-up 10%).

Figure 5: At your school, is homophobic or biphobic bullying included within any subject lessons?

The school-level weighted percentage of staff that said their school covered transphobic or gender-identity based bullying in lessons ‘where possible in some subjects’ grew from 13% at baseline to 23% at follow-up. In primary schools, the increase was greater, from 13% at baseline to 24% at follow-up, compared to a rise from 14% to 22% among secondary staff. Model 1 schools saw similar levels of change, from 14% at baseline, to 25% at follow-up, to Model 2 schools (baseline 13%, follow-up 22%).

The school-level weighted percentage of staff saying that transphobic or gender-identity based bullying were included ‘only as a specific session within a subject such as PSHE’ increased from 33% at baseline to 43% at follow-up. In primary schools, the gains were greater, increasing from 35% at baseline to 42% at follow-up. An increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 35% to 42%. Model 1 schools saw slightly smaller gains (baseline 32%, follow-up 40%) compared to those in Model 2 (baseline 34%, follow-up 46%). These figures show that transphobic or gender-identity based bullying were included in more lessons more frequently after the programme than before. These figures are summarised below in Figure 6 and presented in full in the appendix (Table 38).

Figure 6: At your school, is transphobic bullying included within any subject lessons?

Qualitative findings

The case studies suggested that, on occasion, the provider delivered input directly to pupils. In one school, a member of the senior leadership team described how the provider led a school assembly to the children about HBT language and how it was harmful. Generally, however, it was school staff who delivered input to pupils around HBT bullying. This was often in the form of an assembly rather than a subject lesson:

We had another [assembly] about HBT bullying which the head delivered about talking about words that we should and shouldn’t be using (Case study, primary staff member)

We did have some assemblies on the back of it… to talk about HBT bullying and the use pejoratively of the words gay and lesbian (Telephone interview, further education deputy head).

Often the aim was to challenge the casual use of homophobic language through education:

Children might say their work was gay, obviously they didn’t have a clue what it meant, so we would like to address it from an education point of view, not ‘oh you shouldn’t say that’, but explaining why and what it meant. I really wanted it to be progressive all the way through school… so the children built on it year on year, not just an assembly or a book. We wanted it to be built in and embedded (Case study, primary SLT member)

For some children, for some of our boys, it’s been part and parcel of their language for a long period of time, calling each other gay. But what we are seeing with some of our Year 6 boys after those reflective conversations, they’re really, really coming across like they’ve got a good understanding of it and talking about their own family members and brothers and sisters who are LGBT. It’s been really powerful to hear some of the language around it, so they can then talk… so it opens it up basically (Telephone interview, primary safeguarding lead).

In one case study school, the researcher was able to observe an assembly dedicated to International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT). The teacher described what the individual words meant and included pupils through questioning them about gender and sexual identity stereotypes. However, pupils participating in the case studies were not always positive about the success of such assemblies:

I think most people just took it as a sign to, like, make fun of it, so it’s the whole thing about you can’t say all this sort of homophobic, biphobic or transphobic language, but then as soon as the assembly was over, everyone would go out and they would just mock [the teacher] who did the assembly by saying those things. So it wasn’t particularly helpful (Case study, secondary pupil)

I think once we learnt about it, it didn’t change too much. It might have changed for a few weeks, but I think maybe to make it more like, so bullying stops about how people look, maybe we should do it in lessons more often, because I’ve realised that when we did do lessons about being transgender, lesbian and gay, a lot of people stopped bullying and stuff in the school, and a few weeks later, it started again (Case study, primary pupil).

When asked what they would like to see in relation to teaching, pupils were often keen to receive more input on HBT bullying as well as wider LGBT-related content. Pupils wanted HBT bullying to be a regular topic of discussion within schools, and felt it would be useful to have discussions between year groups, for example assemblies aimed at Years 5 and 6 together:

Put homophobic language at like the top priority for words, and more education, more integration of it into education, like into sex ed, especially trans people (Case study, secondary pupils)

They worked with me, the students, about what they wanted to include and what they wanted other students to know, especially around things like bullying. So we created a month’s worth of work for tutors to do with what the students wanted the other students to know and how to stop homophobic bullying. Tutors delivered that and it kind of culminated into… we did a pledge, we got all tutor groups to make a pledge, in terms of how to treat people equally regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, all of those things, and then we made a display of it (Case study, secondary SLT member).

In this school, staff mentioned that it was written into the curriculum to eliminate bullying, including HBT. Elsewhere, some secondary pupils felt that teachers needed to be educated further in order to teach about, or respond to, HBT bullying, as well as to support LGBT pupils more effectively.

6.4 Posters or noticeboards about HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff reporting that posters for notice boards about HBT bullying were displayed in their school increased from 24% at baseline to 46% at follow-up. In primary schools it increased from 10% at baseline to 35% at follow-up. A substantial increase was also observed among secondary staff, from 37% to 56%. Model 1 schools saw similar gains (baseline 25%, follow-up 47%) to those in Model 2 (baseline 24%, follow-up 45%), though both sets of schools saw large increases in the display of posters and notices (see Appendix, Table 42).

Qualitative findings

The qualitative data suggested that HBT bullying specifically was less likely to be the subject of visual displays than broader LGBT or gender-related content, for example during focus groups with pupils in primary schools, some pupils talked about having posters up with quotes about being one’s self, and addressing stereotypes about how boys and girls should look and behave. Posters were sometimes said to promote equality on a more general level, though some anti-bullying posters also mentioned sexual orientation as a potential target of bullying:

We had last year a boy from Year 6, he drew a ‘gay is OK’… poster for anti-bullying [week]. He said that because he thinks that everyone is equal and they all have the same rights as us (Case study, primary pupil).

One school had a poster contest related to anti-bullying. Another school described how a pupil had created a poster for the school newsletter which highlighted thoughts and feelings associated with bullying:

They’d drawn themselves in a situation with a bully, and then they’d put round it in different colours the emotions that person might have been feeling and also the emotions, potentially, of the bully. Then in anti-bullying [week] the children just did an A3 sheet that was with their thoughts about equality, basically. And we have posters up around the school that are produced by our safeguarding board, about stopping bullying, and respect (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

In 2 schools where a cautious approach had been taken to address the subject area, anti-HBT bullying posters were put up alongside posters about other types of bullying, in order to draw attention without being too conspicuous:

Slowly, slowly, we did a sort of drip approach to the project, where we stuck up some posters originally. We didn’t say anything about them, we just put them up. Mixed with anti-racism and anti-hate crime things, across the whole school (Telephone interview, secondary deputy head).

This approach was said to have been extremely impactful for certain pupils within the school:

I’d had children come up to me and say, ‘Miss, since you’ve put up those posters on the wall, I’ve decided to come out to my parents’, and then I said when are you going to do that and how do you feel about it? …It was quite a big deal for him. But I asked him at the end of the year how he felt, and he said he felt relieved, he felt much happier (Telephone interview, secondary deputy head).

Quantitative findings

As an example of a visible marker of LGBT inclusion in schools, the survey showed an increase in staff saying that their school marked LGBT history month within lessons, assemblies or displays (see Appendix, Table 44). At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of schools that reportedly did so increased from 16% to 35% over the evaluation period. The gains observed in secondary schools (from 26% to 46%) were slightly greater than those seen in primaries (from 4% to 23%). However, whilst the programme was associated with gains of a similar magnitude, primary schools were starting from a far lower baseline than secondary schools. Greater gains were made in Model 1 schools (from 18% to 39%) compared to Model 2 (from 14% to 31%), though this difference is mainly accounted for by primary schools. At baseline, only 1% of Model 2 primaries reported activities to mark LGBT history month, rising to 17% at follow-up. It appears that the programme is associated with positive impact across all types of participating schools on this measure.

Staff were also asked if their school marked anti-bullying week within lessons, assemblies or displays. The results are tabulated in the appendix (Table 45). Overall, the school-level weighted percentage of schools that did so increased from 85% to 90% over the evaluation period. This indicates that anti-bullying week was marked by far more schools than LGBT history month both before and after the programme. The programme was associated with greater increases in school activity around LGBT history month, yet there was more scope for improvement on this. Another comparison worth highlighting is that anti-bullying week is covered more by primary schools (97% at follow-up) than secondary schools (84% at follow-up). Model 1 schools started with a slightly higher baseline figure (87%) than Model 2 (83%) with both 90% overall at follow-up.

In addition to LGBT history month and anti-bullying week, staff were asked if their schools used lessons, assemblies or displays to mark other LGBT-related events such as local Pride or IDAHOBIT events. Results can be found in the appendix (Table 46). At the overall programme level, the baseline value (11%) was lower than for LGBT history month (16%), but similar gains were observed across the evaluation period (from 11% to 30%). These other events were marked much more commonly in secondary (19%) than primary schools (5%) at baseline. The gains were also greater in secondary (from 19% to 40%) than primary schools (from 3% to 18%), yet this is evidence of positive change across the evaluation period. The overall change in Model 1 and Model 2 schools was identical (11% at baseline, 30% at follow-up).

Qualitative findings

Just under half of the case study schools linked some work to a specific event or period of time, such as IDAHOBIT (see above), LGBT history month, Pride or anti-bullying week. In one school LGBT history month was marked after support from the provider, where materials were created and delivered to classes, and there was a non-uniform day. In the focus group, pupils in this school remembered undertaking activities for LGBT history month, including looking at famous gay people and LGBT rights. From a staff perspective, “February… gives a nice opportunity to talk about LGBT… just to raise a bit of awareness really”. Some schools were also planning work for the next LGBT history month, such as letting pupils wear rainbow shoelaces, and more ambitious plans such as the below:

There’s LGBT history month that we’re obviously going to work on and do a big piece of work, like we’ve just done Black history month, getting everyone in the school involved in different elements of that, so it’s going to be the same for that (Case study, secondary senior leader).

For another school who celebrated LGBT history month, the feeling from the programme lead was that although this is very important, it was more important to ensure that LGBT-related teaching was happening year-round throughout the school:

During LGBT month, in February, [the headteacher] gets all the rainbow bunting out and everything, he goes completely over the top, [but] it’s just dropping it in I think more through the year… You roll the Black people out in October and you roll the gay people out in February, and the rest of the year we go back to being quite white and heterosexual (Telephone interview, primary assistant head).

Other staff also had similar misgivings:

It would be nice to maybe have something a bit more visual in school, not just have February as the month where we celebrate it, because it should be… consistent and should be celebrated all the time, I think. It shouldn’t necessarily just be given a slot. And the children are happy to see it throughout the year, otherwise if it’s only spoken about at a certain time, it doesn’t really have the right impact (Case study, secondary staff member).

A headteacher from a primary school had made parents aware of the school’s plans to celebrate LGBT history month and had received some negativity about their child’s involvement.

Schools more often talked about celebrating their local Pride events or holding mini Pride events within their school, for example one school had a stand where they gave out Pride flags, stickers and cupcakes. A staff member and pupil who had been involved reflected on what they felt was the impact of the event:

I was a bit apprehensive about how it was going to go down, but it was amazing, it was absolutely incredible, everyone got on board, you could see all the kids with the little flags going along the school. And I wasn’t sure what the impact was going to be, but talking to the [school’s LGBT] group at the beginning of this year, because that happened in June… [and] they were all openly saying that there’s been less homophobic comments, there’s been less jokes, they’ve noticed that teachers pull students up on things a lot more. They feel it’s been a very positive move that’s happened, and there’s a lot more awareness around LGBT rights and presence (Case study, secondary SLT member)

I was like on the stand, giving out things… I went up to my lesson after that, and it was fun to see everyone who had stickers or who were still eating cake or who had the little flags that we gave out… It was kind of like, you recognised how many people there were who weren’t homophobic, transphobic or biphobic, and it was kind of refreshing to see that… After that sort of event, everyone was like, ‘oh there’s a load of people who support this’, and then so it was kind of like, ‘I’m not going to be as mean to people because there’s a lot of them now!’ (Case study, secondary pupil).

