United Nations

Educational, Scientic and

Cultural Organization

No country can achieve inclusive and equitable

quality education if its own students are
discriminated against or experience violence based
on their actual or perceived sexual orientation and
gender identity - a type of violence often referred to
as homophobic and transphobic violence and which
is found prevalent in all educational settings in many
countries.

OUT IN

This publication summarises the main findings of

a global review - providing the first ever overview
of the most up-to-date data on the nature, scope
and impact of, as well as current actions to address,
homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings worldwide. It also provides education sector
stakeholders with a framework for planning and
implementing effective responses as part of wider
efforts to prevent and address violence in schools.

THE OPEN
Education sector
responses to violence
based on sexual
orientation and gender
identity/expression

Education
Sector
United Nations
Educational, Scientic and
Cultural Organization

9 789231 001505

OUT IN

THE OPEN
Education sector
responses to violence
based on sexual
orientation and gender
identity/expression

Published in 2016 by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP,
France

UNESCO 2016
ISBN 978-92-3-100150-5

This publication is available in Open Access under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/). By using the content of this publication, the users accept to be bound by the terms of use of the UNESCO
Open Access Repository (http://www.unesco.org/open-access/terms-use-ccbysa-en).

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning
the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The ideas and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors; they are not necessarily those of UNESCO and do not
commit the Organization.

The cover image is derived from a series of postage stamps released by United Nations Postal Administration
(UNPA) as part of the UN Free & Equal campaign led by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights. The stamps by UNPA art director Sergio Baradat, celebrate the diversity of lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender people.
Sergio Baradat

Photo credits:
p. 22: UNESCO/Nikita
p. 31: UNESCO/Julieta Mora
p. 63: UNESCO/Diogo
p. 72 & p. 107: UNESCO/Tomas Gunnarsson, Genusfotografen
The photos of young people included in the report are part of an interview-series conducted by IGLYO (The International Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer & Intersex Youth & Student Organisation), which maintains an official partnership with UNESCO
inconsultative status. IGLYO is a European youth development organization building the confidence, skills and experiences
ofyoungpeople to become leaders within the LGBTQI movement locally, nationally and internationally.

p.103: M Plus/S Chaited

Designed by Aurlia Mazoyer

Printed by UNESCO

Printed in France

TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6
ABBREVIATIONS 7
GLOSSARY 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

14

1. INTRODUCTION

17

1.1. What is violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in

educational settings?
1.2. What is the impact of school-related homophobic and transphobic violence?

22
28

2. THE SITUATION OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL

SETTINGS 33
2.1. Africa
2.2. Asia
2.3. Europe
2.4 Latin America and the Caribbean
2.5. North America
2.6. The Pacific

3. THE EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE

36
39
42
47
50
51

55

3.1. Why the education sector?

56
3.2. What are the key principles for education sector responses to homophobic and
transphobic violence?
62
3.3. What is a comprehensive education sector response?
64
3.4. How is the education sector responding to homophobic and transphobic violence? 72

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

123

BIBLIOGRAPHY 129

FOREWORD
All forms of discrimination and violence in schools are an obstacle to the fundamental right
to quality education of children and young people and no country can achieve inclusive and
equitable quality education if students are discriminated against or experience violence because
of their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity.
In 2011, UNESCO convened the first-ever UN international consultation on homophobic
bullying in educational institutions, recognizing that this complex and sensitive issue needs to
be addressed as part of wider efforts to prevent school-related violence and gender-based
violence, in order to achieve quality education for all.
Since then UNESCO has expanded its work on school-related gender-based violence, including
preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings, as
part of its mandate to ensure that learning environments are safe, inclusive and supportive
for all and its contribution to the achievement of the new global 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
As part of this work, and within the framework of a three-year programme supported by the
Kingdom of the Netherlands, Education and Respect for All: Preventing and Addressing Homophobic
and Transphobic Bullying in Educational Institutions, UNESCO has provided support for efforts
to improve the evidence base, including the global review of homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational settings and of education sector responses that provided the basis for
this report. These efforts have contributed to a better understanding of the nature, scale and
effects of violence in schools, including the links between school-related gender-based violence
and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, and of the elements of
a comprehensive education sector response.
This report presents the main findings of the global review. It aims to give an analysis of the
most up-to-date data on the nature, scope and impact of violence based on sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression and of current action. It also intends to provide education sector
stakeholders with a framework for planning and implementing effective responses to violence
based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression as part of wider efforts to prevent
and address violence in schools.

Qian Tang (Ph.D.)

Assistant Director-General for Education

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
UNESCO would like to thank the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and the
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation for their generous financial support for its work
on preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings,
including the global review on the extent of the problem and education sector responses that
provides the basis for this report.
Particular thanks are due to those who contributed to this main global review report, including
Piotr Pawlak Maciej and Claudia Moreno Uriza who conducted a desk review of indicators for
measuring violence in schools, and Hivos and Gay and Lesbian Memory in Action (GALA) who
worked in partnership with UNESCO on a multi-country study of gender, diversity and violence
in schools in Southern Africa. UNESCO would also like to thank all those who reviewed drafts
of this main report, including Sophie Aujean (ILGA Europe), Suki Beavers (UNDP), Eliza Byard
(GLSEN, USA), Esther Corona (Mexican Association for Sex Education and World Association
for Sexual Health), Jlio Cezar Dantas (Todo Mejora, Chile), Peter Dankmeijer (GALE, The
Netherlands), Daouda Diouf (ENDA, Senegal), Peter Gross (UNICEF), Tiffany Jones (University
of New England, Australia), Changu Mannathoko (UNICEF), Remmy Shawa (Sonke Gender
Justice Network, South Africa) and colleagues from Education International.

The development of this main report and of its summary was coordinated by a team led by
Christophe Cornu, Senior Programme Specialist, under the supervision of Christopher Castle,
Chief of the Section of Health and Education, and the overall guidance of Soo Hyang Choi,
Director of the Division for Inclusion, Peace and Sustainable Development at UNESCO. UNESCO
staff who provided inputs included Mary Guinn Delaney, Cara Delmas, Joanna Herat, Yongfeng
Liu, Justine Sass and Tigran Yepoyan. UNESCO would also like to thank Bruno Selun and Jasna
Magi (Kumquat Consult), who drafted the original text of the reports, and Sarah Middleton Lee,
who edited this report.

ABBREVIATIONS
CSO

Civil society organization

EFA

Education for All

EMIS

Education Management Information Systems

ENDA

Environment and Development Action in the Third World

EU

European Union

FRA

Fundamental Rights Agency

GALA

Gay and Lesbian Memory in Action

GLEN

Gay and Lesbian Equality Network (Ireland)

GLSEN

Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (US)

GSA

Gay Straight Alliance

HIV

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

HPE

Health and Physical Education

IDAHOT

International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia

IGLYO

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Youth and Student

Organisation

ILGA

International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association

ILGA-EUROPE

European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and

Intersex Association

LGB

Lesbian, gay and bisexual

LGBT

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

LGBTI

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex

MDG

Millennium Development Goal

MSM

Men who have sex with men

NGO

Non-governmental organization

OHCHR

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights

SDG

Sustainable Development Goal

SRGBV

School-related gender-based violence

UN

United Nations

UNAIDS

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNESCO

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNICEF

United Nations Childrens Fund

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

WHO

World Health Organization

YRBS

Youth Risk Behaviour Survey (US)

GLOSSARY
The terms and concepts used in this report reflect widely accepted definitions as well as work
conducted by UNESCO and partners on school-related gender-based violence1 and, where
possible, are consistent with United Nations definitions.
Definitions for common terms and concepts used in this report include:
Adolescent:

A person aged 1019 years, as defined by the United Nations.

Bisexual:

A person who is attracted to both men and women. Some men and
women have adopted the term to describe their identity.

Bullying in
schools:

A type of violence that can be characterized as:

$$ involving deliberately harmful or aggressive behaviour
$$ being repeated over time, and
$$ involving a power imbalance between those who bully and those who
are bullied.
Bullying can involve:
$$ Physical bullying, including repeated hitting, kicking and taking (or
threatening to take) possessions; and
$$ Psychological bullying, including verbal bullying (repeated
mocking, name calling and unwanted teasing) and social or
relational bullying (repeated exclusion, gossiping, the spreading of
rumours and the withholding of friendship). Cyber bullying is a type of
psychological bullying.
Acts of bullying are often also referred to as acts of intimidation. It is
commonly accepted that bullying does not include sexual coercion and
harassment, which are classified under sexual violence.

Child:

A person under 18 years, as defined by the United Nations.

Corporal
punishment:

Any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause

some degree of pain or discomfort, however light.

Curriculum:

A curriculum addresses questions such as what students of different

ages should learn and be able to do, why, how and how well.

Cyberbullying:

A type of psychological bullying. It includes repeated threats, criticism

or unkind comments or images that are sent using information and
communication technology, such as mobile phones, email or that are
posted on social media, including chat rooms and networking sites.

Key UNESCO reference materials include: Education Sector Responses to Homophobic Bullying, 2012 [1], Teaching Respect for All:
Implementation Guide, 2014 [2] and Global Guidance on Addressing School-Related Gender-Based Violence, 2015 [3].

Discrimination:

Exclusion or unfair treatment of a particular person or group of people

based on race, colour, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, religion, nationality,
ethnicity (culture), language, political opinions, socio-economic status,
poverty, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex characteristics
or other personal traits. Victims of discrimination are prevented from
enjoying the same rights and opportunities as other people. Discrimination
goes against the basic principle of human rights: that all people are equal
in dignity and entitled to the same fundamental rights. Discrimination is
often manifested through comments, bullying, name calling or social
exclusion. There are many manifestations of discrimination in educational
institutions, including violence.

Educational
An establishment whose primary activity is education. These
setting/institution: include: schools (from pre-primary levels through primary
grades onto secondary schooling); colleges; universities; and other
places of learning that provide tertiary or higher education. Educational
institutions could be public or private.
In this report, schools is often used to refer to all educational settings.

10

Education sector/
system:

All the activities whose primary purpose is the provision of education in

educational institutions, as well as the people, institutions, resources and
processes arranged together in accordance with established policies
to support the provision of education in educational institutions at all
levels of the system. At the national level, the education sector/system is
usually coordinated by one or several ministries of education.

Gay:

Same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behaviour and samesex cultural identity in general. It often specifically refers to men who
experience sexual attraction to, and the capacity for an intimate
relationship primarily with, other men.

Gender:

The social attributes and opportunities associated with being male

and female and the relationships: between women and men and girls
and boys; and between women and between men. These attributes,
opportunities and relationships are socially constructed and are learned
through socialization processes.

Genderqueer:

A person who does not subscribe to conventional gender distinctions but

identifies with neither, both, or a combination of male and female genders.

Gender-based
violence:

Violence that is perpetrated as a result of gender norms and stereotypes

and is enforced by unequal power dynamics. This is a manifestation of
discrimination on the grounds of gender.

Gender
expression:

How a person expresses their own gender to the world, such as through
names, clothes, how they walk, speak, communicate, societal roles and
their general behaviour.

Gender identity:

A persons deeply felt internal and individual experience of gender, which

may or may not correspond with the sex assigned to them at birth. This
includes the personal sense of the body (which may involve, if freely
chosen, modification of bodily appearance or function by medical,
surgical or other means) and other expressions of gender, including
dress, speech and mannerisms.

Gender nonconformity/nonconforming:

People who do not conform to either of the binary gender definitions of

male or female, as well as those whose gender expression may differ from
standard gender norms. In some instances, individuals are perceived
as gender non-conforming by other people because of their gender
expression. However, these individuals may not perceive themselves as
gender non-conforming. Gender expression and gender non-conformity
are clearly related to individual and social perceptions of masculinity and
femininity.

Gender variance:

Expressions of gender that do not match those predicted by ones

assigned sex at birth, including people who identify as transgender,
transsexual, queer or intersex.

Heteronormativity: The belief that heterosexuality is the normal or default sexual orientation.
Homophobia:

The fear, discomfort, intolerance or hatred of homosexuality and sexually

diverse people.

Homophobic
and transphobic
violence in
educational
settings:

A form of school-related gender-based violence that is grounded in the

fear, discomfort, intolerance or hatred of:
$$ homosexuality and sexually diverse people (homophobia), and
$$ transgender and other people perceived to transgress gender norms
(transphobia).
This violence targets students based on their actual or perceived sexual
orientation or gender identity/expression. The targets are lesbian, gay,
bisexual and transgender and others whose gender identity/expression
does not fit into binary gender norms. Intersex students may also be the
subjects of this violence, but there is currently no available scientific data
on this. Homophobic and transphobic violence can involve: physical
violence; psychological violence, including verbal and emotional abuse;
sexual violence, including rape, coercion and harassment, and bullying,
including cyber bullying.
This report uses homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings to refer to all types of school-related gender-based violence that
are based on sexual orientation or gender identity/expression, including
bullying. However, where research addressed specific types of violence
such as bullying this is stated.

Homosexual/
homosexuality:

A person who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex.