Other schools did Pride pledges, Pride wall displays, stalls and held t-shirt design competitions. Case study participants also talked about celebrating diversity at other occasions, including anti-bullying week and IDAHOBIT:

We do an anti-bullying week every year… and it all comes down to everybody has got the right to be respected despite their colour, despite their sex, despite their religion… Whatever their interests are… The older you go throughout the school the more groups we actually mention (Case study, primary PSHE lead)

We also have mental health awareness week which we celebrate every year, and this year again we did a diversity day and we flew the rainbow flag and we did a special event with a beautiful rainbow and people came and wrote messages on it. We try to do these events every so often, but we wanted to make sure there was a formal diversity day and that was part of our deal, as it were, with [the provider] as well (Case study, secondary SLT member)

We sort of tied it into how we do our worships across the Church year… so we celebrate differences, different faiths, different cultures and also different families… Obviously today with it being [IDAHOBIT]… it’s very specific today what we’re going to be doing… It’s [anti-] HBT worship specifically (Case study, primary programme lead).

Question 9

7.  Staff confidence and capability

Accepted Answer

Summary

Survey data showed that 78% of staff felt either ‘very able’ or ‘quite able’ to respond to HBT bullying prior to the programme, rising to 91% at follow-up.

Improvements were greater in primary than in secondary schools.

At baseline, 56% of staff felt either ‘very able’ or ‘quite able’ to include LGB identities and relationships in teaching, rising to 77% at follow-up. The proportion of staff that felt either ‘very able’ or ‘quite able’ to include trans identities and relationships in teaching also went up, from 38% at baseline to 62% at follow-up.

Staff said that training had aided knowledge and confidence to include LGBT identities and relationships in teaching.

In general, staff viewed the training and other support from providers as overwhelmingly positive, with impacts on schools’ ability to work towards an LGBT-inclusive environment. Support that was tailored, ongoing, and focused on identities was particularly valued.

7.1 Staff confidence in responding to HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

On average, survey data indicates that staff already felt able to respond to HBT bullying at baseline, though this improved further during the programme. At baseline, staff confidence in their ability to respond to homophobic or biphobic bullying was a school-level weighted average of 78% feeling either ‘very able’ or ‘quite able’. This rose to 94% at follow-up (see Figure 7, and Appendix, Table 47). For these survey items, responses were given on a scale of 1: very able, to 5: very unable.

Improvements were larger among staff in primary schools, with the school-level weighted average increasing from 74% to 96%, compared to figures from staff in secondary schools, which increased from 82% to 91%. Model 1 and Model 2 schools witnessed similar improvements, both beginning with a baseline value of 78% and rising by 15% and 17% respectively.

Figure 7: To what extent do you feel able to respond to homophobic or biphobic bullying, should it occur?

With regard to responding to transphobic or gender identity-based bullying, a school-level weighted average of 68% of staff at baseline responded either ‘very able’ or ‘able’, rising to 90% at follow-up. This indicates that, on average, staff already felt relatively able to respond to HBT bullying at baseline, although this improved further during the programme.

This pattern was more pronounced among staff in primary schools, with the school-level weighted average increasing from 62% to 92%, compared to figures from staff in secondary schools, which increased from 73% to 88%. Model 1 and Model 2 schools again saw gains of almost the same size, with gains of 22% from baseline values of 67% for Model 1 and 69% for Model 2 (see Appendix, Table 48).

Respondents reporting that they felt ‘very able’ or ‘quite able’ to respond to HBT bullying were asked to state the reasons why. More than one reason could be selected. At baseline, the most frequently chosen reason was ‘my personal views support this’. This was the case for homophobic and biphobic bullying, as well as transphobic bullying (presented as separate questions in the surveys). However, at follow-up, the most popular response was ‘I feel the school ethos supports this’. There were also substantial increases in the number of respondents selecting ‘I feel confident about this’, ‘I feel I understand the subject enough to do this’, ‘There are specific school policies in place that support this’ and ‘I feel the SLT supports this’ (see Appendix, Table 51).

Respondents who said they felt ‘very unable’, ‘quite unable’ or ‘neither able nor unable’ to respond to HBT bullying were also asked to state the reasons why. At baseline, the most frequently recorded response was ‘I have not had any training about this’, but fewer than half of respondents cited this as a reason at follow-up. At follow-up, the most common response was ‘I do not feel confident about this’ (see Appendix, Table 52).

Qualitative findings

Prior to programme support, open text responses to the baseline survey suggested that at least some staff lacked confidence in this area. In particular, some primary staff said they felt uncertain because of a perceived lack of incidents in their school, meaning they lacked experience in how to respond. Another factor that appeared to influence responses was around potential opposition, which may contribute to the invisibility of LGBT identities in some schools:

While I believe that the school is an inclusive environment, I feel this is one area which is avoided slightly. I feel this is due to the cultural background of the majority of the students and their beliefs, but I believe that this makes it even more important. Students casually use homophobic language, and in many cases this goes unchecked. I think the open discussion of HBT bullying and LGBT inclusion should be a priority among the school community (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

It is worth noting that fears about parental opposition in some primary and secondary schools were not always realised once programme delivery began. However, in a minority of cases, some parents did object to their child being involved in particular lessons and some children were subsequently removed from lessons as a result.

Following programme support, people were able to point to improvements in staff confidence to respond to HBT bullying:

I think there’s been a marked improvement in people’s attitudes and the way people talk about it… There’s a couple of more senior teachers that work within the Year 5 and 6 cohort and they speak a lot about Section 28 and how there was a time when you literally couldn’t do anything about it, and they felt they didn’t know what to say… There are definite, definite shifts. I know there is within staff attitudes and the language they use to deal with HBT language, because they are dealing with it, and we’re getting reports, and we can evidence that as well, which is a good thing (Telephone interview, primary safeguarding lead)

I think the language used has changed as well. There’s still the odd student that says ‘God that’s so gay’, and now you can just say, ‘stop a minute please, that’s not appropriate’… As long as we maintain that, keep that level of consistency, you know, eventually that’s going to take root a little bit more than it has before (Case study, secondary staff member).

There was some evidence in latter stages of data collection that wide-scale media coverage of protests at Parkfield primary school in Birmingham in 2019 (although it was not involved in this programme) were a cause for concern for some schools. As a result, in a minority of cases staff said that this had delayed or minimised the work they were willing to do during or following the programme.

7.2 Staff confidence in including LGBT identities and relationships in teaching

Quantitative findings

Overall, staff appeared to feel less able to include LGB identities and relationships in their teaching (compared to their ability to respond to HBT bullying), though this did increase from baseline to follow-up. Again, a scale of 1 (very able) to 5 (very unable) was used, and full results for this survey item are shown in the appendix (Table 49). At the programme level, a school-level weighted average of 56% of staff at baseline responded either ‘very able’ or ‘able’, rising to 77% at follow-up.

Greater improvements were observed among staff in primary schools, with the school-level weighted average increasing from 48% to 82%, compared to figures from staff in secondary schools, which increased from 61% to 74%. Model 2 schools saw an improvement of 24% from a baseline of 55%, a larger gain than Model 1 schools (baseline 56%, follow-up 76%).

With regard to including trans identities and relationships in teaching, a school-level weighted average of 38% of staff responded either ‘very able’ or ‘able’ at baseline, rising to 62% at follow-up, representing substantial improvements during the programme.

In primary schools, the school-level weighted average increased from 29% to 64%, a greater increase compared to staff in secondary schools, among whom the school-level weighted average grew from 45% to 61%. Model 1 and Model 2 schools again saw similar increases (see Appendix, Table 50).

Respondents reporting that they felt ‘very able’ or ‘quite able’ to include LGBT identities or relationships in teaching were asked to state the reasons why. Again this question was presented on a multiple response basis. At baseline, the most frequently chosen reason was ‘my personal views support this’ (for both homophobic and biphobic bullying and transphobic bullying). At follow-up, the most popular responses were ‘I feel I understand the subject enough to do this’ (for trans identities) and ‘my role in the school enables this’ (LGB identities). There were also substantial increases in the number of respondents selecting ‘There are specific school policies in place that support this’, ‘I feel I understand the subject enough to do this’ and ‘I feel the SLT supports this’ (see Appendix, Table 53).

Respondents who said they felt ‘very unable’, ‘quite unable’ or ‘neither able nor unable’ to include LGBT identities or relationships in teaching were also asked to state the reasons why. At baseline, the most frequently recorded response was ‘I have not had any training about this’, but fewer than half the amount of respondents cited this as a reason at follow-up. At follow-up, the most common response was ‘There is no space/time in the curriculum to allow this’ (LGB identities) and ‘my personal views do not support this’ (trans identities) (see Appendix, Table 54).

Qualitative findings

Both case study data and open text responses to the baseline survey suggested that at least some staff lacked confidence in this area, prior to programme support. In particular, there were some doubts about what was ‘allowed’, especially in primary settings:

I remember someone on the course we went on, she was a reception teacher, and I said you should be using the words gay and lesbian in the classroom, and she was like, ‘oooh really? Am I allowed to say lesbian and gay?’ Well, yeah, why not!? (Case study, primary staff member)

Whenever children ask me about LGBT identities or say things like girls can only marry boys, I’m never sure how to respond, as I don’t want to give information that their parents might disagree with. I would like some clear rules on how I should respond when it comes to this issue (Primary staff baseline survey respondent)

I think primarily, it sounds so silly but I think there was a misconception between some that they couldn’t talk about it, they couldn’t use those words, they couldn’t address it (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

Within secondary settings, there was more variation in people’s perceptions and experiences:

Student attitudes would make me anxious about presenting LGBT+ topics in class as students do not respond maturely as they are not exposed to this subject in a serious manner frequently (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent)

Teaching RE and Sociology I discuss this issue of homosexuality frequently and all pupils respond to the issue with maturity and I have never experienced negative comments (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

Sometimes a resistance to include LGBT identities and relationships in teaching was not related to a lack of confidence but a belief that increasing visibility by drawing ‘attention’ to LGBT people was not the right approach:

I believe that including LGBT matters in PSHE could potentially show the younger children that LGBT people are different from the norm. Instead I believe it is better to treat this as though it is perfectly normal and not anything to bring attention to (Primary staff baseline survey respondent)

Having a separate LGBT or HBT policy or activities actively marks this out as a separate issue which gives the message that this is a different issue, and almost invites people to look on it as such… The emphasis should ALWAYS be on wide-reaching inclusivity and acceptance, covering all ‘difference’, with the message that bullying is intolerable and will be dealt with, full stop (Primary staff baseline survey respondent).

However, in general, the training and support received had given teachers what they perceived to be much needed knowledge about LGBT identities, including key terminology which enabled them to feel they were giving the correct information. Some school staff commented that this was an area they would have never broached if it were not for this programme, due to a lack of knowledge and experience in the area:

We don’t know of any of our children who are in those situations, but that doesn’t mean to say that you shouldn’t start the conversation, but I don’t think we probably would have if we hadn’t had the training (Case study, primary headteacher)

[It has] given the confidence to do this. [I] didn’t have the knowledge of the key terms before then. Training has helped: I’m quite sheltered really, so it gave me that wonderful confidence (Case study, primary teacher)

I think that’s half the battle, it’s having the confidence, because people are so frightened of, ‘I might say the wrong thing, so I’m not going to say anything’… It’s having that confidence and being comfortable with the terminology (Case study, secondary staff member).

7.3 Staff contribution to an LGBT-inclusive school environment that actively tackles HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

School staff were asked 4 survey questions concerning their own personal contribution to creating an LGBT-inclusive school environment that actively tackles HBT bullying.

First, staff were asked if they ‘actively try to prevent HBT bullying’. The possible responses were ‘yes’ and ‘no’. At overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff answering in the affirmative rose from 74% at baseline to 87% at follow-up. The gains observed among primary school staff were far greater, rising from 67% at baseline to 90% at follow-up, compared to secondary staff (baseline 79%, follow-up 86%). Model 1 schools saw a rise of 17%, compared to 10% in Model 2 schools, which had a higher baseline (78% compared to 69% for Model 1). These results are shown in Table 5.

Table 5: At the moment, do YOU personally actively try to prevent HBT bullying at your school?

	Yes: Baseline %	Yes: Follow-up %	No: Baseline %	No: Follow-up %	Don’t know: Baseline %	Don’t know: Follow-up %	Total
Secondary staff
Model 1	75.2	85.9	20.1	11.6	4.7	2.5	86
Model 2	82.1	84.9	11.6	11.2	6.4	3.8	84
Total	78.6	85.5	15.9	11.4	5.5	3.1	170
Primary staff
Model 1	59.8	87.7	31.0	8.6	9.2	3.7	58
Model 2	73.7	91.4	16.3	6.3	10.0	2.2	67
Total	67.2	89.7	23.1	7.4	9.7	2.9	125
Overall
Model 1	69.0	86.6	24.5	10.4	6.5	3.0	144
Model 2	78.4	87.8	13.6	9.1	8.0	3.1	151
Total	73.8	87.2	18.9	9.7	7.3	3.1	295

Source: SHU survey

Staff were then asked if they ‘Actively try to include awareness of HBT bullying in the curriculum’. Overall, the school-level weighted percentage of staff reporting that they did grew from 43% at baseline to 67% at follow-up. The gains observed among primary school staff were far greater, rising from 38% at baseline to 75% at follow-up, compared to secondary staff (baseline 47%, follow-up 62%), partly owing to a higher baseline for secondary staff. Model 1 schools saw a rise from 38% to 64%, compared to an increase from 48% to 70% for Model 2 (see Table 6).

Table 6: At the moment, do YOU personally actively try to include awareness of HBT bullying in the curriculum at your school?

	Yes: Baseline %	Yes: Follow-up %	No: Baseline %	No: Follow-up %	Don’t know: Baseline %	Don’t know: Follow-up %	Total
Secondary staff
Model 1	39.5	57.9	53.3	38.2	7.2	3.9	79
Model 2	54.4	65.1	34.3	29.3	11.2	5.6	80
Total	47.0	61.5	43.7	33.7	9.2	4.8	159
Primary staff
Model 1	35.7	73.6	51.8	17.2	12.5	9.2	56
Model 2	39.3	76.3	48.8	17.8	11.9	5.9	62
Total	37.6	75.0	50.2	17.5	12.2	7.4	118
Overall
Model 1	37.9	64.4	52.7	29.5	9.4	6.1	135
Model 2	47.8	70.0	40.6	24.3	11.5	5.7	142
Total	43.0	67.3	46.5	26.8	10.5	5.9	277

Source: SHU survey

The next survey item asked staff if they ‘Actively try to build an LGBT-inclusive environment’. The results are displayed in Appendix 7, Table 55. At the programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff saying yes to this question rose from 52% at baseline to 79% at follow-up. The figure for primary school staff grew more (from 42% at baseline to 78% at follow-up) compared to secondary staff (baseline 60%, follow-up 81%). Model 1 schools saw a rise of 22%, compared to 23% in Model 2 schools, although the latter had a higher baseline (47% compared to 57% for Model 1).

Finally for this section, staff were asked if they ‘Actively try to include LGBT identities or relationships in the curriculum’. Results for this item can be found in the appendix (Table 56). At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff saying yes to this question rose from 42% at baseline to 64% at follow-up. The increase among primary school staff was from 35% at baseline to 70% at follow-up, far greater than for secondary staff (baseline 48%, follow-up 60%). For Model 1 schools, the figure went up from 42% to 63% over the evaluation period, a slightly smaller increase than for Model 2 schools (baseline 42%, follow-up 66%).

Qualitative findings

Across evaluation data, there was more certainty about responding to HBT bullying than there was about preventing HBT bullying, and even more so, creating an LGBT-inclusive school environment. Though we recognise this may relate to some uncertainty about what prevention and inclusivity look like in practice, it also suggests a tendency to be reactive rather than proactive:

The school, students and staff, are all extremely accepting of LGBTQI members of our community and bullying of this is extremely rare… However, we have several students who are questioning their gender and I feel we could have support to help support these students through the process and transition. I am confident responding to bullying etc. when it happens and dealing with incidents but feel less confident about building an active community within the school, for example including it in lessons etc. which would be useful (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent)

Although our school does not tolerate homophobic/transphobic/biphobic bullying (along with any other kind), they do nothing to prevent this from happening, and spread little to no awareness of the LGBT community (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

For some staff, a lack of contribution to an LGBT-inclusive environment was driven by fears related to their own identity and how this might be responded to in school:

I find it a difficult area for several reasons. It is a Christian school with many families from Pentecostal backgrounds who seem particularly antagonistic towards LGBT people and issues. As a gay man, I am not open about my sexuality in school and feel vulnerable to accusations. I always challenge homophobia and other forms of discrimination but feel very nervous about actively promoting LGBT inclusion, even though I know it is the right thing to do (Primary staff baseline survey respondent)

Sometimes (by certain senior staff members) LGBT issues are dismissed, not seen as equal to heterosexual relationships, and homophobia is treated as less serious than other types of discrimination. As an LGBT staff member, I do not always feel comfortable or included and feel some staff are narrow minded and make inappropriate comments about gender and sexuality to students (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

7.4 Views on programme support

7.4.1 Training

Quantitative findings

In both staff surveys, respondents were asked to rate the support received during the programme. These questions were only asked in the follow-up surveys, so baseline/follow-up comparisons are not possible. Responses were given on a scale of 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor). Training was largely perceived as positive by respondents, with a school-level weighted percentage of 84% of staff rating the training as either ‘very good’ or ‘good’. The response was more positive among primary staff (90%) than secondary staff (78%). Among Model 1 schools, the response was slightly more positive (85%) than among Model 2 schools (82%). These figures are presented in Figure 5 below, and in Table 57 (see Appendix).

Qualitative findings

Within the case studies, the training was often thought to have been particularly well-delivered:

The engagement was incredible, I was actually blown away, because it was quite detailed and people were just asking questions. They weren’t afraid, they asked things that might be obvious to others, but actually other people were grateful, and it just explained a lot of things… We had so much talk afterwards and realised actually how many people in school have got members of their family who it might be relevant to… It was really popular (Case study, primary staff member)

I learned an absolute load… I thought I knew quite a bit… I thought ‘ooh I’m quite up on this, I know this’. No I didn’t at all… and I think it sort of empowers you when you learn (Case study, primary staff member)

It has worked well… It’s opened up a subject that potentially could have been tricky to handle but because we’d had that training we were all confident in tackling that subject in a positive way and we had the confidence to know how to deal with any incidents that may arise… I’d say confidence was a biggie (Case study, primary headteacher).

Training on gender identities was especially valued as this was often where people lacked the most awareness or confidence:

There were a lot of teachers saying ‘oh I didn’t realise this’, and ‘I didn’t know that’, and ‘I didn’t know there were so many identities’, so I think teachers had a huge education themselves, especially around the gender identities and stuff. There was a lot of missing understanding, but I think there was a lot of trepidation as well (Case study, secondary SLT member)

[The] training has made a monumental difference to the way staff support our trans students (Primary staff follow-up survey respondent).

Elsewhere, however, the training had not been so well received. One trainer beginning a CPD session with how they perceived the school to not be LGBT-friendly had reportedly made staff feel uneasy. This was felt to be a very negative experience which did not lead to a helpful dialogue about changes that could be made. The interviewee reported that staff were very enthusiastic prior to training, and were very aware that their school had room for improvement, but said that it was the trainer’s manner that was off-putting rather than the criticism itself. In a second school, people also felt that the trainer could have been more experienced in shutting down unhelpful conversation:

The project didn’t start as well as I’d hoped it would… The lady wasn’t very strong, wasn’t a facilitator, and didn’t shut down some tricky conversations, so some far more vocal staff were allowed to take the floor, and a couple of them were really religious, which was a real shame… I think quite a few staff thought ‘uh, what’s the point of this?’ …So that group session just wasn’t managed well at all to start with… [but] for me it did highlight what the issues are! What the issues were in the staff team, and then our head did do a presentation about HBT bullying being illegal, and that personal views should not influence you at work at all in any way, so he was quite strong about it afterwards, which was good (Telephone interview, secondary PSHE lead).

In another school, people felt that the training should have been more practically tailored to help teachers implement change more easily, as this focus group exchange shows:

There was too much of ‘this is who this person is, this is who that person is’… I don’t think we had mention of like, in terms of schools’ literature and books that are available, none of that was mentioned. So we found that out just through our own research… The staff team at the end of it felt exhausted and bombarded… I think people felt that they were just overloaded with stuff in the morning… and not given the tools to put it into practice as much… It seemed quite laboured (Case study, secondary staff members).

7.4.2 Resources

Quantitative findings

Respondents were also asked to rate the resources received during the programme. Responses were again given on a scale of 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor). Resources were rated positively by respondents, with a school-level weighted percentage of 77% of staff rating the resources as either ‘very good’ or ‘good’. The response was more positive among primary staff (83%) than secondary staff (72%). Among Model 1 schools, the response was slightly more positive (80%) than among Model 2 schools (76%). While these figures are encouraging, they are slightly lower than those reported for the quality of the training. These figures are presented in Figure 5 below, and in Table 58 (see Appendix).

7.4.3 Advice and guidance

Quantitative findings

Similarly to the programme training and resources, the policy advice and guidance supplied through the programme was rated positively by respondents, with a school-level weighted percentage of 80% of staff rating advice and guidance as either ‘very good’ or ‘good’. The response was more favourable among primary staff (86%) than secondary staff (74%). For Model 1 schools, the response was slightly more positive (81%) than among Model 2 schools (78%). These figures are presented in Figure 5 below, and in Table 59 (see Appendix).

Figure 8: Staff views of programme support

Qualitative findings

Where it was received, ongoing support and advice was welcomed, and led to strong sentiments of gratitude amongst evaluation participants:

We’ve got a lot of value from having a relationship with an organisation like this because we need that guidance and support really… I’m so grateful for the funding… because without [the support] this year we might have not been doing as much as we’ve done. I think that’s essential that that carries on (Case study, secondary SLT member)

I found [provider staff member] coming in and delivering the session after school for us as teaching staff, and outlining everything and going through the language with us and the new changes and things like that, was really useful. And then for me to meet with him and go through what we had… asking questions on a one-to-one with him… was brilliant. That was a really big resource for me (Case study, secondary staff member)

I think that’s so powerful in the school, to just have that support and someone to ask the stupid questions without feeling stupid… my thanks for being able to be involved in it. We certainly got loads out of it (Telephone Interview, primary headteacher).

Where programme support had been tailored to the specific school’s needs this was felt to be especially valuable:

The trainer had also looked at the Church of England documentation and so was aware of that, which I thought was really important. In fact, he started with our school motto and with our church ethos, and again I thought that was really important for my staff. He got the fact that we were a church school, but within that we’re OK to talk about it… [He] was absolutely brilliant (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

7.4.4 Programme impact

Qualitative findings

Case study data drawn from staff perspectives was almost unanimously positive about the programme support they had received, for example relating it to increased staff confidence:

It developed my confidence to talk to staff members about it and gave me a really good plan of what to do… I think the programme itself has been very thorough, and really good at starting, I think what it really did for me is looking at the way of organising the work, and a structure to it… and to ensure that everything is covered when work starts, and you’ve developed an understanding with the staff and a language in order to challenge, if you come across it, with the children or the parents (Telephone interview, primary safeguarding lead)

From our point of view, it was over and above. I couldn’t recommend it enough… We’ve found it just excellent, really, from start to finish… [before] we were like, ‘oh where shall we start?’… It is a big issue if you’re not an expert in it (Case study, primary SLT member)

It was so worthwhile doing it, and I think everybody got so much out of it… Really good project to be involved in, and I’m proud to be involved in it actually (Case study, primary staff member).