Intersex:

People who are born with sex characteristics (including genitals, gonads
and chromosome patterns) that do not fit typical binary notions of male
or female bodies. Intersex is an umbrella term used to describe a wide
range of natural bodily variations. In some cases, intersex traits are
visible at birth, while, in others, they are not apparent until puberty. Some
chromosomal intersex variations may not be physically apparent at all.
Being intersex relates to biological sex characteristics and is distinct from
a persons sexual orientation or gender identity. An intersex person may
be straight, gay, lesbian or bisexual, and may identify as female, male,
both or neither.2

Lesbian:

A woman who experiences sexual attraction to, and the capacity for an
intimate relationship primarily with, other women.

Adapted from: Fact Sheet: Intersex, Free and Equal, United Nations for LGBT Equality [4]

11

LGBTI:

It stands for Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex.

This report uses LGBTI students to refer to all lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex students who may be affected by homophobic
and transphobic violence in educational settings. Where intersex (I) or
transgender (T) students are not included in the data presented in the report,
the acronyms have been amended to LGBT, or LGB, depending on the
groups for whom data are available.

Men who have sex Men who have sex with men regardless of whether or not they also have
with men (MSM):
sex with women or have a personal or social gay or bisexual identity. This
concept also includes men who self-identify as heterosexual, but who
have sex with other men.
Queer:

A reclaimed word that can be used as an umbrella term for a range of

sexual identities including LGBTI or gender questioning. It is also used
by some people who do not want to label themselves.

Questioning:

A person who is interrogating their sexual orientation or gender identity.

School-related
gender-based
violence:

A form of violence in schools. It is perpetrated as a result of gender norms

and stereotypes and is enforced by unequal power dynamics. It is a
manifestation of discrimination on the grounds of gender.
As with other forms of violence in schools, school-related gender-based
violence can: involve different types of violence; occur in different
educational settings; and be carried out by different categories of
perpetrators.

12

Sex:

Classification of people as male, female or intersex, assigned at birth,

based on anatomy and biology.

Sexual orientation: A persons capacity for profound emotional and sexual attraction to, and
intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender, the
same gender or more than one gender. For example, gay men experience
sexual attraction to, and the capacity for an intimate relationship primarily
with, other men. Lesbian women experience sexual attraction to, and the
capacity for an intimate relationship primarily with, other women. Bisexual
individuals are attracted to both men and women.
Transgender:

A person whose gender identity differs from their sex at birth. Transgender
people may be male-to-female (female identity and appearance) or
female-to-male (male identity and appearance). Transgender people
may be heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual.

Transphobia:

Transphobia is the fear, rejection or aversion often in the form of

stigmatizing attitudes or discriminatory behaviour towards transgender
people, including transsexuals and transvestites.

Transsexual:

A transgender person who is in the process of, or has undertaken,

treatment (which may include surgery and hormonal treatment) to make
their body congruent with their preferred gender.

Transvestite:

A person who regularly, although not all the time, wears clothes that are
mostly associated with another gender than their birth gender.

Violence in
schools:

The different types of violence that affect children in schools and other
educational settings. It can involve:
$$ physical violence, including corporal punishment
$$ psychological violence, including verbal and emotional abuse
$$ sexual violence, including rape, coercion and harassment, and
$$ bullying.
These different types of violence often overlap and reinforce each other.
Violence in schools can occur in schools and other educational settings
(classrooms, playgrounds, toilets, changing rooms) and around schools,
as well as on the way to or from schools. Violence in schools can be
carried out by different categories of perpetrators students peers, but
also by educational and non-educational staff.

Young person:

A person between 10 and 24 years old, as defined by the United Nations.

Youth:

A person between 15 and 24 years old, as defined by the United Nations.

13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Violence in schools and other educational settings is a worldwide problem. Students who are
perceived not to conform to prevailing sexual and gender norms, including those who are
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT), are more vulnerable. Violence based on sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression, also referred to as homophobic and transphobic
violence, is a form of school-related gender-based violence. It includes physical, sexual and
psychological violence and bullying and, like other forms of school-related violence, can occur
in classes, playgrounds, toilets and changing rooms, on the way to and from school and online.
This report presents the findings of a global review, commissioned by UNESCO, of homophobic
and transphobic violence in schools and education sector responses.

THE EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

A significant proportion of LGBT students experience homophobic and transphobic
violence in school. This is shown consistently by data from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America
and the Caribbean, North America and the Pacific, with the proportion affected ranging from
16 per cent in Nepal to 85 per cent in the United States. LGBT students are also more likely to
experience such violence at school than at home or in the community.

14

LGBT students report a higher prevalence of violence at school than their non-LGBT peers.
In New Zealand, for example, lesbian, gay and bisexual students were three times more likely
to be bullied than their heterosexual peers and in Norway 15-48 per cent of lesbian, gay and
bisexual students reported being bullied compared with 7 per cent of heterosexual students.
Students who are not LGBT but are perceived not to conform to gender norms are also
targets. In Thailand, for example, 24 per cent of heterosexual students experienced violence
because their gender expression was perceived as non-conforming and, in Canada, 33 per
cent of male students experienced verbal violence related to their actual or perceived sexual
orientation including those who did not identify as gay or bisexual.
School-related homophobic and transphobic violence affects students education,
employment prospects and well-being. Students targeted are more likely to feel unsafe in
school, miss classes or drop out. For example, in the United States, 70 per cent of LGBT students
felt unsafe at school, in Thailand, 31 per cent of students teased or bullied for being or being
perceived to be LGBT reported absence from school in the past month and, in Argentina, 45
per cent of transgender students dropped out of school. As a result, students who experience
homophobic and transphobic violence may achieve poorer academic results than their peers.
LGBT students reported lower academic attainment in Australia, China, Denmark, El Salvador,
Italy and Poland. Homophobic and transphobic violence also has adverse effects on mental
health including increased risk of anxiety, fear, stress, loneliness, loss of confidence, low selfesteem, self-harm, depression and suicide, which also adversely affect learning.

THE EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE

The education sector has a responsibility to provide safe and inclusive learning
environments for all students. Addressing homophobic and transphobic violence in schools is
critical to effective learning, to meet human rights commitments, including the right to education

and the rights of the child, and to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in
particular SDG4 ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning
opportunities for all.
Effective education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic violence require a
comprehensive approach. Such an approach includes all of the following elements: effective
policies, relevant curricula and training materials, training and support for staff, support for
students and families, information and strategic partnerships and monitoring and evaluation. It
also includes both preventing and responding to violence, involves all relevant stakeholders and
is implemented at national and sub-national levels.
Few countries have all of the elements of a comprehensive education sector response
in place. Very few countries have education sector policies that address homophobic and
transphobic violence or include sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in curricula or
learning materials. In most countries, staff lack training and support to address sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression and to prevent and respond to homophobic and transphobic
violence. Although many countries provide support for students who experience violence,
services are often ill-equipped to deal with homophobic and transphobic violence. Partnerships
with civil society organizations with expertise in preventing and responding to homophobic
and transphobic violence can contribute to effective responses. Few countries collect data on
the nature, prevalence or impact of homophobic and transphobic violence, which contributes
to low awareness of the problem and lack of evidence for planning effective responses. Only
three countries have conducted large-scale evaluations of programmes to prevent and address
homophobic and transphobic violence in schools.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
The global review recommends that the education sector takes the following actions to support
effective responses to school-related homophobic and transphobic violence:
1. Monitor systematically the prevalence of violence in educational settings, including violence
based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
2. Establish comprehensive national and school policies to prevent and address violence in
educational settings, including violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression.
3. Ensure that curricula and learning materials are inclusive.
4. Provide training and support to teachers and other education and school staff to prevent and
address violence in educational settings, including violence based on sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression.
5. Ensure safe school environments are inclusive and provide support for students affected by
violence, including violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, and
their families.
6. Provide access to non-judgmental and accurate information on sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression through information campaigns and partnerships with civil society and
the wider school community.
7. Evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of education sector responses to violence,
including violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

15

1.

INTRODUCTION

17

1. INTRODUCTION
This introduction provides the key concepts addressed in this report violence in schools,
school-related gender-based violence and homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings. It explains the aim and audience of the report, how it was developed and its limitations,
and outlines the structure of the report. This introduction also presents scientific data and an
analysis on the nature of violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
in educational settings and its educational, health, well-being and employment impacts for
students.
No violence against children is justifiable; all violence against children
is preventable.
UN Global Study on Violence against Children, 2006 [4]

18

WHAT IS THIS REPORT ABOUT?

A large body of evidence compiled in 2014 revealed the extent of violence against children in
the world [5] in various settings, including at home, in their local communities and at school.
While schools and other educational settings are supposed to be safe environments, where
children and young people can learn and develop without fearing any threats and where they
feel protected, existing data on the high prevalence of different forms of violence in schools
are alarming. For example, data from 106 countries collected through reliable international
surveys show that the proportion of adolescents aged 13 to 15 who say that they have recently
experienced bullying ranges from 7 per cent to 74 per cent [5, pp. 120121].
As part of its work on preventing and addressing violence in schools, UNESCO commissioned
a comprehensive global review of violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression in schools and other educational settings and of education sector responses.

WHAT IS THE AIM OF THIS REPORT?

This report aims to provide the first ever global synthesis of data on violence based on sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings, and existing responses by
the education sector in all regions of the world, including gaps in those responses. It aims to be
a tool for evidence-based advocacy and programming by education policy-makers, including
ministries of education and other educational authorities; general education stakeholders; and
all those concerned with the well-being and protection of children and young people.
This report aims to provide a tool to support evidence-based advocacy and programming by
the education sector. It serves as a stock-take, documenting the most systematic and up-to-date
data on:

$$ Violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational

settings in all regions of the world, and
$$ Education sector responses to violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression in educational settings in all regions of the world.
The data outlined in this report can be used for indicative comparisons across countries in the
same region, as well as across regions. It also serves as a form of baseline against which future
progress in this area can be assessed.

WHO IS THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS REPORT?

The primary audience for this report is education policy-makers and other key stakeholders
who are responsible for the safety, health and well-being of students. This includes, most
importantly, ministries of education. It also includes other relevant government ministries, as well
as national human rights agencies and institutions.
The other audiences for this report include:
$$ Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working with students and young people that are
interested in inclusive educational policies.
$$ Teacher and education workers unions and organizations working at all levels in the
education sector.
$$ Students, parents and local communities working towards safe and inclusive schools.
$$ Academics and researchers with an interest in gender, sexuality and human rights as they
relate to education.
$$ Development partners supporting human rights, gender equality and GBV interventions and
programming.

HOW WAS THIS REPORT DEVELOPED?

Data collection
To represent the vast diversity of information available on the subject, this report collected data
in four ways:
1) Literature review: A web-based desk review was carried out of over 500 different resources,
including research articles, published and unpublished reports, operational toolkits and
manuals, policy papers, peer-reviewed literature and media reports (see Box 1). These
addressed violence in schools, school-related gender-based violence and violence based
on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings in all regions of
the world.

19

BOX 1 INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA FOR THE LITERATURE REVIEW

To be included in this report, studies had to:
provide data on violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational
settings;
demonstrate sound quantitative or qualitative approaches to data collection;
be available online; and
be dated between 2000 and 2015.
Studies with very small samples (in relation to the country or context studied) were mostly excluded or are
clearly identified as such in this report.
The literature review attempted to ensure regional diversity. To this end, it: only included the most recent or
relevant data from countries that are heavily represented in this area of research; and purposefully included
data from countries that are less well represented.
When considering education sector responses, the interventions had to relate directly to violence based on
sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings and to be initiated, supported or
implemented (at least in part) by the education sector.

2) Regional consultation processes: The findings of three regional initiatives, coordinated

by UNESCO within the framework of a global programme (Education and Respect for All:
Preventing and Addressing Homophobic and Transphobic Bullying in Educational Institutions),
were analysed and incorporated.
The processes included: a Regional Consultation on Homophobic and Transphobic Violence
in Educational Institutions in Latin America and the Caribbean (held in Bogot, Colombia,
October 2014); and an Asia Pacific Consultation on School Bullying Based on Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity/Expression (held in Bangkok, Thailand, June 2015). These
events brought together representatives from ministries of education, UN agencies, research
bodies, teachers organizations, teachers unions and human rights NGOs.

20

In Southern Africa, a five-country study (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and
Swaziland) addressed the scope and nature of violence and gender-based violence in
schools in general. For the first time in the region, it also explored violence related to sexual
and gender diversity.
3) Data collection instrument: A specific instrument was designed to gather data for this
report. It enabled the systematic review of national education sector responses to violence
based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings and how
such violence is monitored. The instrument was sent to 20 key informants and was completed
by 12 from North America and Western and Central Europe. These included representatives
from ministries of education, academia and CSOs.
4) Key informant interviews: Formal and informal interviews were held with 53 key informants.
These included representatives of national governments, multilateral organizations, academia
and CSOs3 working on violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
in educational institutions and based in countries and regions not covered by the regional
consultation processes. The informants were selected on the basis of their ability to contribute
an informed understanding of education sector responses to violence based on sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings in their specific country or
region.