Whilst some people were already thinking about this area, for others the programme had been more significant in putting the issue on their radar:

For me it is so important that we’re doing it… You find that children these days are very open-minded and open to difference and change and we need to capture that and we need to go with that. I was so delighted to get an email to say we’re going to help you in doing it, because otherwise it would have been me trying to get the message across and I think that would have been isolating for me (Telephone interview, primary headteacher)

I think it’s just the realisation that it is something that’s important for us to tackle. Something that you’d put to one side, but I think it’s brought it to the forefront of our attention (Case study, secondary SLT member)

It was just nice to have someone very positive and encouraging and someone that you could reflect backwards and forwards with… I wouldn’t have been able to do it otherwise because I wouldn’t have known I was doing the right thing, which is a worry, because I think you could make a mess of this (Telephone interview, secondary PSHE lead).

Impacts within school

Some thought that the programme had a particular impact on gendered language use, particularly in primary schools:

I think it has made everybody more aware because we’ve had the conversations about, you mustn’t say ‘big strong boy’ and all that sort of thing, so it has made us very aware of our language around the children… I don’t think there was anybody who was in any way homophobic, biphobic or transphobic, I think maybe the biggest impact has been the gender thing (Case study, primary programme lead)

Something that struck me that’s really come out of it is… using gender-neutral language. So something that we’re trying, I wouldn’t say that we were always successful, but we’re really trying as a staff that we’re not saying, you know, ‘gorgeous girls’ and ‘mate’ to the boys and that sort of thing, that actually we’re just being very neutral with everybody (Case study, primary SLT member)

[We’ve] changed a lot of language… As a school we’ve removed ‘she’ from all letters, it’s all ‘their’, and we’ve tried to make everything gender-neural (Case study, secondary SLT member).

Most people felt that the programme support (often the training in particular) had had a clear impact at the school, even if sometimes this was ‘incremental’ rather than ‘massive’ in nature, particularly given the context of Section 28 (also mentioned above):

Although there’s not been massive significant changes, it’s the little incremental gains… and I think the ethos for the college is shifting and changing. We talk a lot, and we did in the training, about the fact that a significant amount of our staff will have been trained when you were not allowed to promote different types of relationships… That’s difficult for them to acclimatise to. There are still complexities around things like changing rooms and facilities and things like that, but again it’s been made quite clear to staff that the students’ rights prevail. They have the choice… So that kind of message is going out (Case study, secondary SLT member)

The course impacted greatly on the resources and staff awareness of these issues. We are now actively trying to promote a more inclusive curriculum and I know that already this has been positive for a pupil (Secondary staff follow-up survey respondent).

Often the support was said to have led to increases in staff confidence and awareness, in particular feeling able to talk to young people and use correct terminology, although inevitably staff members had different starting points for this:

I think for me personally it was a lot of talking at you, and all the different terminology and how we as staff need to be aware of the terminology that we’re using in class. It was quite intense… It was interesting in that sense to know all the different ways that people do identify, and that was good to know. I will be honest and say I did leave a little bit confused because some of them… it was different words but the same idea, and we didn’t really go into much detail… it was just on a sheet of paper, and then all these different key terms, and I was just like, ‘what?’ (Case study, primary staff)

There was lots of stuff that I already knew as part of this training. There were some things that I didn’t know that were explained to me and that I did get straight away… If you already sort of knew what transphobic bullying was, there was a lot of stuff in there which you would have heard of, and some things that you could work out based on the things you already knew (Case study, primary staff)

Last week in the staff room at lunch time, the staff were talking about asexuals and… that’s language we never would have heard before. When we started this, there was a real thing around language and what it’s alright to tell children, and to have that change to it being just a normal conversation in the staff room and people trying to be accurate about the language they’re using, I just thought that was brilliant (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

Within most of the case studies, staff felt that involvement in the programme had improved staff responses to HBT behaviour, often due to a rise in confidence:

I think that staff are more confident in tackling, in knowing that actually if someone says ‘that’s gay’ they’re going to be in isolation… [and] if it’s in attack of someone, then it’s going to be much more serious… I have seen a big difference (Case study, secondary staff member)

I think some teachers didn’t feel comfortable and didn’t know what to do. It feels as if now we’ve said that if this happens, you deal with it like this, and you deal with it the same way as you deal with racism, I think it’s given more strength for them to actually know what to do, as opposed to just trying to ignore it and hope, you know, I didn’t hear that, I don’t have to deal with it (Case study, secondary SLT member)

It [bullying] has come down… It’s been a downward trend. The more work you put in, the more we’re on top of it, the lower it comes down (Case study, primary programme lead).

In one school, teachers said that they were apprehensive before but found the support “empowering” and they had “learnt a lot”. Training was also thought to have led to practical changes such as gender-neutral toilets and school bullying policies and recording practices (see Chapter 3). One school said that their involvement in the programme had directly contributed to their recent (positive) Ofsted inspection. The programme was also seen to be giving ‘permission’ to schools to do this work:

Staff initially were concerned, what if the children have questions? What if the children want to go deeper? How much am I allowed to say? What am I allowed to say? Where does my remit end with this? And I think a lot of those questions were answered by [the provider staff member] being very open and very honest and just stating a fact – this is the way it is. And I think that made our staff feel a lot more relieved that potentially they’re not going to get parents coming back and saying you’ve spoken to my child about this, and those sorts of things. I think that was the biggest challenge – staff feeling comfortable enough that they had free rein to talk about what the children needed to know, and if the children had questions, it was either OK to say yes this is how it is, or well let’s speak to your parents about that (Case study, primary SLT member)

I think it’s given us confidence to talk about it and to go, ‘yes that’s fine, we can’. I think for teachers there’s always the worry that you’re going to put your foot in your mouth and say something that maybe I shouldn’t have said… so it’s given us that validity, that validation to say yes you are legally required to do it this way actually, and it’s fine and the children do need to know and do want to know. That’s quite liberating… [If it wasn’t for the training] I don’t think we’d have probably addressed it at all, if I’m honest (Case study, primary programme lead).

Personal impacts

For some, impact had also been more personal in nature:

One thing it’s done for me, with the language as well, because I had been working at the school for a long time and I got married to my partner, and I felt like I had no language in order to talk about that. But I did start talking about it in school, and that in itself was quite powerful for the kids to hear… The initial training for me was quite powerful to a) talk about my own experiences, but b) have the staff hear. And also we had some of the staff, who really felt like they couldn’t talk about any of this stuff at work, come forward later on and approach me and have a bit more of a language (Telephone interview, primary safeguarding lead).

Within the follow-up staff survey and one telephone interview, however, some respondents said that there had been limited impact because the programme was too short, or the input was too limited:

I wish we’d had 2 years on it… I think we could have seen it through to really embed it… Doing it for a year is a bit of a flash in the pan and this year’s project… As much as I think it’s changed us, if we weren’t such a small school I think it could take longer to really embed it (Telephone interview, primary headteacher).

Impacts on pupils

Whilst most reports of programme impact focused on staff, in some case studies people were able to point to what they felt were actual or potential impacts on pupils:

Now, I wouldn’t think anything about having an assembly using any of those terms, answering the children’s questions, and they don’t have any issues… They’ll openly say it to you. A year ago, they wouldn’t have had those words, and wouldn’t have known what it meant… They’re just words to explain things, but unless you tell the children that, they don’t know, particularly if some words are being used in a derogatory way (Case study, primary SLT member)

The feedback I’ve had from tutors is that students are really respectful, and actually they had questions to ask that weren’t just mocking, that were just like, ‘OK so what about this?’… The feedback I had was really positive. As a result of that, there has been less homophobic incidents and comments, and actually I’ve heard students say stuff like, ‘oh so-and-so is gay’, and like, ‘OK that’s cool’, and it feels as if there’s been a bit of a shift (Case study, secondary SLT member)

I feel like some of the students will get a different experience here than they would maybe in another school that didn’t have this work done, and I think some of that work is life-saving, to be honest. Thinking about friends growing up, and some of the experiences they’ve had in schools… I just think some of it is life-changing, life-saving, really (Case study, secondary inclusion lead).

Pupil perspectives

Despite the generally positive feedback from staff, pupil views post-programme were less complimentary about its impact:

This school handles LGBT things badly and it needs a lot of work because the reason there is so much bullying is because they have no information to tell people what being transgender is (Secondary pupil follow-up survey respondent)

I have been bullied since coming out and whenever I attempt to tell a teacher of this, the teacher is either unsupportive and turns me or others away, or the bullying increases. I have never been in a lesson where we have done anything on LGBT and there has only been one assembly in the 3 years I have been at this school (Secondary pupil follow-up survey respondent).

In general, the secondary pupil follow-up survey open text data was very similar to baseline feedback, with suggestions that schools should do more, and accounts of negative experiences and/or observations. This was in clear contrast to staff comments above, suggesting that it may take time for programme impacts to ‘trickle down’ to pupils.

However, in a small number of case studies pupils were able to identify what they thought were programme impacts on school staff and other pupils:

Maybe a couple of years ago there was 2 girls who were like hugging each other… and the teachers were like, some of the teachers outside were saying to them, ‘stop doing that’, because it’s like weird or something… I think that now they like have changed a bit about it (Case study, primary pupil)

I feel awareness has spread… People who don’t want to be homophobic or biphobic or transphobic, they’ve become a lot more cautious about what’s being said, and people have been less afraid of asking questions as well… I’m one of the few people in my year who is openly pansexual and gender-fluid, and so people have come up to me and will be like, ‘I want to know more and I’m going to ask a question’… so I feel like it’s become a lot less scary to talk about (Case study, secondary pupil).

Question 10

8.  Occurrence of HBT bullying

Accepted Answer

Summary

Qualitative data illustrated examples of pupils experiencing and witnessing HBT bullying, predominantly in secondary schools.

There was evidence that the frequency of staff observing homophobic or biphobic bullying declined slightly over the evaluation period. The school-level weighted percentage of staff that reported witnessing homophobic or biphobic bullying ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ went up from 81% to 87%.

There was no evidence of change in the frequency of staff observing transphobic bullying over the evaluation period.

8.1 Pupil experiences of HBT bullying

Qualitative findings

Within the baseline survey open text data, people shared experiences of HBT, and in particular gender-based, bullying, serving to highlight how gendered expectations are shared amongst peers:

From the day I came out, the day I cut my hair and decided I’d rather act myself, I received torments and comments, mainly at the start, but even ‘til this day. It was only a couple of weeks ago where my whole form came up to chant ‘2 genders’, just to spite me. On social media it was even worse, and it was where I realised that this school isn’t as safe as I thought it ought to be. Boys would message me and my friends, making fun of our sexualities and telling us to cut ourselves (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

People say me and my friend (I’d prefer not to say names) look like girls and need haircuts. People also tell me to “man up” and stop “acting like a girl” (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

Being friends with someone who identified as LGBT could also lead to experiences of bullying:

Even though there are not many… LGBT people at school, they are severely bullied, and people who are not any of the above are called gay because they have certain friends (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

Whilst experiences of HBT bullying were often experienced from peers, there were also instances where staff members were deemed to be perpetrating or inciting bullying:

Once my teacher made fun of me because I came out as gay, so he began mocking me and encouraging other pupils to bully me (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

I experience homophobia nearly daily – even my teachers have made comments about my appearance in particular (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

Within the case studies, there were also examples of (more often secondary) pupils describing HBT bullying that they had experienced (mostly before, though also sometimes during, the programme), regardless of whether or not they themselves identified as LGBT:

When [I first came out], oh my god, I used to get like pushed around in the corridors and people would start yelling at me, and some kids started screaming at me in the middle of lessons, telling me I was going to go to hell, and I started crying, and it was crazy (Case study, secondary pupil)

People just walk up to me and call me a tranny. They might not even know what it means… [and] the word gay or faggot has been used… on a daily basis (Case study, secondary pupil)

I remember when in Year 4, I’d hang out with like a lot of girlfriends – friend girls – and my friend boys, but then I think a lot of people called me bisexual, and I was like, ‘well I’m not bisexual. Like, a lot of girls in the school hang out with girls, but also boys, and it doesn’t mean that I’m like in love with the boys, and it doesn’t mean that I’m in love with the girls. I just like them as friends’ (Case study, primary pupil).