The civil society representatives included: NGOs representing young people and students; NGOs working to protect and promote the
human rights of LGBTI people; and teachers unions.

Data on school-related violence including gender-based violence, and violence based on

sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in particular, were collected from 94
countries and territories and analysed for the purpose of this report.4
Overall, the methodology found that very few policies and programmes addressing violence
based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings have been
evaluated scientifically (in terms of their processes, outcomes and impact). It is, therefore,
difficult to refer to most policies and programmes as being evidence-based. However, a number
of initiatives in the education sector have shown positive results and can be described as
evidence-informed or promising practices. The examples and case studies presented in this
report were selected because they are illustrative of such practices and are well documented.
Limitations to data collection
The research for this report had a number of limitations. These include the fact that it focused on
resources available in English, French and Spanish and did not directly access those in other
languages (for which it relied on key informants voluntary assistance). This proved particularly
problematic when trying to access data on important developments in Nordic countries (such as
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden).
A further limitation was that the research did not examine all countries in the world as the
research team focused on those where it knew information existed or was obtainable. The review
also only included studies that were publicly available online or provided by key informants.
Those available solely in print or through paid access were not considered. Finally, the research
reviewed studies with greatly varying designs, sample sizes and data collection methods. As
such, the pieces of data presented in the text are often not directly comparable to each other.
Data on violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational
settings vary widely in their quality, scope and availability. States rarely collect data themselves.
In the majority of countries where data are available, they have been gathered through studies by
NGOs or academia. Many such studies consist of surveys conducted among LGBTI respondents
reached through LGBTI websites, local community venues, schools or university clubs, NGOs
or at events. These data are valuable for understanding the nature and impacts of violence
based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings. However,
they do not bring the population-level rigour and reliability of large-scale studies that use random
sampling and quantitative analysis.
Overall, these limitations reflect the diversity and disparity in data collection on violence based on
sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational institutions and the education
sectors response. UNESCO intends this report to be a contribution to addressing this important
field in a more harmonized and globally comparable way.

HOW IS THIS REPORT STRUCTURED?

This report presents the key findings of the global review and is organized as follows:
$$ Section 1 provides the definition of violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/

Africa: Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa. North America: Canada and the United States. Latin America and the Caribbean:
Argentina, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panam, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Asia and the Pacific:
Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Burma, Cambodia, China, Cook Islands, Federated States of
Micronesia, Fiji, Hong Kong SAR, India, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Lao Peoples Democratic
Republic, Kiribati, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, New Zealand, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea,
Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, Tokelau, Tonga, Vanuatu and Viet Nam.
Europe: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta,
Montenegro, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the United
Kingdom.

21

$$ Section 2 provides an overview of the prevalence of violence based on sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression worldwide.
$$ Section 3 discusses the response to violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression, describing the principles and elements of a comprehensive education sector
response and the extent to which countries are implementing these elements.
$$ Section 4 includes recommendations and related actions to strengthen the response to
violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in schools and other
educational settings.

1.1. What is violence based on sexual orientation and gender

identity/expression in educational settings?
Homophobic bullying is an unacceptable infringement of basic human
rights. In the school setting, homophobia is a direct violation of the
right to quality education. It leads to absenteeism, poorer academic
performance and achievement, and sometimes to suicide. The right to
quality education is not the privilege of a few. It is a universal right. All
students all of them have the right to quality education in a safe
environment.
Irina Bokova, Director General, UNESCO, International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia,
17May2012

22

Violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational settings

targets students5 who are, or who are perceived as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
(LGBT); and others whose gender expression does not fit into binary gender norms (masculine
and feminine) such as boys perceived as effeminate and girls perceived as masculine.
Students who are intersex (I) may also be the subject of violence, although there is currently not
enough available scientific data on this.

Regularly people tell

me I do not have the
right to live.
Nikita, age 18, trans man, Russia

The report uses Students to refer to all learners in educational settings. However, where research addressed only selected members of
this group such as children or young people this is stated.

 A 2008 study in Canada of students in Grades 9-11 found that 33 per cent of male students had
experienced verbal harassment related to their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender
identity, including those who did not identify as gay or bisexual [6] .
A 2014 study in Thailand found that 24 per cent of heterosexual students suffered violence
because their gender expression was perceived as non-conforming to gender norms [7].

LGBT students consistently report a higher prevalence of violence compared to their nonLGBT peers. Those who fail to conform to masculine norms i.e. male students who are gay
or bisexual, and male-to-female transgender students seem more likely to be the targets of
violence (See Figure 1).

FIGURE 1

PREVALENCE OF BULLYING
REPORTED BY STUDENTS OF DIFFERENT SEXUAL ORIENTATION

7%

15%

24%

48%

HETEROSEXUAL

LESBIAN

BISEXUAL MALE

GAY MALE

Source: E. Roland & G. Auestad, 2009

A study from New Zealand in 2014 shows lesbian, gay and bisexual students are three times
more likely to be bullied than their heterosexual peers, and transgender students are five times
more likely to be bullied than non-transgender students [8].
Data collected in Norway in 2015 found that between 15 per cent and 48 per cent of lesbian, gay
and bisexual students reported being bullied, compared to 7 per cent of heterosexual students.
The extent to which students experienced bullying depended on their sexual orientation, with 15
per cent of lesbian students, 24 per cent of bisexual male students and 48 per cent of gay male
students respectively reporting being bullied [9].
In a survey in Belgium in 2013, 56 per cent of young LGBT respondents reported at least one
experience of homophobic or transphobic violence or discrimination at school, with male-tofemale and gay male students experiencing the highest levels of violence [10].

In this report, violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression is often
referred to as homophobic and transphobic violence as it is grounded in: the fear, discomfort,
intolerance or hatred of homosexuality and sexually diverse people lesbian, gay, and bisexual
(homophobia); and transgender people (transphobia).
Homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings is a form of school-related
gender-based violence, since it is clearly perpetrated as a result of existing gender norms and
stereotypes (see Figure 2).

23

FIGURE 2

VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS:

HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IS A FORM OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE

VIOLENCE
GENDER BASED-VIOLENCE
HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC
VIOLENCE

Like other forms of school-related violence, school-related homophobic and transphobic violence
can occur in classrooms, playgrounds, toilets and changing rooms, around schools, on the way
to and from school, and online (see Figure 3).

My childhood was all sunk in desperation day after day. Each school
day went terribly for me [sic] because I was teased by class and
schoolmates. Wherever I was, I suffered finger points, bullying, stone
or slippers throwing from them [sic]. They laughed at me by yelling
hey pe-de.

24

Transgender young person, Viet Nam [7, p. 34]

FIGURE 3

NOT JUST INSIDE SCHOOLS: HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
HAPPENS IN MORE THAN ONE PLACE

AT SCHOOL

AROUND SCHOOL

ON THE WAY
ONLINE
TO /FROM SCHOOL

The pressure to conform to dominant gender norms is high. Young

people who do not choose to or cannot conform, such as LGBTI
people, or those who have not learned the proper behaviour, can be
sanctioned through violence.
Source: UNESCO, 2015

Homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings can encompass different types
of violence (see Figure 4):
$$ Physical violence
$$ Psychological violence, including verbal and emotional abuse
$$ Sexual violence, including rape, coercion and harassment
$$ Bullying, including cyber bullying.

FIGURE 4

MORE THAN BULLYING:

HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE MANIFESTS IN A NUMBER OF WAYS

SEXUAL
VIOLENCE
SOCIAL VIOLENCE

25

Sexual
harassment

RumoursExclusion

VERBAL VIOLENCE
Teasing Insults
Threats

PSYCHOLOGICAL
VIOLENCE

Coercion

Rape

BULLYING

PHYSICAL
VIOLENCE

Intimidation

Destroying property
Corporal punishment
Hitting

Most data available on homophobic and transphobic violence focus on bullying. Homophobic
and transphobic bullying involves physical bullying (including repeated hitting, kicking and
taking, or threatening to take, possessions); and psychological bullying including verbal bullying
(repeated mocking, name calling and unwanted teasing) and social or relational bullying
(repeated exclusion, gossiping, the spreading of rumours and the withholding of friendship).
Cyber bullying is a type of psychological bullying. It includes repeated threats, criticism or unkind
comments or images that are sent using information and communication technology, such as
mobile phones, email and social media, including chat rooms and networking sites.

Although available data mostly focus on bullying, LGBTI students can be the targets of other
forms of violence.
These include sexual violence and implicit violence, also referred to as symbolic or institutional
violence (in education policies, regulations, curricula, teaching materials and teaching practices
that are explicitly hostile or implicitly non-inclusive of LGBTI students).

The hardest part was when people would use words like gay and
homo to mean bad I found this even harder to deal with than
outright homophobia because, while such usage is not a personal
attack, it implies that it is bad to be gay.
Dan, 18, New Zealand [7, p. 38]

BOX 2 EXPLICIT AND IMPLICIT HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN

EDUCATIONALSETTINGS
Homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings can be categorized as follows [11][14]:

26

Explicit homophobic and transphobic violence: This consists of overt acts that make subjects feel
uncomfortable, hurt, humiliated or intimidated. Peers and educational staff are unlikely to intervene
when witnessing these incidents. This contributes to normalizing such acts that become accepted as
either a routine disciplinary measure or a means to resolve conflicts among students. Homophobic and
transphobic violence as with all school-related gender-based violence is acutely underreported due
to subjects fear of retribution, combined with inadequate or non-existent reporting, support and redress
systems [11], [15][17]. The absence of effective policies, protection or remedies contributes to a vicious
cycle where incidents become increasingly normal.
Implicit homophobic and transphobic violence: This, sometimes called symbolic violence or institutional
violence, is subtler than explicit violence. It consists of pervasive representations or attitudes that
sometimes feel harmless or natural to the school community, but that allow or encourage homophobia
and transphobia, including perpetuating harmful stereotypes. Policies and guidelines can reinforce or
embed these representations or attitudes, whether in an individual institution or across an entire education
sector. This way, they can become part of everyday practices and rules guiding school behaviour [13],
[18].
Examples of implicit homophobic and transphobic violence include:
Asserting that some subjects are better suited to students based on their sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression (for example, science for heterosexual male students and drama for gay male
students).
Suggesting that it is normal for heterosexual students to have greater agency or influence (for example,
with the opinions of LGBTI students treated as marginal and unimportant).
Reinforcing stereotypes related to sexual orientation or gender identity/expression in curriculum materials
or teacher training, such as through images and discourse (for example, that refer to heterosexuality as
normal).
Reinforcing stereotypes related to sexual orientation or gender identity/expression in educational
policies, rules and regulations (for example, by not even acknowledging that LGBTI students are part of
the school community and by not specifying them in relevant policies).
Although they may not be considered serious on their own, repeated occurrences of implicit violence lead
to a biased understanding of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. This in turn leads to higher
occurrences of homophobic and transphobic violence.

The majority of available research focuses on homophobic and transphobic violence in primary
and secondary schools. Fewer initiatives address colleges, institutes or universities. In this report,
the term school is sometimes used as a generic term for an educational setting, especially in
the phrase violence in schools.
Homophobic and transphobic violence can also be carried out by different categories of
perpetrators. While this kind of violence occurs most notably among students, it can also occur
between teachers and students. Such violence can also target school staff, particularly teachers.
This can be perpetrated by students, other school staff or educational authorities. However, this
report will focus only on violence affecting students.
Although some organizations and governments addressing childrens rights and genderbased violence have started to acknowledge school-related gender-based violence over the
last decade [12], [18], very few have recognized homophobic and transphobic violence as a
specific form of such violence.
Homophobic and transphobic violence is a learned behaviour that is driven by stigma and
prejudice [19][21]. Although it is typically perpetrated by boys and young men often to protect
or reinforce their masculinity [21][24] girls and young women can also resort to such violence.
Like other forms of school-related gender-based violence, students and adults who witness
homophobic and transphobic violence are unlikely to react. This is in part because this kind of
violence is rooted in deep cultural beliefs about gender roles, masculinity and femininity.
Homophobic and transphobic violence occurs in educational settings in all regions of the
world. However, it tends to occur more frequently in regions or cultures with less equal power
relationships between women and men, where strong norms of heterosexuality and traditional
gender roles prevail. In some of these contexts, LGBTI people still face criminalization and statesanctioned punishment. They are frequently depicted as deserving public condemnation and,
in several cases, as warranting state-sanctioned punishment [25][27].

BOX 3 LAWS CRIMINALIZING SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS OR THE DISCUSSION OF SEXUAL

ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION
As of 2015, 75 countries have criminalized some form of same-sex sexual activity or relationships [28].
Also, four countries have outlawed the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression in
positive or neutral terms (sometimes referred to as propaganda of homosexuality), either in public or in
the presence of minors [29]. These policies contribute to legitimizing discrimination and violence against
LGBTI people, including in educational settings.