8.2 Pupil observations of HBT bullying

Qualitative findings

Additional feedback within the baseline survey documented many instances of pupils witnessing HBT behaviour or more broadly gender-based bullying:

I don’t have many friends who are part of the LGBT community, although I do know of some people who are. I have never really witnessed any bullying verbally or physically but I feel as though there is a slight sense of isolation… I don’t know many people who are LGBT but I know OF them - there tends to be a group of them who stick to themselves, and I feel as though this is because there is a feeling of ‘disgust’ towards them… as though us students distance ourselves (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

I’ve seen some people bullying people because they act like a boy or want to play with boys and it’s the same with boys because they want to play with girls and it’s unfair (Primary pupil baseline survey respondent).

There were also comments about language that might not be deemed bullying but which respondents felt was disrespectful. Often they shared information about things that happened to their friends but which they found personally upsetting:

At my school, people think it is all ‘cool’ and edgy to be like that’s ‘gay’ when something can’t just be gay, it is not an adjective! Also it is really disrespectful to say things like that! People also are like ‘ewww, transgender’ or ‘ha ha you are transgender’ which is really disrespectful and horrible… My gay friend gets called horrible things like a faggot, etc., which is really really really horrible (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

I can’t stand witnessing my friends be bullied because they are a part of LGBT and I don’t understand why our school won’t accept the fact that the LGBT is a real community that exists within our school! (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

8.3 Staff observations of HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

In both primary and secondary schools, staff were asked how often they observe homophobic or biphobic bullying. Although this chapter might have benefited from pupil data on the reporting of bullying, as stated in the limitations section (2.7), the markedly lower response rate in the pupil survey means that data here is drawn from relevant questions in the staff survey only. Responses were given on a scale of 1 (every day) to 5 (never). Bullying on a daily basis was uncommon among participating schools at baseline, and has fallen to zero at the follow-up stage for homophobic and biphobic bullying, and to 0.1% for transphobic bullying. As such, daily and weekly responses are combined into one ‘weekly’ category in Figure 7 (below).

The school-level weighted percentage of staff that reported witnessing homophobic or biphobic bullying ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ grew from 81% to 87% (see Figure 7 below). This is partly due to a decline in staff reporting that such bullying is observed weekly or monthly (from 13% to 10%), and partly due to a decline in staff reporting that they ‘don’t know’, from 6% to 3%. From this, one could infer that the programme is associated with a slight reduction in homophobic and biphobic bullying, but also a slight increase in awareness of what constitutes such bullying.

The overall increase in staff reporting that homophobic or biphobic bullying occurs less frequently is accounted for predominantly by secondary staff, for whom the figure rose from 72% to 81%, whereas for primary staff it grew from 92% to 94%. In Model 1 schools, the increase was from 82% to 89%, whereas for Model 2 schools it grew from 81% to 85%.

Staff were also asked how frequently they had witnessed transphobic or gender identity-based bullying (see Figure 7 below). Again, responses were given on a scale of 1 (every day) to 5 (never), but due to low response levels the ‘daily’ and ‘weekly’ categories are combined here. The overall school-level weighted percentage of staff that reported witnessing bullying related to pupil sexual orientation ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ was almost static, rising only from 88% to 89%. However, at follow-up the number of staff reporting that they observed transphobic or gender identity-based bullying every week or every month increased from 6% to 9%. Given that the proportion of ‘don’t know’ responses fell from 6% to 2%, it is possible that the increase in respondents that observe bullying more frequently could be attributed to greater awareness.

In terms of variation by school phase, secondary staff witnessing transphobic or gender identity-based bullying dropped only slightly from 85% to 84%, whereas for primary staff it increased slightly from 93% to 95%. In Model 1 schools, there was no change from 90%, whereas for Model 2 schools it increased slightly from 87% to 88%. These figures are summarised below in Figure 7 and full data tables can be found in the appendix (Tables 64 and 65).

Figure 9: How often in the last 12 months have you witnessed bullying related to pupils’ sexual orientation or gender identity?

School staff were also asked in the follow-up survey if they felt that involvement in the programme had reduced HBT bullying in their school, on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Full results from this survey question are shown in the appendix (Table 66). Overall, at the weighted school level, 45% of respondents said ‘neither agree nor disagree’, which is equal to the weighted percentage of respondents answering ‘agree’ and ‘strongly agree’ combined (45%). Secondary school staff gave slightly more positive answers (47% agree/strongly agree) than primary (44%). Model 1 (50% agree/strongly agree) schools were slightly more positive than Model 2 (42%). This suggests that whilst staff reported a limited decrease in witnessing HBT bullying during the evaluation period (see above), they nevertheless perceived that the programme was associated with lower levels of HBT bullying at their school.

Qualitative findings

Within the baseline survey, some staff used the opportunity to identify what they felt was HBT behaviour from pupils towards themselves, which had gone unchallenged by other staff members:

It has recently come to light that a student has been making homophobic remarks/gestures behind my back while I am teaching/helping other students in the class. Some members of staff (heads of year and a member of SLT) were made aware of this some time ago and have not acted on it… Even now, the member of SLT appears reluctant to take any action (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent)

I feel that staff do not challenge HBT bullying. I have had inappropriate comments directed at me because of my sexual orientation. These have apparently been ‘jokes’ (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

Such experiences concur with a body of literature that examines the experiences of LGBT staff in schools. By contrast, other staff members made assumptions that there was no HBT bullying in their school, because they believed they had no LGBT pupils:

We have no students who are presenting as LGBT and therefore have had no incidents of bullying in this particular area (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

Echoing findings in Chapter 3, within the case studies, participants discussed some of the nuances around what might be understood as HBT bullying. In a primary setting, for example, this was felt to be inappropriate language rather than bullying:

It’s not bullying, it’s ignorance of the use of the word [gay], and I think there’s a distinction. I wouldn’t say any of our children have been bullied. It’s the words, whether it was gay or whatever, that have been used inappropriately (Case study, primary headteacher).

Similarly, in a secondary setting, it was felt to be a lack of understanding or common ground rather than bullying behaviour:

There’s a student in Year 7… [and] over the summer holidays he decided he’s gay… then he’s come into school and he’s talking to our Year 7 boys - all they want to do, the majority of them, is play football and play PlayStation - and he’s trying to have grown-up conversations with them about his sexuality, and they’re just looking at him like, what are you talking about? – I don’t even get you… He finds that difficult, he says, ‘Miss I’m being bullied’, and I’m like, you’re not really being bullied, if you think about it. They’re not coming up to you and finding you and calling you gay. Sometimes the comments that you’re making and the things that you’re saying about yourself, they just don’t understand and they’re just not mentally mature enough to appreciate what you’re saying (Case study, secondary staff member).

However, some staff demonstrated a belief that the programme had impacted on staff responses to HBT behaviour (see 7.4.4 above), and therefore the number of instances witnessed in their school:

I’ve heard the word gay being used less around the playground. It used to be just a common word that everybody used all the time. I’m hearing that less now (Case study, primary staff member)

There used to be a lot of careless language… and I think even that has changed a lot, certainly in the last year, the amount of work that’s been put in, it’s just disappeared (Case study, primary staff member).

Question 11

9.  Reporting and tackling HBT bullying

Accepted Answer

Summary

The percentage of staff that reported witnessing staff responding to homophobic or biphobic bullying ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ changed very little, falling from 81% to 79%. For witnessing staff responding to transphobic bullying, the drop was from 88% to 85%.

There was little or no change in the frequency of school staff witnessing other staff responding to HBT bullying.

Qualitative findings showed mixed experiences of schools dealing with HBT bullying, with many examples of HBT bullying being unchallenged by staff, but with a few examples of better practice emerging.

9.1 Pupil confidence in reporting and tackling HBT bullying

Qualitative findings

Within the case studies, in general, there was low confidence amongst secondary pupils in relation to the reporting and tackling of HBT bullying in their school. Sometimes this was explicitly related to a fear of reprisal, but more often seemed to be due to a lack of faith in school staff:

[My teacher] was there and tried to support me and stuff, but then he told me to write down the names and I was scared they were going to come for me, so I didn’t do anything about it (Case study, secondary pupil)

Most of the times… people have like said homophobic things and it was ignored. Like I’ve never seen a teacher actually acknowledge that that’s bad - tell them, ‘hey, don’t use that word!’ (Case study, secondary pupil).

Although primary pupils in general were more likely to say that they would feel confident to confront or report HBT bullying, some were concerned about reporting their experiences due to potential repercussions from teachers or their peers:

I remember me and [another pupil] in Year 4 and Year 3, we were best friends. Sometimes we’d even like hold hands, link arms, hug in the playground, and I remember like the other Year 6s they’d be like, ‘oh my gosh, you’re so lesbian, what’s wrong with you?’ And I’m like, ‘yeah but if we were lesbian, what’s wrong with that?’ …[but] I kind of felt uncomfortable like telling a teacher… because I’m worried they’ll judge me, like why are you linking arms with this person or something (Case study, primary pupil)

If someone was bullying you about being lesbian or gay, I’d feel less comfortable to tell the teacher, because then I’d feel like they’re bullying me again for being called a snitch (Case study, primary pupil).

There was a belief among some staff that pupils were more inclined to report incidents after, and as a result of, the programme:

I think they’re more inclined [to report] because we make more of a thing about telling us whatever happens… if you see somebody is being bullied or you hear somebody being bullied, don’t keep it to yourself, you’ve got to share it with somebody. It’s not a secret, and if you’re standing by watching, you’re just as bad. We make it as plain as that… [and] you’ve got peer mediators which are children that go out in jackets and if they see somebody sitting on their own or see a problem they try and go and sort it out, and if they can’t they can refer it to the dinner staff or, at worst, they bring them in… I think it all helps. It’s peer pressure as well, isn’t it, because a lot of the bullying comes from peer pressure, so if we can change the peer pressure to be like the caring side… (Case study, primary PSHE lead).

9.2 Staff responses to HBT bullying

9.2.1 Staff responses to homophobic or biphobic bullying

Quantitative findings

There were very little changes reported across the board on how often respondents said they witnessed staff responding to homophobic or biphobic bullying. Once more, responses here and for the rest of section 9, were given on a scale of 1 (every day) to 5 (never). The school-level weighted percentage of staff that reported witnessing this ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ changed very little, falling from 81% to 79%. For secondary staff, the figure fell from 71% to 70%, and for primary staff it dropped from 92% to 89%. In Model 1 schools, there was a slight increase from 79% to 80%, whereas for Model 2 schools it changed from 82% to 78% (see Figure 8 below, and Appendix Table 70).

School staff were also asked how often they had personally responded to homophobic or biphobic bullying. Responses were given on the same scale. There was again very little change at the overall programme level, with a slight increase in the school-level weighted percentage of ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ responses, from 83% at baseline to 85% at follow-up. For secondary staff, the figure went up from 74% to 78%, whereas for primary staff it remained at 94%. In Model 1 schools, the increase was from 84% to 88%, whereas for Model 2 schools it was 82% at baseline and did not change over the evaluation period (see Figure 8 below, and Appendix Table 71).

Figure 10: Frequency of staff responding to homophobic and biphobic bullying

9.2.2 Staff responses to transphobic bullying

Quantitative findings

Survey questions asked how often primary and secondary school staff witnessed staff responding to transphobic or gender identity-based bullying. Changes here were very slight. At the overall programme level, the school-level weighted percentage of staff that reported witnessing this ‘less often than monthly’ or ‘never’ fell from 88% to 85%.

For secondary staff, the figure fell slightly from 83% at baseline to 79% at follow-up, and for primary staff it dropped from 95% to 93%. In Model 1 schools, there was a small decline from 87% to 86%, whereas for Model 2 schools it dropped from 89% to 85% (see Figure 9 below and Appendix 9, Table 72).

Questions on how often primary and secondary school staff had personally responded to transphobic or gender identity-based bullying were also asked in the survey. At the overall programme level, there was no change from the baseline school-level weighted percentage of 89%. The figure for primary staff grew from 94 to 95% but there was no change from the baseline value of 85% among secondary staff. A slight increase from 89% to 91% for Model 1 schools was offset by a fall from 89% to 87% among Model 2 schools (see Figure 9 below and Appendix 9, Table 73).

Figure 11: Frequency of staff responding to transphobic bullying

9.2.3 School responses to HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

School staff were also asked if they thought that being involved in the programme had improved the way that their school responds to HBT bullying. Results are displayed below in Table 7. Respondent views were more positive at the weighted school level when compared to perceptions of how well schools try to prevent bullying (reported in 9.2.4), with 74% overall saying ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’. Primary staff gave more positive responses (78% agree/strongly agree) than secondary (70%). Model 1 (76% agree/strongly agree) schools were slightly more positive than Model 2 (72%).

Table 7: Staff agreement with statement ‘I think that being involved in the programme has changed the way the school responds to bullying in the school’

	Strongly agree %	Agree %	Neither %	Disagree %	Strongly disagree %	Total
Secondary staff
Model 1	24.3	47.9	24.6	1.2	2.1	82
Model 2	29.1	38.6	29.0	3.4	-	84
Total	26.7	43.2	26.8	2.3	1.0	166
Primary staff
Model 1	41.7	39.2	17.1	2.0	-	68
Model 2	39.6	36.1	20.3	3.6	0.3	77
Total	40.6	37.6	18.8	2.8	0.2	145
Overall
Model 1	32.2	44.0	21.2	1.5	1.1	150
Model 2	34.1	37.4	24.8	3.5	0.2	161
Total	33.2	40.6	23.1	2.5	0.6	311

Source: SHU survey

Qualitative findings

Whether it involved HBT language or more clear cases of HBT bullying, schools were thought (by staff) to have more rigorous responses, with these often compared to racist incidents (echoing findings in Chapter 3):

I’ve noticed a difference in the classroom as well, because I’m based in classrooms with the teaching staff, actually challenging homophobic remarks. In the past, maybe before this training, some of the staff may not have realised the seriousness of some of those remarks, ‘it’s so gay’ or ‘that’s gay’ or ‘stop being gay’. Now they actually challenge fully, the same as they would racism or anything like that (Case study, secondary staff member)

I think they feel a little bit more empowered to deal with the incidents themselves because they know that just like in the olden days when a racist comment was instantly… escalated, it was reportable, you don’t do it, it’s a red card… We now make homophobic language the same (Telephone interview, middle school deputy head).

It was also felt that there was increasing support from pupils to address HBT behaviour, which could helpfully coincide with staff responding to it more:

We do get some of the language that’s objectionable… Homophobic language predominantly… and when we do get episodes of that, that’s tackled now… I actually think there are lots of students now who have relatives, people, family that they know who are now open about their gender, sexuality, whatever it is… So I think students are now more reluctant because they’re kind of going, ‘well, that’s uncle so-and-so, I’m not going to say that’ (Case study, secondary SLT member).

One strategy that some schools were adopting involved the use of a ‘script’, so that all incidences of HBT behaviour were dealt with in the same manner:

If there was any inappropriate language, they’d just use the script. And that script – it doesn’t matter what the language is, it doesn’t even have to be LGBT inappropriate language – any inappropriate language that would be used in school is dealt with in the same way (Case study, primary headteacher)

One thing that we’re going to be implementing is… a standard script that everybody says… If we look back previously, any HBT issues around this would have been about children using the word gay to mean a derogatory term… At our age [group] that’s kind of the biggest thing, so we should have a script that we agree on as a staff that we would say… [for example] how would you feel if people started to say brown hair meant rubbish? And have that very open conversation with them. So that’s something that we’re going to start working on as a staff, having that set script for tackling those issues (Case study, primary SLT member).

Pupil perspectives

However, secondary pupils did not often have a positive view of how their school’s staff responded to HBT behaviour, with some clear emotion present in baseline survey responses:

There was a boy in our school (quite a close friend of mine) and school let him get bullied. He used to report every verbal comment which was shouted at him, and in our opinion teachers ignored it and nothing was done to stop it, leading the behaviour to carry on. He became so isolated, even though he had friends, and due to this he left school. I remember when he used to hide cuts and scars on his wrists and ankles. He was bullied so much that he self-harmed. It was so sad but we had no power to change it… He needed a trusted professional to help him and no-one was there when he needed it the most (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

I know that one person in my year bullies a bisexual girl in my year, and we went to see the teacher and they’ve done nothing about it. This bullying is affecting this girl quite a lot and it’s so heart-breaking to see. Why is nothing being done? If this was a different case of bullying the school would stop it right away, so why is [this] not being stopped at our school? (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent)

In my school they don’t do anything towards LGBT and HBT and I am very hurt all the time because I have a best friend who is gay and he is frequently bullied by boys in our lessons that he sometimes becomes very upset, and teachers don’t do anything when he tells them about the bullying (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

In some cases, a lack of response within schools was said to directly impact upon pupil’s ability or willingness to be ‘out’:

Last year when a girl came out as bisexual, and was isolated and sneered at by her peers behind her back, but she was unaware. People now just do not or would not feel comfortable revealing their sexuality and she has now told everyone that she is not bi (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

In this context of potential alienation and invisibility, for some, even the evaluation survey held particular significance:

As a closeted bisexual, I don’t feel comfortable coming out to more than a few close peers as I regularly hear ‘that’s so gay’ or ‘faggot’, sometimes even on a daily basis… The few assemblies we’ve had raising awareness about it have focused on the negative sides of LGBT, and as important as it is to educate against bullying, I have never had any situation where we’ve been shown that there is a positive side to being LGBT too… I feel ashamed of who I am at school because there is nothing telling us that we are valid and ‘normal’. So thank you for getting in contact, it means a lot (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

Elsewhere, though, there was a positive report of school support:

I myself am transgender (female to male)… and I have come out to the school, and they are so supportive, and accepting, teachers and students alike. They make sure I am OK and give me as much support as possible (Secondary pupil baseline survey respondent).

Some staff baseline survey respondents also used the opportunity to provide further feedback on what they felt were inappropriate responses to HBT behaviour at their school:

As a boys’ school, I feel that casual discrimination is encouraged. Not amongst all staff, but in certain departments. I have also heard members of staff making indirectly discriminatory remarks in social situations. I think that situations where LGBT inclusion or HBT bullying is involved is not often dealt with appropriately. A student was asked to stop discussing his mother’s personal life with his friends. I believe that this was only asked as she is gay. Rather than dealing with the separate bullying incident alone, he was asked to hide parts of his life. This felt to me like indirect discrimination (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent)

As an out teacher, I wish that schools were more visible in their support of every member of the school community. I see teachers do nothing when minor homophobic incidents happen and students pass it off as ‘banter’. Because we do not address the most minor of insults or comments, our LGBTQI students do not feel supported or included (Secondary staff baseline survey respondent).

Echoing baseline survey responses, during case study activities with pupils they frequently criticised their schools for not responding to HBT behaviour more strongly, if at all:

I know some teachers do try to like stop it, but I feel like other teachers don’t take it as seriously… I feel they don’t deal with it as severely as they would with normal bullying… because the other day, somebody had shouted across ‘you’re gay’ and Miss said ‘oh stop saying that’, but then if somebody had sworn, ‘ah can you stop’, and go into a bit more detail why you should stop swearing (Case study, secondary pupil)

In a lot of my lessons, there is like a lot of the homophobic, biphobic, all that, going on. You have some of the teachers who’ll be like, ‘don’t say that, that’s rude’. And then you have the ones who hear it, you can see that they’re hearing it, because they’re making a face like ‘that’s not right’, but they ignore it… They feel that I can’t just punish them for that… but you can… you can send them straight to isolation, as you would for bullying in any other sense. Just because it is homophobic or any other type, it’s just like actually I’ll just ignore it (Case study, secondary pupil)

It’s always an automated response if someone says something homophobic or biphobic or transphobic, it’s sort of ‘don’t say that, it’s offensive’. Whereas if it’s like a swear word or if you’d done something wrong against school rules, it’s sort of like you get an explanation of why you shouldn’t say these things, or why you shouldn’t do these things, but you don’t get an explanation as to why you shouldn’t be saying ‘oh you’re gay’… I feel that would be beneficial for kids that think it’s alright or don’t fully understand why it is offensive (Case study, secondary pupil).

For some, there was also a belief that staff needed educating further, in order to not rely on pupils to address HBT bullying, as this focus group exchange illustrates:

Teachers don’t say much, because if someone is making a homophobic or biphobic comment, I feel like teachers don’t step in to say anything because it’s just like ‘what kids say’… and then if every other kid sees that, unless they’re like part of LGBTQ… they don’t think it’s as serious as it is… They kind of rely on the kids to do it… I feel like they need to be educated on, like, little comments, like calling someone gay… how it can be a serious thing for someone that is gay, but teachers don’t understand that. They need to be educated in the little things (Case study, secondary pupils).

However, in one school, some pupils provided positive feedback on the impact of the programme in their school:

They kind of understand now that the school doesn’t accept it. I think some teachers before then were sort of like, ‘I don’t like this kid saying that, I would like to challenge it, but I’m not sure it’s in my jurisdiction to do so’… now that it’s not OK, they’re sort of like, ‘OK, now I can say something’ Because I identify as gender-fluid I’ve had a couple of teachers who go ‘ladies and gentlemen’ and now that they’ve become more aware they’ve tried to stop doing that. Since I was in Year 7, we’ve been talking about it [HBT bullying] more than what we did a couple of years ago. I think teachers have sort of been more like strict on those sort of things, rather than just saying, ‘oh you can’t say it’… it’s been like, ‘wait outside or go to isolation’, things like that (Case study, secondary pupils).

9.2.4 Preventing HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

In the staff follow-up surveys, respondents were asked if they thought that being involved in the programme had improved the way that the school tries to prevent HBT bullying. Responses were given on a scale of 1(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), and results are presented in Table 8. These items were not included in the baseline surveys, and therefore baseline/follow-up comparisons are not possible. Overall, 77% of staff responded with either ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’. The figure was higher for primary schools (83%) than for secondary schools (72%). In Model 1 schools the figure was higher (79%) than in Model 2 schools (75%).