27

1.2. What is the impact of school-related homophobic and

transphobic violence?
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and intersex (LGBTI) children are often
victims of bullying and violence in schools, at home and via social
media. This has a serious effect on their well-being and prevents
openness about their personal identity. Like all children, LGBTI
children are entitled to enjoy human rights and require a safe
environment in order to participate fully in society.
Nils Muinieks, European Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Comment, 2 October 2014

Homophobic and transphobic violence has a significant impact on students education and
employment prospects and on their health and well-being. It affects students who are targeted
by violence and students who are perpetrators and bystanders.
The following pages provide examples of these impacts, with further details included in the
subsequent regional overviews of prevalence.

1.2.1.

28

Impact on education and employment

Homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings measurably impacts on students

access to quality education and achievements [30][37]. Those who study in homophobic and
transphobic environments or who suffer homophobic and transphobic violence are more likely
to:
$$ FEEL UNSAFE AT SCHOOL. A 2015 study in the United States found that 70 per cent of
LGBT students felt unsafe at school [32]
$$ AVOID SCHOOL ACTIVITIES. In a 2013 survey from Europe, which included Ireland, Italy,
Denmark, Croatia and Poland, 49 per cent of young LGBT respondents said they sometimes
chose not to participate in class questions or discussions [36].
$$ MISS CLASSES OR SKIP SCHOOL ENTIRELY. Another study conducted in 2013 in the
United States study revealed that 30 per cent of LGBT students had missed at least one
day of school in the previous month because of feeling unsafe [34]. A 2014 study by Mahidol
University in Thailand found that 31.2 per cent of students who were teased or bullied for
being or being perceived to be LGBT, reported an unauthorised absence from school in the
past month; compared with 15.2 per cent of students who were not teased or bullied [38].
$$ DROP OUT OF SCHOOL. In Argentina, a 2007 study showed that 45 per cent of transgender
students dropped out of school, either due to transphobic bullying by their peers or being
excluded by school authorities [1].
$$ ACHIEVE LOWER ACADEMIC RESULTS THAN THEIR PEERS. In an online survey in China
in 2012, 59 per cent of LGBT respondents reported that bullying had negatively affected their
academic performance [7]. In a large 2009 - 2014 survey in England, 37 per cent of LGBT
young people aged from 16 to 25 said their time at school had been affected by discrimination
or fear of discrimination; leading to lower grades [39]. In El Salvador, only 36 per cent of
100 transgender women interviewed for a 2012/2013 study obtained their secondary school
certificate, as a result of violence and exclusion [40]. Data collected from Australia in 2013
demonstrated a high correlation between victimisation and lack of concentration in class,
lower marks, and attendance for transgender youth [41], [42]. According to the 2013 survey
in Europe [36], 50 per cent of respondents reported having difficulties concentrating, 37 per

cent reported getting lower marks, and 40 per cent felt they did not acquire skills at school
as well as they should have.

I was not accepted and I was discriminated against because of my

orientation. I was bullied as well. I left school this year. I was in Grade
8. I decided in the second semester to drop out. I talked to my mum
about the experience and told her I just want to leave school.
Student who dropped out of school, Namibia [43]

BOX 4 EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL

Exclusion from school is both:
A form of implicit violence when educational institutions exclude or reject a student because of their
sexual orientation or gender identity/expression, or that of their parents.
An impact of direct violence when LGBTI students skip classes and avoid returning to school to avoid
violence, leading to their exclusion.

I tried to apply for high school... The school told me that they could
not accept me after seeing my gender listed as a woman on the health
insurance card because they didnt have any precedent of having a
transgender student and didnt want any trouble [sic] or anything bad
to happen to me.
Hiroto, a transgender man, Japan [7, p. 30]

BOX 5 INCREASED RISK FOR TRANSGENDER STUDENTS

Transgender students tend to experience particularly harsh discrimination in educational settings. Like
LGB students they report: lower concentration in class; lower marks; and lower attendance [41], [42].
Transgender students are more likely than average to miss school or miss out on their education entirely
due to concerns about their personal safety [44]. A study from Argentina reported that 45 per cent of
transgender students dropped out of school either due to transphobic bullying by their peers or to being
excluded [1].

Students who have a lower academic achievement and or leave school early have fewer
qualifications, which in turn influences their employment prospects. A broad analysis of
experiences of homophobia and transphobia conducted in 2014 within emerging economies,
found that they can correlate with lower or limited employment opportunities [45].
When those in charge do not respond effectively to violence in educational settings, the entire
social climate can be negatively affected. Violence can lead to all students [34], [46]:
$$ experiencing a climate of fear, insecurity and disrespect
$$ experiencing difficulties in learning
$$ feeling less safe

29

$$ perceiving that staff have little control over the situation and do not care about students
safety and well-being.
This has a negative impact on learning and achievements for all students, undermines students
trust in the staff and the institution, and can result in students disliking or feeling disconnected
from school [34], [46], [47]. In a survey in Canada in 2009 [48] 58 per cent of heterosexual
students expressed emotional distress over homophobic comments overheard in school.

We know that exclusion, bullying and violence have immediate, longterm and intergenerational effects. This includes school attendance,
performance, and completion [] And for those who think that
bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity only affects
LGBTI youth. This is wrong. It affects the whole climate of the school
and community.
Gwang-Jo Kim, Director of UNESCO Asia Pacific Bureau for Education
Asia-Pacific Consultation, 15 June 2015, Bangkok

1.2.2.

Impact on health and well-being

Homophobic and transphobic violence is also associated with poorer than average physical and
mental health. The adverse effects on young peoples mental and psychological health include:
increased risk of anxiety, fear, stress, loss of confidence, low self-esteem, loneliness, selfharm, depression and suicide.

30

$$ The 2013 study from Thailand [38] found that 22.6 per cent of LGBT students who were
teased or bullied for being or being perceived to be LGBT, reported feeling depressed;
compared with 6 per cent of students who were not teased or bullied.
$$ Studies from Belgium [49], the Netherlands [50], Poland [51] and the United States [52],
[53], suggest that LGBT students and young people are between two and more than five times
more likely to think about or attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. The 2013 study
from Thailand showed that 6.7 per cent of LGBT students who were teased or bullied for
being or being perceived to be LGBT, reported attempting suicide in the past year; compared
with 1.2 per cent of students who were not teased or bullied [38]. In Mexico, the first National
Survey on Homophobic Bullying conducted in 2012 revealed that one in four LGBT people
had thought about suicide as a result of the bullying they suffered at school [54].

One of my former classmates happened to be in the same class

and he ceaselessly warned my girlfriend to stay away from me. He
fabricated a lot of rumours That experience was horrific torture for
me and everyday my thoughts were only on how to kill myself. Once
I attempted to jump off a building to commit suicide but was stopped
by others. I was greatly depressed and began cutting my fingers with
a knife. I felt that the whole world has turned against me and nobody
was willing to help.
Lesbian woman, 24 years old, China [7, p. 39]

Experiencing homophobic and transphobic violence contributes to minority stress stress

that is specifically experienced by LGBTI people as a result of nonconformity with prevailing
sexual orientation and gender norms [53]. Experiencing homophobic and transphobic violence

adds to this type of stress which, in turn, negatively affects LGBTI peoples health [19]. To
cope with minority stress, many LGBTI students hide their sexual orientation or gender identity/
expression within educational settings [55]. Institutions may also discourage LGBTI students
and teachers from acknowledging their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression [56],
[57] leading to self-censorship and constantly being on their guard. Some countries forbid such
public disclosure by law [29], [58]. This unnatural behaviour can limit students ability to express
themselves and can make it harder for them to befriend peers of the same sex (out of fear of
seeming to be attracted to them). It can even cause them to bully their LGBTI peers in order to
pretend that they belong to the majority [34], [59]. Over a longer period, it can be detrimental
for students to cope with homophobic and transphobic violence at the very time when they are
building their identity, self-confidence and social skills.
Studies from the United States found that homophobic and transphobic violence contributesto
LGBT young people being more likely to be homeless or in foster care, compared to their
non-LGBT peers [32], [33].
There is also some evidence that young people who experience homophobic and transphobic
violence at school may be more likely to adopt risky health behaviours [50], [60]. Sexual
violence can result in unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV
[16], [18], [53], [61]. In addition, homophobic and transphobic violence can have wider social
impacts for those who are targeted [32], [45].

I still remember being absolutely horrified by the possibility of people

in my elementary and secondary school thinking I was a fag. I still
experience consequences of those years of nervous tension caused by
constant self-control and self- censorship.

31

Gay man, 29, Poland [62, p. 36]

My teacher told my
parents that I was
troubled because he
suspected I was gay.
Antonio, age 19, gay, Mexico

2.
THE SITUATION OF

HOMOPHOBIC AND
TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE
IN EDUCATIONAL
SETTINGS

33

2. THE SITUATION OF
HOMOPHOBIC AND
TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN
EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Section 2 presents evidence on the nature and prevalence of homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational settings in the different regions of the world.

34

As reported to UN human rights mechanisms, homophobic and transphobic violence occurs

widely in all societies in all regions of the world [63]. This particular type of violence includes
incidents of psychological violence, such as threats, coercion and arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
It also includes physical violence, such as beatings, sexual assault, kidnappings and killings.
As examples: between January 2013 and March 2014, 594 hate-related killings of LGBT people
were recorded in the 25 members states of the Organization of American States [64]; in the
five years prior to 2013, a quarter of more than 93,000 LGBT respondents to a survey in the 28
member states of the European Union had been attacked or threatened with violence [62]; in
2013 alone, 2,001 incidents of violence against LGBT people were reported in the United States
[65]; and between 2008 and 2014, 1,612 killings of transgender people were recorded across
62 countries [63].
Schools reflect these wider societal trends. As such, it is unsurprising that homophobic and
transphobic violence also exists in educational settings in all regions of the world.

HOW COMMON IS HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS?

There is a lack of comprehensive and comparable data on the prevalence of homophobic and
transphobic violence in schools. The extent to which country data are available varies between
regions, but few governments routinely collect data on the nature and prevalence of violence
including bullying in educational settings. Only a handful of countries gather specific data on
homophobic and transphobic violence. There are no international surveys that collect data across
countries. Europe is the only region to have conducted a regional survey. Most of the available
data were collected by research institutes and non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
However, all data reviewed for this report consistently show that a high proportion of students
are affected by homophobic and transphobic violence in school, and that LGBT students are
more likely to experience such violence at school than at home or in the community [62], [66]
[68] (See Figure 5). In general it is psychological violence, including social exclusion and verbal
bullying, that is most reported by LGBT students, ranging from 16 per cent in Nepal to 85 per
cent in the USA [34], [69]. In terms of age, incidents of violence tend to increase as LGBT
students grow older and enter adolescence.

FIGURE 5

PERCENTAGE OF LGBT STUDENTS REPORTING EVER EXPERIENCED PREJUDICE/DISCRIMINATION

IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS

29.8%

37.7%

51.2%

61.2%

FRIENDS CIRCLE

COMMUNITY

FAMILY

SCHOOL

Source: J. Takcs, 2006

The absence of data for a country does not indicate that such violence does not occur. On the
contrary, it may suggest that policy efforts have not taken place in this area and data have not
been collected.

BOX 6 SOURCES FOR DATA ON HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE

This report uses data from the following regions and countries/territories:
Africa: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland.
Asia:
Eastern Asia: China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan and Mongolia.
Southern Asia: India and Nepal.
South-Eastern Asia: Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam.
Western Asia: Israel and Kazakhstan.
Latin America and the Caribbean: Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay.
North America: Canada and the United States.
The Pacific: Australia and New Zealand.
Europe: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Norway,
Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

The following provides some examples of data by region.

35

2.1. Africa
It is not that I really want to discriminate against homosexuality.
However neither our African culture nor the Bible support
homosexuality although not explicitly stated, the government does
not support it either.
Male teacher, Namibia [43]

Little data exist on the nature and prevalence of homophobic and transphobic violence in
educational settings in the Africa region.
In part, this is due to, as of 2015, 33 countries criminalizing consensual sexual behaviour or
relationships between people of the same sex [25]. It also reflects other hostile measures
against sexual and gender diversity. For example, in 2014, Algeria and Nigeria adopted new
laws that forbid the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression in a positive or
neutral fashion making it impossible for teachers and educational institutions to even consider
addressing related problems, including violence [29].
In 20142015, UNESCO partnered with the international organization Hivos International on the
first multi-country study on violence in schools in Southern Africa to include attention to issues of
sexual orientation and gender identity/expression [70] [see Box 7 ].