Table 8: Staff agreement with statement ‘I think that being involved with the programme has improved the way the school tries to prevent HBT bullying in the school’

	Strongly agree %	Agree %	Neither %	Disagree %	Strongly disagree %	Total
Secondary staff
Model 1	26.0	47.1	24.2	2.3	0.4	82
Model 2	29.7	40.5	26.5	3.3	-	84
Total	27.9	43.8	25.3	2.8	0.2	166
Primary staff
Model 1	43.2	42.1	12.8	2.0	-	68
Model 2	42.9	37.9	16.6	1.6	1.0	77
Total	43.0	39.9	14.8	1.8	0.5	145
Overall
Model 1	33.8	44.8	19.0	2.2	0.2	150
Model 2	36.0	39.3	21.8	2.5	0.5	161
Total	34.9	41.9	20.4	2.3	0.3	311

Source: SHU survey

Question 12

10.  Conclusions

Accepted Answer

This evaluation suggests that incidences of HBT bullying are still common in English schools, supporting previous research (Bradlow and others, 2017, GEO, 2018, Henderson, 2016, METRO, 2014). This was apparent at baseline, and although there was some evidence of improvement over the evaluation period, findings show that it remained an issue at programme follow-up. Within the case studies, for example, secondary pupils described some of their negative experiences relating to their own identities or that of their friends. These experiences often related to HBT language use, which was not always defined as bullying. However, the evaluation also makes clear that, with support, schools can make significant steps towards HBT bullying prevention and LGBT inclusion in schools.

Differences by school phase

In general, improvements were greater in primary than in secondary schools, for instance regarding the display of anti-HBT bullying posters, the inclusion of LGBT identities and relationships in lessons, confidence to respond to HBT bullying, and staff actively trying to prevent HBT bullying. However, primary schools often started at a lower level than secondary schools, which could be linked to reported anxieties and uncertainties about what elements of LGBT inclusion were permitted in those settings (see also Formby and Clague, 2016). Given appropriate support, primary schools appeared to find it easier to implement change, which may be linked to the context in which secondary schools operate in, where they often face greater pressures to improve attainment. There is supporting evidence, for instance, that such contexts can make it difficult for secondary schools to find the time or space in the curriculum to prioritise work that is not deemed ‘core’ to the school (Formby and Clague, 2016, Formby and Wolstenholme, 2012). Within the case studies, it seemed that primary schools were more likely to focus on the gender aspects of the programme rather than sexual orientation. It is interesting to note that whilst gender identity was the subject staff felt less sure about prior to programme delivery, following programme input, for at least some primary schools, it was felt to be ‘easier’ than the subject of sexual orientation.

Evidence from the evaluation surveys, case studies and telephone interviews, demonstrates that staff confidence in responding to HBT bullying and including LGBT identities and relationships in teaching, grew over the course of the programme. These changes were observed in both Model 1 and Model 2 schools. Improvements were larger in primary schools, although from less favourable baselines. Overall, at programme end, staff in both primary and secondary schools reported greater confidence in responding to HBT bullying, compared to including LGBT identities and relationships in teaching.

Analysis of survey data shows that school staff were more likely to actively prevent or respond to HBT bullying than to include bullying in the curriculum, build an inclusive environment, or include LGBT relationships or identities in curriculum. This was the case before the programme, and remains the case after the programme. This suggests that curriculum inclusion may generally be harder to implement, even though gains were observed on this. For a small number of staff involved in case studies or telephone interviews, a lack of contribution to an LGBT-inclusive environment was driven by fears related to their own identity, and how this might be received in school. For others, it is possible that action related to HBT bullying is simply easier to observe than LGBT inclusion, which could be understood as more difficult to define or assess. However, survey data shows increases in all of these measures across the evaluation period. Overall, almost two-thirds of staff reported that they now include bullying in the curriculum, with a similar number reporting that they include LGBT relationships or identities in the curriculum. More than three-quarters say that they personally try to build an LGBT-inclusive environment in school. Increases were observed across all phases and delivery models on these items.

The qualitative data revealed that, in general, LGBT inclusion and HBT bullying prevention work was taking place within assemblies. Secondary schools were also delivering through drop-down days and/or PSHE delivery, and at primary level, this was also done through the use of specific books. Often these books were newly bought as a result of provider recommendations. Where LGBT identities were included within secondary PSHE provision, this was particularly valued by LGBT pupils as their identities felt ‘seen’, and more likely to be understood, within school. Where they felt LGBT identities were not included, this was often a cause for concern for pupils, whether or not they identified as LGBT themselves. This suggests that amongst pupils, there is recognition of the need to learn about LGBT identities. Whilst both staff and secondary pupils talked about the value of having outside speakers with ‘real’ experience, some people (more often staff) felt this could lead to tokenistic input. Some schools also used their own LGBT pupils within delivery, which some staff and pupils felt was appropriate and valuable (as it was thought that pupils could relate to the input of other young people more easily). However, this approach does require that those pupils feel able and willing to do this, and it can put them under undue pressure (Formby et al, 2016). Case studies also suggest that it can lead to some pupils feeling that the school has passed responsibility for LGBT inclusion onto the pupil body, rather than the staff.

After the programme, regardless of the model implemented, reports that schools were displaying posters or noticeboards about LGBT identities and/or HBT bullying increased, more so within secondary schools. Within primary school case studies, displays were often related to books they had been reading about the subject of ‘difference’. Secondary case study schools, by contrast, often talked about using imagery of well-known LGBT figures, such as Alan Turing or Tom Daley, or more general Pride-themed displays. On the whole, secondary pupils and staff seemed to welcome these displays, though a minority felt that they could be ineffective and/or tokenistic. Both quantitative and qualitative data suggested that HBT bullying was less likely to be the subject of visual displays than broader LGBT or gender-related content.

Within the case studies, there were discussions about the potential difficulty of running (secondary) school-based LGBT groups, in relation to concerns about how to advertise them whilst also ensuring group participants’ safety. Case study schools rarely provided adverts or information about external support for LGBT pupils (a finding echoed in Formby et al, 2016).

It was evident from the qualitative data that some primary and secondary schools were linking their work to particular events or periods of time, such as IDAHOBIT (International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia), LGBT history month, Pride, or anti-bullying week. Some staff raised concerns that this could result in the compartmentalisation of particular minority identities into only certain weeks or months of the year, with invisibility being the norm for the rest of the time.

Fear of parental opposition was an issue for some primary and secondary schools, mirroring previous evidence (Formby and Clague, 2016, Formby and others, 2016). In many instances, these fears were unrealised, which gave staff greater confidence to continue the work, but in a minority of cases, some parents did object to their child being involved in particular lessons (and some were subsequently removed). In later stages of data collection, there was some evidence that wide media coverage of protests at Parkfield primary school in Birmingham in 2019 (although it was not involved in this programme) exacerbated staff fears about undertaking LGBT inclusion work in their school. In comparison, others felt that this work had become easier over the last 10 to 20 years, as a result of wider social changes in the UK.

Differences by programme model

Across the evaluation, improvements were greater in Model 1 schools than in Model 2, though differences were small on some measures. This is perhaps not surprising given the greater level of support on offer within Model 1, and the fact that it involved far greater numbers of staff within each school (by contrast Model 2 may have involved only one member of staff in each school). The implication here is that greater levels of support, and/or involving greater numbers of staff in that support, lead to greater levels of impact within schools.

Differences between staff and pupil perspectives

Whilst most reports of the effects of the programme focused on staff, in some case studies individual staff reported actual or potential impacts on pupils. These included expanded vocabulary and understanding related to LGBT identities, and reduced numbers of homophobic incidents and comments. Despite the generally positive feedback from staff, pupils (more often at secondary level) were less certain about the effects of the programme, with calls for further work in the area from both LGBT and non-LGBT pupils, in order to make schools more LGBT-inclusive, and to tackle HBT bullying more successfully.

Within the case studies, in general, there was low confidence amongst secondary pupils in relation to them reporting, and the school tackling, HBT bullying. Although some pupils said they feared reprisal from bullies if they reported bullying, others lacked faith in how robustly their school would respond if they did report, believing that staff would just “ignore it”, as some pupils had experienced. Although primary pupils in general were more likely to say that they would confront or report HBT bullying, some were concerned about reporting their experiences due to teachers or peers potentially treating them differently as a result. Staff, however, reported small increases in observing other staff responding to HBT bullying (at both primary and secondary level). Within the case studies, staff were more clear that they felt involvement in the programme had improved staff responses to HBT behaviour, often due to a rise in confidence.

Looking at the data, across both models and all school phases, most staff felt that their school now tried to proactively prevent HBT bullying more, and was a more LGBT-inclusive environment (albeit to a lesser extent). This feeling was not shared by pupils, however, which could suggest that it will take time for programme impacts to ‘trickle down’ to pupils, or that pupils and staff tend to have different perspectives on the subject, with pupils still wanting more LGBT visibility in schools. It also suggests that school staff may still feel more confident reacting to bullying than proactively trying to prevent bullying.

In the baseline survey, many pupils stated that their school was not a place where they or other pupils would feel comfortable or confident in coming out as LGBT. As the case studies indicate, some staff may have contributed to this feeling by suggesting that LGBT inclusion was only relevant to LGBT pupils, believing they did not have any at their school. This shows a clear assumption that LGBT people would be visible to them somehow, as well as a lack of thought about the ‘relevance’ of pupils’ wider families and friendship circles. However, in other schools, knowledge of LGBT parents was a specific motivator to undertake this work.

Gender identity and sexual orientation differences

Across the evaluation, regardless of model or school phase, there was an increase in the number of respondents who felt that their school included information about LGBT identities or relationships, as well as homophobic or biphobic bullying, and transphobic or gender-identity based bullying in lessons. However, at the end of the programme, LGB identities and homophobic or biphobic bullying were more likely to be included in lessons, than trans identities and transphobic or gender-identity based bullying. Survey results show a slightly stronger increase in the teaching of LGB identities and relationships compared to trans identities and relationships, yet trans-related teaching was far less widely reported at baseline. Similar increases were witnessed in both areas of teaching over the evaluation period.

Overall programme satisfaction and outcomes

In discussions with participating staff, individuals involved were often very satisfied with the support they had received as part of the programme, which corroborates survey data on programme satisfaction. The programme was reported to have led to increased awareness throughout the school, and increased numbers of staff challenging HBT behaviour, as well as practical measures, such as the introduction of gender-neutral toilets and uniform policies. Confidence was often mentioned specifically, which was related to a greater understanding of up-to-date terminology, with training on gender identity particularly valued, as this was often an area people felt less sure about. Training was most well-received when it was practical and easily applicable, and did not appear adversarial. Where it was received, ongoing support and advice, particularly where tailored to the specific school, was also valued. For some staff, HBT bullying prevention and LGBT inclusion was an area they would never have broached if it were not for the programme support available. Staff in one school said that their involvement in the programme had directly contributed to their recent positive Ofsted inspection.

Both quantitative and qualitative evaluation findings from staff indicate that across models and school phases, the programme was associated with an increase in the number of schools that have an anti-bullying policy that explicitly includes HBT bullying. In the case studies (predominantly Model 1 schools), supportive school policies were thought to make staff feel more confident in addressing HBT bullying and including LGBT people within the curriculum. Within both models, at primary and secondary level, the programme was also associated with an increase in the proportion of school staff aware of a bullying recording system that explicitly includes HBT bullying within their school. The case studies provided evidence that some schools began to record (and address) instances of HBT bullying as a direct result of the programme.

Following the programme, more staff (at both primary and secondary schools) felt that their school actively tried to prevent HBT bullying than it did before. In general, staff thought that HBT bullying was a result of a lack of understanding about LGBT identities. There were comments by staff that pupils may hear homophobic language at home or in the media and repeat it without an awareness of its meaning, so educating pupils about its meaning was key before they started to use this language themselves. Increasing knowledge about LGBT identities, and about HBT language use, was therefore understood as a form of bullying prevention work.