36

BOX 7 MULTI-COUNTRY STUDY ON VIOLENCE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION ANDGENDERIDENTITY/

EXPRESSION IN SOUTHERN AFRICA
Methodology
In 20142015, UNESCO, in partnership with Hivos, supported a study on violence in schools including
gender-based violence and bullying in Southern Africa. It covered five countries: Botswana, Lesotho,
Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland. Except for South Africa where the rights of LGBT people are
protected by the Constitution and a series of laws sexual and gender diversity are not well accepted
by societies in those contexts. Laws (either explicitly or through interpretation) criminalize same-sex
relationships between men.6 Even where those laws are rarely enforced, the prevalence of societal stigma
and discrimination towards LGBTI people is high.
For the first time in the region, ministries of education accepted an initiative to explore aspects of schoolrelated gender-based violence related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in terms of
the prevalence, nature and impacts of this kind of violence, as well as existing responses by the education
sector. The study was conducted by a multi-country research team coordinated by Gay and Lesbian
Memory in Action (GALA), an NGO based in South Africa.
The study included a desk-based review of, in all five countries: existing education sector policies related
to: violence in schools in general; gender-based violence; and homophobic and transphobic violence.
A large amount of primary data was also collected through qualitative and quantitative methods in the
four countries where no data was available: Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland. (In South Africa
some studies had already been conducted in the past). The study involved 68 in-depth interviews and
67 focus group discussions with teachers, students, out-of-school youth, parents and guardians, school
management teams, government educational officials, civil society representatives and social workers.
There was also a survey, using a self-administered questionnaire completed by 2,523 Grade 11 students
(aged 16 17, on average) and teachers in 37 schools.

In Botswana, the law criminalizes sex against the order of nature and bestiality, without any language that defines what that means,
although it is understood to refer to homosexuality in particular. In Lesotho and Swaziland, the law criminalizes sodomy, with a clear
mention of sodomy between men. In Namibia, there is also a sodomy law, but it does not refer explicitly to sodomy between men.

Through a series of national consultation meetings before and after the data collection process, in each
country, the study instigated a collaborative process with ministries of education, CSOs (including LGBTI
organizations) and other key stakeholders, in order to shape and inform the research process, including
the research questions and terminology. For example, it was agreed by all stakeholders to use culturallysensitive terms with students and teachers. These included talking about diversity-related violence that
targets students who are perceived as different in terms of their gender, such as boys who look or act like
girls and girls who look or act like boys. This helped to build understanding of the rationale for the study
and its methodology, and fostered ownership of the findings by the education sector.
Findings
The results from the survey conducted among students and teachers in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and
Swaziland reveal extremely high levels of violence in schools in those countries.7
Between 70.8 per cent of respondents (Swaziland) and 96.4 per cent (Botswana) said that violence
occurs in their school. This violence is experienced on a daily basis by between 9 per cent of
respondents in Swaziland and 21 per cent in Botswana. Otherwise, the majority of respondents said
that it occurs on some days.
Diversity-related violence (defined above) was reported by respondents in all four countries: 18.4 per
cent in Swaziland; 41.0 per cent in Namibia; 43.7 per cent in Lesotho; and 44.3 per cent in Botswana.
Further information was provided through the answers to a series of questions. For example:
In response to the question Who are mostly the victims of violence and/or bullying in schools?, a
number of the respondents mentioned students different in terms of gender: 7.9 per cent in Swaziland;
10.7 per cent in Botswana; 17.6 per cent in Namibia; and 20.4 per cent in Lesotho.
In response to the question Why does the violence occur?, a number of the students and teachers
said Because some people are perceived as different in terms of their gender: 11.6 per cent in
Botswana; 18.8 per cent in Swaziland; 23.1 per cent in Namibia; and 26.1 per cent in Lesotho. It was
the first reason given by respondents in Lesotho and Swaziland, and the second one in Namibia. Other
main reasons included to take money, its tradition and teachers dont stop the violence.
Questions on the nature of violence in general, including diversity-related violence, showed that violence
is mostly verbal ranging from 80 per cent in Swaziland to 91.2 per cent in Botswana. It is also physical
from 66.6 per cent in Lesotho to 88.8 per cent in Botswana. Sexual violence8 is less prevalent, although
the percentages are still very worrying from 21.2 per cent in Lesotho and Swaziland to 37.7 per cent in
Botswana.
Findings from the in-depth interviews and focus group discussions suggest that the extent of sexual
violence may have been underreported by the survey respondents. This is because the unwanted touching
of breasts, bottoms and other parts of the body may have been normalized in schools and is no longer
perceived as violence.
The study found that, in all countries, the vast majority of perpetrators of violence are older boys (64.1 per
cent of responses in Lesotho; 68 per cent in Namibia; 70.9 per cent in Swaziland; and 79.1 per cent in
Botswana).
The targets of violence are younger boys and younger girls. Approximately the same percentage was seen
in Namibia (with 48.7 per cent of respondents stating young boys versus 47.3 per cent stating young girls).
Meanwhile, the percentages indicated: slightly more young boys than young girls in Swaziland (35.7 per
cent versus 31.1 per cent); slightly more young girls than young boys in Lesotho (48.1 per cent versus 43.7
per cent); and a large majority of young boys in Botswana (54.9 per cent versus 36.9 per cent).
The interviews and focus groups confirmed the existence and relatively high prevalence of violence based
on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in some countries.

7
8

The survey excluded corporal punishment.

Sexual violence in the context of the study was defined as: unwanted touching; lifting, pulling down or taking off others skirt, shirt or
trousers; holding others in a sexual position as if about to rape her/him; forcing people to have sex by hand, mouth or penetrating
their vagina/anus; and aggressive flirting.

37

Definitely, definitely It is clear that it is happening in most schools.

Education Officer, Swaziland

However, incidents of this type of violence in schools are under-reported because of the social context.
The study found that teachers and other school staff holding discriminatory attitudes and beliefs hinder
the effective reporting and support for students that experience gender-based violence in general and
diversity-related violence in particular.

This abnormal behaviour, its something that more often than not goes
unreported we try to ignore it, even when we see it. We do not want to confront
such situations, and as such we find at the end of the day we dont have much
information on it.
Teacher, Botswana

Only one third of respondents said that their school is a safe space for students who are perceived as
different in terms of gender.

FIGURE 6

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AWARE

OF THE EXISTENCE OF DIVERSITY-RELATED VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

38

44.3%

43.7%

41.0%

18,4%

BOTSWANA

LESOTHO

NAMIBIA

SWAZILAND

Source: UNESCO, 2015

Data from studies conducted in South Africa indicate that students in that country are often
targets of violence in schools, including homophobic and transphobic violence. The National
School Violence Study (NSVS) was undertaken by the Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention
(CJCP) in 2012 and includes the most recent national data on the types and prevalence of
violence in schools. According to its findings, 22.2 per cent of high school students report being
threatened or the victim of a robbery, assault and/or sexual assault at school. While these levels
are high, the findings indicate that the levels of violence in secondary schools have stabilized
somewhat in recent years. Overall, the NSVS found that one fifth of students had experienced
cyber violence or bullying [70].
A 2011 study in KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, suggests that high levels of violence (verbal,
physical and sexual) are experienced by lesbian and gay students in schools. Jokes were the
most common manifestation of verbal violence reported by both lesbian/bisexual females (63
per cent) and gay/bisexual males (76 per cent). The main perpetrators of the violence were other
students (65 per cent), followed by educators (22 per cent) and school principals (9 per cent)
[71].
Elsewhere in Africa, the scarce data that do exist on violence in schools (both general and
gender-based) indicate that psychological, physical and sexual violence are common and
frequent across the region [72]. International organizations have found widespread evidence
of psychological violence, threats and public shaming in school settings, as well as of bullying
among students being justified due to age or gender hierarchies [11], [73], [74].

2.2. Asia
Diverse understandings and perceptions of homosexuality coexist in the Asia. Here, as of 2015,
19 countries still criminalized consensual sexual acts between men and at least seven also
had discriminatory laws that could apply to sexual relations between women. However, diverse
sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions are increasingly accepted.
In parallel, regional interest to tackle homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings is increasing [7], [66].
Most of the existing data on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings have
been collected by NGOs and academic institutions. This has largely been through communitybased studies, sometimes with guidance from research institutes or in partnership with multilateral
organizations (including UNESCO). Across the region, the most prevalent form of homophobic
and transphobic violence on record is psychological violence, including psychological bullying,
often manifested through cyber bullying [7]. Physical and sexual violence are also reported.

39

FIGURE 7

PREVALENCE OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE

IN ASIA

HONG KONG SAR [75]

10% of LGB secondary school

students experienced physical and

sexual violence

40% of LGB secondary school

students experienced verbal

harassment and social exclusion

68% of LGBT people aged

10-35 experienced violence in school

MONGOLIA

16% of LGBT students

experienced verbal harassment in

school

THAILAND [38]

55% of LGBT students

experienced physical, psychological

or sexual violence in the month
prior to the study

JAPAN [76]

40

NEPAL [69]

[38]

7% of LGBT students

experienced physical violence

24% of heterosexual

students experienced homophobic

or transphobic violence because of
their gender expression

VIET NAM [7]

44% of LGBT students consider

homophobic and transphobic stigma

at school serious

No data are available on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings in Central
Asia. However, studies in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in 2013 and 2010 (respectively) point to
existing school-related gender-based violence [78], [79]. In a 2009 study in Kazakhstan, over
four out of five LGBT respondents said that they always or frequently hid their sexual orientation
at school or university [80].

My teacher once said to me in front of the whole class that my kind

and I should be sent to Taiga* on the spot.
Respondent #559, Kazakhstan [80, p. 51]
(*A forest of high northern subarctic latitudes, near the steppes of Siberia)

In a 2013 survey by the National Human Rights Commission of Mongolia on discrimination against
LGBT individuals [77], a quarter of respondents indicated that they had experienced discrimination
in school and 6.7 per cent said that they had experienced physical violence due to their sexual
orientation or gender identity/expression.
In Nepal, a national study of 1,178 LGBT respondents in 2014 found that 16 per cent reported
experiencing verbal harassment in educational settings [69].
A 2015 report from India observed that students who do not conform to traditional gender norms of
appearance are more likely to experience violence in schools compared to LGB people in general
[81]. Hijra people who live according to the norms, customs and rituals of a Hijra transgender
community report experiencing school as a particularly unsafe environment. In 2009 research in
Bangladesh, they cited feelings of loneliness and abusive treatment, with their feminine behaviour
often the subject of jokes and humiliation [82].
In China, 421 LGBT students from middle schools, tertiary and vocational institutions responded
to a community centres online study [7]. This found that 77 per cent of respondents reported
experiencing at least one type of violence due to their sexual orientation or gender identity/
expression, with verbal abuse being the most prevalent.
In response to a 2009 online survey in Hong Kong SAR, LGB and questioning secondary school
students reported experiencing: verbal harassment and name calling (four out of ten); social
exclusion (four out of ten); and both physical and sexual violence (one out of ten) [75]. Rates
of violence were two to three times higher for gay and bisexual male respondents compared to
lesbian and bisexual females.
In Japan, a 2014 online survey of 609 LGBT people aged 1035 in the Kanto area conducted
by a Tokyo-based group engaged in suicide prevention for LGBT people [76], 68 per cent of
respondents reported experiencing violence in elementary, junior high or high school. Those
experiencing violence reported insults, social exclusion, physical violence and, to a lesser extent,
sexual violence. In most cases, the perpetrators were peers, although one in ten respondents
reported that the perpetrators were teachers.
In 2014 in Thailand, 55 per cent of LGBT students reported experiencing violence on the basis of
their sexual orientation or gender identity/experience in the month preceding the study [38]. This
included physical violence, insults and sexual violence. Also, 24 per cent of non-LGBT students
reported experiencing homophobic and transphobic violence because they were perceived to be
LGBT.
In Viet Nam, online surveys have taken place to document incidents of homophobic and
transphobic violence in educational settings. In 2014 [7] a survey of over 3,200 LGBT young people
found that 44 per cent of respondents said stigma linked to their sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression was a serious problem at school. Common forms of reported homophobic and
transphobic violence included teasing by peers and insults from school staff. Similarly, around
half of LGBT respondents to a 2012 study said they had experienced stigma and violence as
a result of not conforming to traditional gender roles. Three quarters of those respondents also
reported hearing homophobic insults. In 2015, the Institute of Educational Sciences launched the

41

largest study on this issue to date in Viet Nam. This analyses qualitative and quantitative data from
secondary schools in six cities and provinces as a part of a larger study on school-related genderbased violence. The research is under the leadership of the Ministry of Education and Training [7].
In Malaysia, according to studies conducted over 2002 to 2014, prevalent forms of homophobic
and transphobic violence in educational settings include humiliation, sexual violence and
expulsion from school [83][85]. School management in the country appear to frequently reinforce
gender stereotypes by punishing students who do not fit within traditional gender roles. A study
in 2012 found that discriminatory practices include: universities enquiring about gender confused
students; conversion camps for schoolboys with effeminate tendencies; and a federal policy,
published through a student handbook, categorizing homosexuality and gender confusion as
serious offences [86].
In Israel9, despite legal and some socio-cultural support for LGBT individuals, educational
institutions do not appear always welcoming to LGBT students [87], [88]. In a 2008 online study
of LGBT students, four out of five respondents declared hearing pejorative expressions such as
fag or woman (demeaning to boys) often or usually [87]. Reports varied significantly depending
on respondents gender. While 25 per cent of girls reported hearing homophobic or transphobic
remarks frequently, the level was 43 per cent for boys.