After being involved in the programme, the percentage of staff reporting that their (primary or secondary) school had a named member of staff responsible for LGBT matters or supporting LGBT pupils increased. However, case study data suggested that if a particular (more often than not LGBT) individual is responsible for this area of work, it can indicate that support for LGBT pupils is a ‘minority’ or unimportant issue, rather than a shared responsibility within school. In addition, as some staff identified, if this member of staff leaves the school, their knowledge - and the momentum for this area of work - can be lost. It is therefore suggested that measures to address HBT bullying and/or LGBT inclusion have clear lines of leadership and collective responsibility within schools.

Overall, the evaluation findings indicate that staff confidence is key to schools developing work on HBT bullying prevention and LGBT inclusion, both in terms of practical application (for example, learning how to implement work on HBT bullying prevention and LGBT inclusion) and permission to do this work (for example, knowing that they are allowed to do this work in schools). Because there had been uncertainties about what was permitted in primary settings prior to the programme, the programme was seen to have given permission for this work to be undertaken (see also Formby and Clague, 2016). Staff felt that government-sponsored external support aided status and buy-in from staff and parents, and that free support enabled schools to participate when budgets may be tight. Equalities legislative frameworks were also viewed as a key enabler. Within schools, SLT support was also thought to be crucial.

In conclusion, it seems that the programme was able to contribute to its intended outcomes of:

more schools having ‘policies and curricula embedded, which are targeted at preventing and tackling HBT bullying and building inclusive LGBT environments’
more teachers and non-teaching staff feeling ‘supported, confident and capable of preventing and tackling HBT bullying and building more inclusive school environments’

There were incremental gains towards LGBT visibility in schools, and the programme successfully brought the topic to schools’ attention. There is less clear evidence, however, the extent to which the programme was able to achieve its outcome of pupils reporting that they feel ‘confident in reporting HBT bullying, feel more resilient towards bullying, and feel their school is inclusive towards LGBT pupils and families’. In other words, it may be harder to demonstrate a direct impact on pupil experiences, and ultimately impact on preventing and reducing HBT bullying, at least in the timeframe of this programme/evaluation.

Looking to the future, training and ongoing support is important to upskill school staff, and increase their confidence to address HBT bullying and LGBT inclusion in schools. It would appear that the more staff that are involved, the better, in terms of outcomes. Whilst practical support is pivotal, it is also important to understand that where support is allied to current legislation and/or government initiatives, this increases confidence and gives an important signal that schools are permitted – and indeed encouraged – to carry out this work (see also Formby and Clague, 2016). Organisations working with schools should be mindful of the elements that appear harder to implement, for at least some schools. These include curriculum-based developments, and those focussed on delivery in secondary schools, LGBT inclusion (as opposed to HBT bullying prevention more specifically), and gender identity particularly. Addressing the fact that many pupils appear to want further measures to increase LGBT inclusion and/or support in schools, schools could look to increase links and/or signposting to outside school provision aimed at supporting LGBT young people, as such youth work based provision is often highly regarded (Formby, 2013, 2015, Formby and Donovan, 2020, Juetten and O’Loan, 2007). This large-scale research adds to the evidence base on initiatives designed to decrease and prevent HBT bullying, as well as increase LGBT inclusion in schools. This allows us further understanding about both staff and pupil perspectives on these activities in schools. Specifically, it further suggests that support is impactful, and extends existing evidence that suggests longer-term, whole-school approaches are more effective than short-term, piecemeal activities (Mitchell et al, 2014a, 2014b, 2016).

The programme was originally targeted at schools with no, or ineffective, measures in place on HBT bullying, and those that had not received previous support or training in this area. However, some schools involved in the programme had already done work in this area, and therefore some providers were perhaps working with schools that did not meet the original criteria (for reasons we do not know). This may not be cause for concern, though, because some schools may require longer-term, or more intensive, support, to reach the same level of activity, since not all schools are operating in the same context. That is, schools begin their ‘journey’ - as some staff called it - towards LGBT inclusion and HBT bullying prevention at different starting points and with varying issues and resources at their disposal (such as differing school budgets, staff skills and knowledge levels, potential parental opposition, governor understanding and support). It is therefore not necessarily advisable to restrict support on offer to only certain ‘types’ of schools. Supporting this, there was evidence in the case studies that some schools had found varied input from different providers over a period of time helpful (for example, not only from their provider within this programme). This allowed them to take on board aspects from some programmes, and elements from another, as they saw fit for their school. Ultimately, what is clear is that support is obviously beneficial for schools to become more LGBT-inclusive spaces.

Question 13

References

Accepted Answer

Bradlow, J., Bartram, F., Guasp, A. and Jadva, V. (2017) School report: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bi and trans young people in Britain’s schools in 2017. London: Stonewall.

DePalma, R. and Jennett, M. (2010) ‘Homophobia, transphobia and culture: Deconstructing heteronormativity in English primary schools’, Intercultural Education 21 (1): 15-26.

Donelson, R. and Rogers, T. (2004) ‘Negotiating a research protocol for studying school‐based gay and lesbian issues’, Theory into Practice 43 (2): 128-35.

Formby, E. (2013) ‘Understanding and responding to homophobia and bullying: Contrasting staff and young people’s views within community settings in England’, Sexuality Research and Social Policy 10 (4): 302-316.

Formby, E. (2015) ‘Limitations of focussing on homophobic, biphobic and transphobic ‘bullying’ to understand and address LGBT young people’s experiences within and beyond school’, Sex Education 15 (6): 626-640.

Formby, E. and Clague, L. (2016) SEF addressing HBT bullying through SRE grant evaluation: Final report. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.

Formby, E. and Donovan, C. (2020) ‘Sex and relationships education for LGBT+ young people: Lessons from UK youth work’, Sexualities.

Formby, E., Willis, B. and Stevens, A. (2016) Inspiring Equality In Education grant evaluation: Final report. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University.

Formby, E. and Wolstenholme, C. (2012) ‘“If there’s going to be a subject that you don’t have to do…” Findings from a mapping study of PSHE education in English secondary schools’, Pastoral Care in Education 30 (1): 5-18.

Forrest, S. and Cole, M. (2006) ‘Straight talking: Challenges in teaching and learning about sexuality and homophobia in schools’. In Education, equality and human rights: Issues of gender, ‘race’, sexuality, disability and social class, 2nd edition, edited by Cole, M., 111-33. London: Routledge.

GEO (Government Equalities Office) (2018) National LGBT survey: Research report. Manchester: Government Equalities Office.

Henderson, M. (2016) ‘Bullying experiences among sexual minority youths in England: The nature, prevalence and association with life satisfaction’, Journal of Research in Gender Studies 6 (1): 220-240.

Juetten, N. and O’Loan, S. (2007) ‘Lifeline, not luxury: Improving outcomes for LGBT young people through specialist youth work’, Scottish Youth Issues Journal 10: 41-58.

McCormack, M. (2012) The declining significance of homophobia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

METRO (2014) Youth chances survey of 16 to 25 year olds: First reference report. London: METRO.

Mitchell, M., Gray, M., Green, K. and Beninger, K. (2014a) What works in tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying among school-age children and young people? London: NatCen.

Mitchell, M., Gray, M. and Beninger, K. (2014b) Tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic bullying among school-age children and young people. London: NatCen.

Mitchell, M., Kotecha, M., Davies, M., Porter, H., Kaxira, A. and Turley, C. (2016) Evaluation of an anti-homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HB&T) bullying programme. London: NatCen.

Pascoe, C.J. (2013) ‘Notes on a sociology of bullying: Young men’s homophobia as gender socialization’, QED 1 (1): 87-104.

Payne, E. and Smith, M. (2012) ‘Rethinking safe schools approaches for LGBTQ students: Changing the questions we ask’, Multicultural Perspectives 14 (4): 187-193.

Payne, E. and Smith, M. (2013) ‘LGBTQ kids, school safety, and missing the big picture: How the dominant bullying discourse prevents school professionals from thinking about systemic marginalization or… Why we need to rethink LGBTQ bullying’, QED 1 (1): 1-36.

Priest, N., Ferdinand, A., Perry, A., Paradies, Y. and Kelaher, M. (2014) Mental health impacts of racism and attitudes to diversity in Victorian schools. Melbourne: VicHealth.

Rawlings, V. and Russell, K. (2012) ‘Gender control: (Re)framing bullying, harassment and gender regulation’, University of Sydney Papers in Human Movement, Health and Coach Education 1: 17-27.

Ward, R. (2017) ‘‘I just want to be myself’: How we can challenge homophobia, transphobia, and racism in Australian schools’, Journal of Intercultural Studies 38 (4): 469-479.

Warwick, I. and Aggleton, P. (2013) ‘Bullying, ‘cussing’ and ‘mucking about’: Complexities in tackling homophobia in three secondary schools in South London, UK’, Sex Education 14 (2): 159-173.

YouGov (2015) 1 in 2 young people say they are not 100% heterosexual. [Online] Available at: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/16/half-young-not-heterosexual/.

Drop-down days refer to the suspension of normal timetabling to allow schools to provide dedicated themed content to pupils that day, such as on PSHE (personal, social, health and economic) education. ↩
Department for Education (2021) More support schools to tackle bullying. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/more-support-for-schools-to-tackle-bullying ↩
Mitchell, M. et al (2016) Evaluation of an anti-homophobic, biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying programme. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/anti-homophobic-biphobic-and-transphobic-bullying-programme-evaluation. ↩
2BU Somerset, ELOP, Free 2B Alliance, Mermaids, MESMAC, Mosaic, NE Federation, Proud2Be, Space, and YAY Cornwall. ↩
As measured by percentage of those reaching the expected standard in writing, reading and maths for primary schools, and achieving 5 or more GCSEs at A*-C (including English and maths) for secondary schools. ↩
As measured by percentage eligible for free school meals (FSM) in the last 6 years. ↩

Cookies on GOV.UK

Applies to England

Acknowledgements

Evaluation team

Executive summary

Introduction and evaluation methodology

School policies and processes

School environment

Support for LGBT pupils

Learning about LGBT identities and HBT bullying in school

Staff confidence and capability

Occurrence of HBT bullying

Reporting and tackling HBT bullying

Conclusions

1. Introduction

1.1 Policy context

1.2 The programme

Model 1

Model 2

1.3 Providers

1.4 About this report

2. Evaluation methodology

2.1 Overview of evaluation

2.2 Baseline surveys

Sampling

Questionnaire development

Dissemination

2.3 Follow-up survey

2.4 Analysis sample

Staff survey sample for final report

Pupil survey sample for final report

Presentation of results

Engaging schools in the survey

Sample profile

2.5 Profile of individual respondents

School staff

Pupils

2.6 Qualitative data collection

Survey open comments

Case studies and telephone interviews

Sampling

Data collection

Analysis

2.7 Limitations of the evaluation

Survey-specific limitations

Other limitations

3. School policies and processes

Summary

3.1 Anti-HBT bullying policies

Quantitative findings

Qualitative findings

3.2 HBT bullying recording systems

Quantitative findings

Qualitative findings

4. School environment

Summary

4.1 Active prevention of HBT bullying

Quantitative findings

Qualitative findings

4.2 LGBT-inclusive school environment

Quantitative findings

Qualitative findings

Motivations and future plans for work on LGBT inclusion

5. Support for LGBT pupils

Summary

5.1 Named member of staff responsible for LGBT matters or supporting LGBT pupils

Quantitative findings

Qualitative findings

5.2 Organised groups for LGBT pupils

Qualitative findings

5.3 Adverts or information about external support for LGBT pupils

Qualitative findings

6. Learning about LGBT identities and HBT bullying in school

Summary

6.1 Learning about LGBT identities in lessons

6.1.1 Learning about LGB identities in subject lessons – Quantitative findings

6.1.2 Learning about trans identities in subject lessons – Quantitative findings

6.1.3 Teaching methods – Qualitative findings

Use of outside speakers

6.1.4 Lack of inclusion – Qualitative findings