2.3. Europe

42

In many countries in the European region, NGOs alongside academia and research institutes
have collected data on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings for several
years. Governmental bodies in Belgium, Finland, France, parts of Germany, the Netherlands and
parts of Spain also collect data on the experiences of LGBT students in educational settings.
Research in Central and Eastern Europe, on the other hand, is often anecdotal and tends to
remain unacknowledged by the education sector [89].
In the European region the most prevalent form of homophobic and transphobic violence
reported is psychological violence.

FIGURE 8

PREVALENCE OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE

IN EUROPE

According to the United Nations classification of regions, Israel is within the Western Asia region.

BELGIUM [10]

POLAND [55]

56%

52% of LGBT students felt

of LGBT students
experienced homophobic or
transphobic violence at school at
least once

lonely, and

63% of LGBT students

thought about suicide, compared to

12% of the general

FINLAND [90]

population of the same age

36% of LGBT students

suffered homophobic or
transphobic bullying at school

TURKEY [94]

67% of LGBT students

FRANCE [91]

experienced discrimination at
school before the age of 18

12%

of primary and
secondary headmasters agreed that
homophobia is a regular or serious
concern

As a result of discrimination based

on sexual orientation and gender
identity,

8% of LGBT students dropped

IRELAND [92]

out of school before the age of 18,

52%

5%

of LGBT people
experienced homophobic or
transphobic name-calling while in
school

THE NETHERLANDS [93]

and
of LGBT students
dropped out of university

UNITED KINGDOM [35], [95], [96]

23% of LGBT students were

bullied at school

NORWAY

[9]

15% of lesbian students,

24% of bisexual male students and
48% of gay students are bullied,
compared to 7% of heterosexual students

99% of students heard

homophobic insults in schools

Between

20% and 55%

of LGBT students experienced
bullying

43

In 2013, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights published the regions largest
ever survey of LGBT people to date, featuring over 93,000 respondents from 28 countries [62]
[see Figure 9]. A large majority of respondents reported experiencing negative comments or
conduct in educational institutions due to their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
Most of them frequently hid or disguised their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression at
school. Significant numbers also reported witnessing homophobic or transphobic psychological
violence against fellow student (91 per cent on average across all countries), which suggests
that such violence is pervasive.

FIGURE 9

EXPERIENCES OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE

IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN THEEUROPEAN UNION

Experienced negative commentsor

conduct at school due to
sexualorientation or gender
identity/expression
(rarely, often or always)

44

Witnessed negative
commentsagainst a fellow
student due to sexual orientation
or gender identity/expression
(rarely, often or always)

Hiding or disguising their

sexualorientation or gender
identity during school
(rarely, often or always)

Felt discriminated against by

school or university staff due
to sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression in the last
12months (yes)

LOWEST

HIGHEST

AVERAGE

58%

(LATVIA)

76%

(CYPRUS, UK)

68%

83%

97%

91%

(LATVIA)

(CYPRUS, UK)

87%

95%

(CZECH REPUBLIC,
SLOVAKIA)

8%
(NETHERLANDS)

Source: European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). 2012.

(GREECE, LATVIA,
LITHUANIA)

31%

(LITHUANIA)

91%

18%

In the United Kingdom, surveys indicate that homophobic and transphobic violence affects
considerable number of LGBT students [35]. Studies from 2012 and 2014 show that between 20
and 55 per cent of respondents reported experiencing homophobic violence, including physical
violence, due to their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression [35], [96]. The use of
homophobic insults in schools also appears to be extremely widespread. In a 2012 study, 99
per cent of all students reported hearing phrases such as thats so gay or youre so gay
used pejoratively, or insults such as poof (to a boy or man) or lezza (to a girl or woman). In
universities, 20.6 per cent of transgender people reported feeling completely safe on campus.
This compares to 36.7 per cent of their LGB peers and 43 per cent of their heterosexual peers
[95].
In Ireland, according to research in 2009, 52 per cent of LGBT individuals report being called
abusive names at school due to their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression [92]. Many
also report verbal and physical threats.
In Belgium, research into the prevalence of homophobic and transphobic violence in
educational settings originates mostly from the region of Flanders. It further confirms that school
is often where LGBT young people experience more prejudice and discrimination than other
contexts. In a national survey conducted by the NGO avaria in 2013, 56 per cent of young
LGBT respondents reported at least one experience of homophobic or transphobic violence
or discrimination at school [10]. Transgender (male-to-female) and gay men experienced the
highest levels of violence.
The government of the Netherlands surveys the prevalence of homophobic and transphobic
violence as part of a biennial monitor on social safety in schools. The 20102014 edition shows
that 23 per cent of LGBT students report being bullied at school. Significantly, around half
preferred not to disclose their sexual orientation and/or gender identity at school [93].
In France, limited data collection by the Ministry of Education in 2012 indicated that 158 cases
of homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings were recorded nationwide [91].
However, policy-makers, teachers unions and NGOs agree that this survey did not accurately
record incidents related to sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. A 2013 report on
homophobia and transphobia to the Minister of Education highlighted that 12 per cent of primary
and secondary school headmasters agreed that homophobia was a regular or serious concern
[91].
In Finland, research commissioned by the Ministry of Interior in 2011 studied discrimination
experienced by students in their education and leisure time [90]. It found that 36 per cent
of students had suffered bullying at school due to their sexual orientation or gender identity/
expression. A 2015 study supported by the Ministry of Education and Culture showed that,
although a majority of respondents were concerned by homophobic bullying, over half did not
report it. This was mostly because they doubted that they would receive effective remedy and
they feared having to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression [97].
A 2015 government review in Norway found that, among young people, the pejorative use of
homo was one of the most common insults against boys [98]. It also found that boys reported
derogatory remarks about their perceived or actual sexual orientation nearly five times as often
as girls [99]. The findings highlighted the vulnerability of gay or bisexual male students with 48
per cent and 23.8 per cent (respectively) reporting being bullied. This compared to 15 per cent
of lesbian girls and 7.3 per cent of heterosexual peers [9].
In a small-scale academic study in Portugal in 2012, researchers found that the targets of
homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings - as well as the educational staff
undervalued the importance of aggressive homophobic behaviour [100]. They also found that
school communities often failed to offer effective responses. These findings confirmed that boys
are more likely to suffer homophobic violence than girls.

45

In a large online academic study in Hungary in 2008, 93.6 per cent of LGBT respondents reported
being bullied by fellow students in secondary school, 50.1 per cent reported discriminatory
or derogatory mistreatment by teachers and 29.2 per cent of respondents reported distorted
representation of LGBT-related issues in school curricula [101].
In a small-scale, community-based study of LGB individuals under the age of 18 in Malta in
20062008, just over half reported suffering psychological violence from their peers in educational
settings on at least three occasions [102]. A third reported experiencing psychological violence on
more than ten occasions, while 13.3 per cent reported experiencing physical violence at school.
In Turkey, a large online survey of LGBT individuals conducted by the Social Policies, Gender
Identity and Sexual Orientation Studies Association and Boazii University Social Policy Forum
in 2015, found that two thirds of respondents had experienced discrimination on the basis of
their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression at school before the age of 18 [94]. Half
reported experiencing negative comments or reactions due to their sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression at university.

Im constantly being attacked, Im afraid of walking around the school,

I dont even go to the school shop alone because Im afraid of meeting
those who bully me. In school a few students from another class
constantly accost me with remarks, they even made a rhyme about me.
Boy, 15, Poland [55, p. 42]

46

Research from Poland suggests that young LGBT people experience more violence in schools
than the general student population. Research undertaken in 20102011 shows that: 69 per cent
of LGBT students hide their sexual orientation at school; 56 per cent feel lonely; and 63 per cent
have thought about suicide (compared to 12 per cent among the general population of the same
age) [55]. Further research in 2012 found that boys acting girly were the most likely targets of
homophobic violence in educational settings with more than four in five reporting experiencing
violence [103]. The same survey found that most homophobic insults witnessed at school were
directed against boys.
In 2013, in a survey of 322 secondary school students in the Croatian capital Zagreb, 32.4 per
cent of respondents said that they had verbally and/or physically abused peers due to their
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity [104].
A 2008 study of the daily experiences of LGBT young people in Slovenia showed similar results.
It found that 36 per cent of respondents reported at least one experience of homophobic violence
during their schooling, while 11 per cent reported experiencing physical violence at school [56].
The same NGO also surveyed the experience of LGB teachers in 2011. These cited pressure
from school management to censor themselves or hide their sexual orientation at the workplace
and felt unable to openly show support to LGBT students [57].

10 Federal Law of 29 June 2013: On the introduction of amendments to Article 5 of the Federal Law, On the protection of children from
information liable to be injurious to their health and development and individual legislative documents of the Russian Federation
aimed at protecting children from information promoting the denial of traditional family values (no. 135-FZ).
11 Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information and Mass Media, available at: http://rkn.gov.ru/mass-communications/
p700p701/ [accessed September 2015].
12 UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).Concluding observations on the combined fourth and fifth periodic reports of the
Russian Federation, 25 February 2014,CRC/C/RUS/CO/4-5,available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/52f89e2b4.html[accessed
25 September 2015].

BOX 8 RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION IN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

In 2013, the Russian Federation amended its federal law on the protection of children from information
harmful to their health and development.10 This punished the promotion of non-traditional sexual relations
to minors with fines and administrative sanctions. The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications,
Information and Mass Media issued guidelines explaining that this can include the positive portrayal
or approval of people with non-traditional sexual relations namely LGBT people.11 Among other
repercussions, the law led to the closure of the Children 404 website the only public source of counselling
and support for LGBT children in the country.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern that, although intended
to protect children, the law encourages the stigmatization of and discrimination against lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) persons, including children, and children from LGBTI families.
The Committee recommended that the law should be repealed.12
In this context, studies and actions to address homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings
are highly challenging. However, there are indications that levels of such violence are high. For example, a
representative nationwide survey of general violence against children, published in 2012, found that three
in ten children had suffered from violence between the ages 514, with a fifth of incidents occurring in
schools [105]. Most of the incidents involved psychological violence, although examples of physical and
sexual violence and cyber bullying were also cited.

2.4. Latin America and the Caribbean

In Latin America existing data on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings
consist mostly of small-scale community-based studies that do not draw reliable conclusions
about the levels of such violence. In the Caribbean, only one UNICEF study in Jamaica offers
limited data on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings [106]. One of the
more reliable studies from the region was conducted in 2014, at secondary schools in Bogota,
Colombia. It revealed that 34 per cent of students are aware of LGBT peers being excluded from
school activities [107].
The most prevalent form of violence reported in the region is verbal violence, followed by physical
violence, perpetrated by peers and educational staff in both public and private schools [40],
[54], [108].

47

FIGURE 10

PREVALENCE OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN LATIN AMERICA

ARGENTINA [109]

45% of transgender

students dropped out of school

either due to transphobic bullying
or to being excluded from school

CHILE [110]

33% of students have made

ECUADOR [111]

26% homosexual and

bisexual students have

experienced physical violence
throughout their student life

25% of students were

excluded from school activities for

being homosexual or bisexual

negative remarks in relation to

sexual orientation

COLOMBIA [107]

34% of students are aware

48

of LGBT peers being excluded from

school activities in the previous
month

In Chile, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru, a small-scale study13 among 18 to 24 year olds looking
at violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational institutions
in 2011 suggests that LGBT students frequently experienced insults and bullying [108]. Here, 88
to 96 per cent of all respondents reported hearing homophobic insults frequently or occasionally,
while LGBT respondents consistently reported higher levels of bullying than their peers.
A 2011 UNICEF study in Chile confirmed that homophobic insults are used frequently, with a
third of the surveyed students admitting making negative remarks in relation to sexual orientation

13 The 2011 study analysed data from 499 respondents aged from18 to 24 years old in four countries (Chile: 98; Guatemala: 111;
Mexico: 112; Peru: 178). While this data cannot be interpreted as representative, it can provide a useful insight into the experiences
of LGBTI people in these countries.

[110]. In Mexico, a study in 2009 found that two in five primary school students state that being
gay or lesbian is bad, as do a third of those in secondary school [112].
LGBT students in Latin America reported experiencing violence more frequently than their
heterosexual peers. For example, in the first national survey on homophobic bullying in Mexico
conducted by the Youth Coalition, COJESS Mxico and Eneache in 2012 75 per cent of
gay boys, 50 per cent of lesbian girls and 66 per cent of transgender young people reported
being subjected to some type of bullying at school, mainly through insults and mockery, but
also through physical and sexual violence [54]. In a 2013 study in Ecuador, 25 per cent of MSM
reported being excluded from school activities for being homosexual and 26 per cent report
suffering physical violence while studying [111].
Social exclusion is another common form of reported psychological violence in the region. In
Colombia, a 2014 survey of 87,000 students in secondary schools in Bogot revealed that 34
per cent of respondents were aware of LGBT peers being excluded from school activities in
the month preceding the study [107]. Yet the results of a multi-year study by the educational
authorities of the same city, published in 2012 and drawing on the largest sample available in
the region (118,000 students in Grades 611), show that homophobic stigma in schools has
decreased. Here, 70.3 per cent of respondents reported that they had not seen anyone be
rejected at school due to their homosexuality recently. This was up from 63.6 per cent in 2011
[113].
By contrast, a small-scale national study in Colombia, conducted by an LGBT NGO in 2012,
identified sustained levels of discrimination on the part of teachers and school staff, and
infrequent effective sanctions or support from school management [114].
In the Caribbean, a study from 2015 offers limited data on the scope of bullying in Jamaican
schools. Here, 64.9 per cent of students report having ever been bullied, with 70 per cent of these
saying that they were bullied within the school year just ending [106]. The UNICEF study stated
that, overall, the targets of bullying are anyone perceived to be weak or somewhat different
from others, particularly children who are outstandingly different in behaviour, physically or in
speech, including those perceived to be LGBT. Teachers also cited the following characteristics
for students who carry out bullying: boys who are quiet and soft spoken, children who may act
and look differently students who are less masculine, physically weak.
No data are available on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings from
other countries in the Caribbean. As of 2015, consensual same-sex sexual activity was illegal in
nine out of 14 states in the region.

49

2.5. North America

Since the 1990s and early 2000s, NGOs have collected extensive, reliable data on homophobic
and transphobic violence in educational settings in the United States and Canada (respectively)
[34], [60], [115][117]. Verbal violence is the most frequent manifestation of homophobic and
transphobic violence in the region, followed by physical harassment and bullying.
In the current decade, government authorities (both federal and state/provincial) have also turned
their attention to this kind of violence. They have recorded progress in relation to policy (such as
with an increasing number of school, state or federal policies developed to protect students from
homophobic and transphobic violence) and practice (such as with school communities knowing
more about the extent and nature of homophobic and transphobic violence and increasingly
learning to address it) [46].
Yet, according to studies ranging from 2006 to 2010, schools in North America remain unsafe for
a considerable number of LGBT students [118][120]. Homophobic and transphobic violence
in the region manifests mostly through verbal violence, followed by physical harassment and
bullying. The most common impact of such violence is lower self-esteem, poorer health and wellbeing, lower academic attainment and early school leaving.

FIGURE 11

PREVALENCE OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN NORTH AMERICA

CANADA [19], [60], [115]

50

70%

of students heard
homophobic comments daily

55% of transgender

students were bullied at least once

during their schooling

33%

of all male students

in grades 911 experienced
homophobic verbal harassment

UNITED STATES [34]

65%

of LGBT students heard

homophobic remarks frequently
or often

85% of LGBT students were

verbally harassed in the year prior

to the study

30% of LGBT students

missed school due to lack of safety

Large-scale studies in Canada have found that LGBT young people experience violence more
frequently than their non-LGBT peers. The British Columbia Adolescent Health Survey examined
the experiences of LGB young people in three research exercises (1992, 1998 and 2003). The
findings indicate that both boys and girls in Grades 712 experience more verbal harassment
when they are homosexual than when they are heterosexual [121].
In Ontario, a representative survey of 1,819 students in 2008 found that one third of all boys in
Grades 911 reported experiencing homophobic verbal harassment [6]. This illustrates how
such violence also affects non-LGBT students. A 2015 study of transgender young people found
that 55 per cent of school-aged respondents said they had been bullied once or more during
their schooling [122].
Examining data from several provinces, nationwide research in Canada in 2014 suggests that
homophobic speech is extremely prevalent in educational institutions, with 70.4 per cent of
students reporting hearing homophobic comments daily at school [116]. One in ten respondents
report experiencing physical violence attributed to their actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity/expression. This suggests that homophobic and transphobic violence remains
present in educational settings, although with a low prevalence.
In the United States, studies of homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings
have consistently found high rates of violence [123][127]. Nationwide, 2.5 per cent of schools
reported that harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity/expression had taken
place in the school year 200910 [128].14
A 2013 nationwide survey by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) of 7,898
LGBT students aged 1321 acknowledged progress in policy and practice. However, it also
highlighted that the great majority of LGBT students still reported homophobic or transphobic
verbal harassment at school [34]. Such students also frequently reported name calling and
teasing in schools as the most prevalent forms of homophobic violence ).
Transgender students in the United States also appear to suffer higher rates of violence than
their peers. A community survey of 295 such students in 2009 found that almost nine in ten
respondents had been verbally harassed due to their sexual orientation or gender identify/
expression [44].

2.6. The Pacific

In the Pacific region, Australia and New Zealand provide methodologically sound data on
homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings. This includes large-scale,
longitudinal surveys and specific data on the experiences of bisexual and transgender
individuals. Little data is available from elsewhere in the region.

14 Only a small percentage of the overall student population, 0.6 per cent, reported being called names in relation to their sexual
orientation. However, this data must be interpreted with caution, as this number is based on a small number of reports, below the
studys reporting standards.

51

FIGURE 12

PREVALENCE OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN THE PACIFIC

AUSTRALIA [68], [130]

25% of LGBT students

NEW ZEALAND [8]

17% of LGB secondary school

experienced physical violence during

physical education classes and

students are bullied weekly or

more

received threats
andinsults

LGB students are

33%

61% of LGBT young people

experienced psychological violence

in school

18% of LGBT young people

experienced physical violence in

school

+++ 3 times more

likely to be bullied than their

heterosexual peers
Transgender students are

+++
more likely
++ to5betimes
bullied than non-transgender
students

52

In Australia, a national study conducted by the La Trobe University on the sexual health and wellbeing of LGBT young people has taken place every six years since 1998. The 2010 report found
that psychological violence, notably insults, occurred more frequently than physical violence
(reported by 61 per cent and 18 per cent of respondents respectively). A great majority reported
other forms of psychological violence, including bullying, such as exclusion and rumours in
schools (69 per cent) [68]. Many of the students reported feeling unsafe at school, while the data

indicated higher levels of homophobic and transphobic violence in comparison to the previous
two studies (in 1998 and 2004) [131], [132].
Research supported by the government of New Zealand has, since 2001, addressed the
health and well-being of secondary school students every six years. The 2014 report found that
17 per cent of LGB respondents declared being bullied at school weekly or more frequently.
Among them, 46 per cent reported that the violence was due to their actual or perceived sexual
orientation. While LGB students were three times more likely to be bullied than their heterosexual
peers, transgender students were five times more likely to be bullied than their non-transgender
peers [8].
Studies in Australia and New Zealand have found that psychological violence is particularly
pervasive in physical education classes. Out on the Fields, an international study published in
2015, found that such classes were the second most likely place for homophobic behaviour to
occur in both countries [133]. In an Australian study in 2014, a quarter of LGBT students reported
experiencing physical violence in physical education classes. A third reported receiving threats
and insults, while four out of five reported homophobic language being used casually during
such lessons [130].

I have to take gym, and I dont feel safe in the locker rooms. I know
people will stare at me no matter which locker room I am in.
Student who identified as genderqueer, 5 Grade 10, US [34, p. 43]

53

3.
THE EDUCATION SECTOR

RESPONSE

55

3. THE EDUCATION SECTOR

RESPONSE
Section 3 shares scientific data, case studies and analysis of education sector responses
to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings. It starts by defining what
is meant by an education sector and national response. It outlines the frameworks and
principles that inform a comprehensive response and then describes what such a response
encompasses. It then details the six elements of a comprehensive response: effective policies;
relevant curricula and learning materials; training and support for staff; support for students
and families; information campaigns and strategic partnerships; and monitoring of violence
and evaluation of responses.

56

3.1. Why the education sector?

Homophobic and transphobic violence has an adverse impact on learning for all students and
on the health and well-being of students who are subjected to violence. Addressing homophobic
and transphobic violence in schools is critical to effective learning and inclusive and equitable
education, to achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and to meet human
rights commitments.
The education sector has a responsibility to provide safe and inclusive learning environments
that enable all children and young people to access quality education. Schools that are safe and
inclusive for all children and young people are essential for effective learning.

BOX 9 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY EDUCATION SECTOR?

The primary purpose of an education sector or system is to provide education to children and young
people in educational settings.
An education sector is comprised of many institutions (ministries of education, local educational authorities,
teacher training institutions, schools, universities, etc.) and involves a wide range of people (curriculum
developers, inspectors, school principals, teachers, school nurses, students, etc.). These institutions can
vary according to different contexts.
Schools deliver education, with support from the rest of the education system through various elements
such as education policies and guidelines to which school policies can refer , curricula and learning
materials, as well as pre- and in-service teacher training programmes. The school environment both
physical (infrastructures) and psychological (school climate) is also guided by school policies that should
ensure the well-being of students when they are in school.
What happens in schools is influenced by decisions made by educational authorities at different levels:
local, regional, state, national.
The education sector is fully integrated into society, through interactions with a large number of stakeholders
and other sectors. These include parents, local communities, religious leaders, NGOs, stakeholders
involved in health, child protection, justice and law enforcement (police), media and political leadership.

GLOBAL FRAMEWORKS TO GUIDE THE EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE

In any context, education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic violence should
be informed by, and should aim to fulfil, the international frameworks to which that country has
committed.
Several international human rights mechanisms mandate safe, accepting and supportive
learning environments that are free from violence and discrimination for all students. Together,
these frameworks support a rights-based response to violence in schools one that can be
applied to addressing homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings.
The right to education is recognized under: Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948); the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960); Article 13
of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966); Article 10 of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1981); and Article
28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989).
The Convention on the Rights of the Child is the most widely ratified human rights treaty in the
world. The original text, adopted in 1989, did not refer directly to sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression. However, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has specified how the
Convention can be used to protect children who are perceived to not conform to gender norms,
including LGBTI children. This is particularly through the Committees General Comments, which
interpret the content of the human rights provisions. For example, in 2003, the Committee clarified
in General Comment (GC #4), Paragraph 6, that States parties have the obligation to ensure that
all human beings below 18 enjoy all the rights set forth in the Convention without discrimination
(art. 2) [] These grounds also cover adolescents sexual orientation [134]. This, therefore,
recognized that the universal rights described by the Convention apply also to children who are
lesbian, gay or bisexual, or perceived as such.
Subsequently, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child made concluding observations
to several State Parties (which can be considered as jurisprudence). It also issued additional
General Comments related to the protection of the rights of LGBT children using the following
three articles of the Convention:

57

Article 2:

The right to non-discrimination.

Article 19:

The right to be protected against any form of physical or mental violence,

injury or abuse.

Article 24:

The right of the Child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
health [135].

Several past and current international development agendas also mandate learning environments
that are safe and inclusive for all students and guarantee their well-being, specifying or implying
that educational institutions should be free from violence.

BOX 10 UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION ON PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM BULLYING

The General Assembly, [...] recognizes that bullying, including cyber bullying, can have a potential longterm impact on the enjoyment of the human rights of children and negative effects on children affected by
or involved in bullying; [...] Encourages Member States to take all appropriate measures to prevent and
protect children, including in school, from any form of violence, including forms of bullying, by promptly
responding to such acts, and to provide appropriate support to children affected by and involved in
bullying.
UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/69/158 on Protecting Children from Bullying,
18 December 2014

UN Member States made a commitment to improve access to education through the Dakar
Framework for Action (2000), as part of the Education for All framework [136].

58

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (2000) aspired to achieve universal primary
education (Goal 2) and gender equality in education (Goal 3) by 2015. The new Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) (2015) aspire, among other targets, to inclusive and equitable
quality education for all (Goal 4) [see Box 11] [137].

BOX 11 PREVENTING AND ADDRESSING HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCEINEDUCATIONAL

SETTINGS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THESUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT GOALS
The SDGs are part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development agreed by all UN Member States
in September 2015. Countries set 17 goals and related targets to accelerate sustainable development.
Among those goals and targets, some can be directly referred to when advocating for and implementing
education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic violence:
Goal 3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages
Target 3.3

By 2030, end the epidemics of AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and neglected tropical
diseases and combat hepatitis, water-borne diseases and other communicable
diseases.

Target 3.4

By 2030, reduce by one-third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases

through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.

Target 3.4

Strengthen the prevention and treatment of substance use, including narcotic drug
abuse and harmful use of alcohol.

Target 3.7

By 2030, ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services,

including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of
reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.

How is this relevant to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings? As evidence in
this report confirms, homophobic and transphobic violence has very negative impacts on the physical and mental
health of the children and young people it targets. The prevalence of suicide attempts is much higher amongst
LGBTI students than their heterosexual peers, often because they are bullied. As a result of low self-esteem
and, sometimes, anxiety and depression, they are more likely to engage in high-risk behaviours. These include:
drug use; the harmful use of alcohol; and non-protected sexual intercourse, exposing them to transmission of
HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Such students need age-appropriate comprehensive sexuality
education that meets their needs, particularly by covering issues related to sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression.
Goal 4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities
for all
Target 4.1

By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary
and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.

Target 4.4

By 2030, substantially increase the number of youth and adults who have relevant
skills, including technical and vocational skills, for employment, decent jobs and
entrepreneurship.

Target 4.5

By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all
levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with
disabilities, indigenous people and children in vulnerable situations.

Target 4.7

By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote
sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable
development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of
a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural
diversity and of cultures contribution to sustainable development.

Target 4.a

Build and upgrade education facilities that are child-, disability- and gender-sensitive
and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

How is this relevant to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings? This report
shows that homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings has dramatic impacts on the children
and young people that it targets, in terms of access to school, absenteeism, school dropout and academic
performance. It is, therefore, an obstacle to the right to quality education of many children and young people
throughout the world. It also has negative impacts on the employability of some young people. Data from
several regions reveal that transgender people are routinely denied access to school or are expelled and,
therefore have a very low level of education. A significant number of them end up seeing sex work as the only
or easiest way to earn a living.
In most countries, LGBTI students are already particularly vulnerable. Homophobic and transphobic violence
in educational settings makes them even more vulnerable. The only way to address these vulnerabilities is to
ensure that: educational institutions are safe for absolutely all students; and education teaches the knowledge
and skills to build societies that challenge harmful gender norms and are respectful of human rights and diversity.
Goal 5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
Target 5.1

End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

Target 5.2

Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private
spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation.

59

How is this relevant to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings? Girls who are
lesbian, alongside male-to-female transgender children and young people, suffer double discrimination. They
are often discriminated against because of both: their gender and their sexual orientation (lesbians) or gender
identity/expression (male-to-female transgender people). In some countries, lesbians are the targets of sexual
violence, including corrective rape that aims to force them to change their sexual orientation. In many countries,
physical violence, including murder, particularly targets male-to-female transgender people. In some regions,
they are sexually exploited and disproportionally engage in sex work, as a result of being denied the right to
attend school and the subsequent lack of work opportunities.
Goal 10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
Target 10.2.

By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all,
irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other
status.

How is this relevant to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings? Education
sectors should prevent and address homophobic and transphobic violence both: within educational settings,
by making all institutions safe for LGBTI students; and through education, by changing beliefs, attitudes and
behaviours that discriminate against LGBTI people and exclude them from society.
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to
justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

60

Target 16.1

Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

Target 16.2

End abuse, exploitation, trafficking and all forms of violence against and torture of
children.

Target 16.b

Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable

development.

How is this relevant to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings? By preventing
and addressing homophobia and transphobia in school settings, education sector responses can also reduce
homophobic and transphobic violence in society in general. The recognition of the rights of transgender children
can contribute to ending sexual exploitation, including of male-to-female transgender people in some regions
of the world. Non-discriminatory and inclusive education sector and school-level policies are a key element of a
comprehensive and effective response to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings.

In September 2014, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a ground-breaking resolution

condemning all forms of violence against people based on sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression. It also called on the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to review the evidence
and good practice [138].15 The May 2015 report of the Commissioner recommends that States
should take action to end discrimination and violence against LGBTI persons. This includes
by establishing national standards on non-discrimination in education, developing anti-bullying
programmes and establishing helplines and other services to support LGBT and gender nonconforming youth, and providing comprehensive, age-appropriate sexuality education [137].
In September 2015, in an unprecedented joint initiative 12 UN agencies, including UNESCO
issued a powerful joint call to action on ending violence and discrimination against LGBTI adults,
adolescents and children [139]. The call states that: Children face bullying, discrimination or
expulsion from schools on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender
identity, or that of their parents, and that States should uphold international human rights
standards on non-discrimination, including by prohibiting discrimination against LGBTI adults,
adolescents and children in all contexts including in education.
15 Asia-Pacific countries voting in favour included: Japan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, and Viet Nam. Asia-Pacific countries voting
against included: Indonesia, Maldives and Pakistan. Asia-Pacific countries abstaining included: China, India and Kazakhstan.

REGIONAL FRAMEWORKS TO GUIDE THE EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE

There are also regional instruments (binding treaties and non-binding ministerial declarations
and resolutions) that guarantee students right to education. Although these regional instruments
(including binding treaties) guarantee the right to education for all, the European Convention
on Human Rights and the European Social Charter are the only regional treaties with explicit
references to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in their jurisprudence and can
be referred to in relation to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings [see
Box 12].

BOX 12 REGIONAL INSTRUMENTS THAT GUARANTEE STUDENTS RIGHT TO EDUCATION

Africa:
The African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (1986) recognizes the right to education.
Latin America and the Caribbean:
17 states signed the San Salvador Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights (1969), with
Article 13 establishing that education policies must aim to protect and uphold human rights.
The Ministers of Education and Health of Latin America adopted the Mexico City Ministerial Declaration
Educating to Prevent (2008) [140]. This establishes the need for comprehensive sexuality education and
refers to discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
Between 2008 and 2012, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States adopted five
resolutions condemning acts of violence and human rights violations perpetrated against individuals
because of their sexual orientation and gender identity [141]. This included a landmark resolution on
human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity (2011) [142].
Asia:
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations Human Rights Declaration (2012) recognizes the right to
education.
Europe:
The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950)
recognizes the right to education.
The Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member states on measures to combat
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity (2010) calls on the Council of Europes
47 members to ensure that the right to education can be effectively enjoyed without discrimination on
grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity [143] [see Box 13].
The European Social Charter guarantees the right to the protection of health, including through the
provision of advisory and educational facilities [144]. This positive obligation extends to ensuring
that educational materials do not reinforce demeaning stereotypes and perpetuate forms of prejudice
which contribute to the social exclusion, embedded discrimination and denial of human dignity often
experienced by historically marginalized groups such as persons of non-heterosexual orientation [145].

61

BOX 13 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS (2010)

The Recommendation to member states on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual
orientation or gender identity was adopted unanimously by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of
Europe in 2010. It advises the education sectors of the 47 member states to take measures at all levels
to promote mutual tolerance and respect in schools, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
It specifies that this should include providing objective information with respect to sexual orientation
and gender identity, for instance in school curricula and educational materials, and providing pupils and
students with the necessary information, protection and support to enable them to live in accordance with
their sexual orientation and gender identity.
The recommendation further advises countries to design and implement school equality and safety
policies and action plans and may ensure access to adequate anti-discrimination training or support and
teaching aids [143]. 16

Within the United Nations, 75 Member States outlaw consensual sexual relations, relationships
between adults of the same sex or the public discussion of sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression. In such contexts, these and other legal restrictions make it difficult to collect
evidence that homophobic and transphobic violence exists in educational settings and must
be addressed. A notable exception is Jamaica, where, although consensual same-sex activity
is illegal, the Minister of Education has commissioned research into the impact of homophobic
bullying [106]. As of 2015, the Minister sought to mention homophobic bullying in the next version
of the national anti-bullying guidelines.

62

In many other countries, while LGBTI people are not criminalized, a hostile social climate can
still make it difficult for the education sector to address homophobic and transphobic violence in
educational settings. Same-sex relationships are still considered as a disease by many people,
even though the General Assembly of the World Health Organization removed homosexuality
from their list of mental disorders in May 1990. In these contexts, homophobic and transphobic
violence can be partly prevented and addressed through policies and programmes on violence
in schools in general, including school-related gender-based violence.

3.2. What are the key principles for education sector responses to
homophobic and transphobic violence?
Analysis of policy and practice has identified a number of key principles that provide the
foundation for effective education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic violence
and support safe and inclusive learning environments. Effective education sector responses are
(see Figure 12):
$$ Rights-based A rights-based response protects the human rights of all students,
including the right to education, safety, dignity, health, equal opportunities and freedom from
discrimination.
$$ Learner-centred and inclusive A learner-centred and inclusive response addresses the
different perspectives, needs and experiences of all students. Lesbian girls and women,
gay boys and men, bisexual people, male-to-female and female-to-male transgender people
and intersex people do not necessarily have the same perspectives, experiences or needs.
Responses must also bear in mind the perspectives and needs of students who may not be
16 The paragraph concludes with a sentence, originally added by the Russian Federation, that such measures should take into account
the rights of parents regarding education of their children.

LGBTI themselves, but who may be the target of homophobic and transphobic violence due
to their perceived sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
$$ Participatory Students or elected students representatives should be involved in the
design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of education sector responses to violence.
In Ireland and Malta, policies to protect transgender students from violence in schools have
been developed with youth and LBGTI organizations to ensure that policies respond to their
needs.
$$ Gender-responsive and transformative A gender-responsive and transformative response
takes account of all genders and gender identities as well as gender equality and challenges
gender-related discrimination and harmful stereotypes. It also aims to transform existing
structures, institutions and gender relations so that they are based on gender equality. In
Thailand, transgender students in some secondary schools can choose their uniform, based
on the principle that students well-being is more important than norms about gender and
clothing.
$$ Evidence-based An evidence-based response draws on scientific evidence and expert
opinion from disciplines including public health, psychology and social science and ensures
that education stakeholders are aware of relevant evidence.
$$ Age-appropriate Information and support should be consistent with a students actual
and developmental age. An age-appropriate response addresses issues related to sexual
orientation, gender identity and gender expression in a way that students can relate to
safely. In Spain, the Ministry of Health, Social Services and Equal Opportunities published a
guidebook for the education sector to respond to homophobia and transphobia in educational
settings including resources for students at different ages and levels of the education system.
$$ Context specific and culturally sensitive Responses to homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational settings need to be tailored to the social, cultural and legal context.
Some contexts are more challenging than others, but experience shows that it is possible
to address such violence even in challenging contexts, using appropriate entry points and
approaches. In the United States, for example, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network (GLSEN) has used an approach and terminology that are consistent with national
values, including the right to quality education as a key civil right that guarantees equal
opportunities.

When I finally found

out what faggot
and gaymeant,
Irealized that these
insults were forme.
Diogo, 25, Gay, Portugal

63

FIGURE 13

ALL STUDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEARN SAFELY:

PRINCIPLES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE TO HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC
VIOLENCE

RIGHTS-BASED

CONTEXT-SPECIFIC
AND CULTURALLY
SENSITIVE

LEARNER-CENTRED
AND INCLUSIVE

ALL STUDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT

TO LEARN SAFELY:
AGE-APPROPRIATE

PRINCIPLES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION SECTOR

RESPONSE TO HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE

PARTICIPATORY

64
EVIDENCE-BASED

GENDER-RESPONSIVE
AND TRANSFORMATIVE

3.3. What is a comprehensive education sector response?

Work conducted in countering violence in schools in general has shown that school and system
wide interventions, often referred to as whole school strategies or approaches, are particularly
effective [124], [146]. The same applies to education sector responses to homophobic and
transphobic violence. In this report, whole school responses to homophobic and transphobic
violence are also referred to as comprehensive education sector responses, which can also be
referred to as holistic, systematic, systemic, system-wide.
A comprehensive education sector response to homophobic and transphobic violence
encompasses all of the following elements:
$$ Effective policies National and school policies on how to prevent and address school-related
violence including homophobic and transphobic violence, are the foundation for an effective
response. Such policies can provide guidance on, for example, roles and responsibilities,
training required by teachers and other staff, interventions to prevent violence, mechanisms
for reporting incidents of violence, support for students, and monitoring and evaluation. At
school level, policies are often translated into codes of conduct for staff and students.

$$ Relevant curricula and learning materials Curricula provide teachers and other education
stakeholders with clear guidelines on what students should learn at different ages, and
learning materials usually reflect what is in the curriculum. The inclusion of sexual orientation
and gender identity and expression in curricula and learning materials is critical to ensure
that teachers address these issues in the classroom. Ensuring that curricula and learning
materials convey positive rather than negative messages about these issues is equally critical.
$$ Training and support for staff School staff, especially school principals and teachers,
are central to an effective response. They play a central role in influencing the school and
classroom environment and student attitudes and, more specifically, in preventing violence
and responding to it if it occurs. However, teachers and other staff need appropriate training
and support from school management to enable them to address the issue of homophobic
and transphobic violence, and to avoid inadvertently conveying negative messages about
sexual and gender diversity.
$$ Support for students and families Schools and other educational institutions need to have
measures in place to provide effective support to students who are the targets of homophobic
and transphobic violence as well as to their families, the perpetrators of violence, bystanders
and other students affected by violence. Policies that provide guidance on delivery of support,
for example, in school or through referral to other services, play a critical role.
$$ Information and strategic partnerships Partnerships between the education sector and
other actors can enhance the quality and effectiveness of interventions to prevent and address
homophobic and transphobic violence in schools and, more specifically, the relevance and
accuracy of information provided to educators and students. Partnerships with civil society,
in particular with LGBTI NGOs, can contribute to successful responses.
$$ Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation are critical for evidence-based policy
making. Monitoring the nature, prevalence and impacts of homophobic and transphobic
violence is critical to the design and planning of appropriate interventions. Monitoring and
evaluating the effectiveness of interventions is also critical to ensure that they are having the
desired impact.

FIGURE 14

VIOLENCE-FREE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS:

THE ELEMENTS OF A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE TO HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC
VIOLENCE

EFFECTIVE POLICIES

SUPPORT FOR
STUDENTS AND
FAMILIES

RELEVANT
CURRICULA
AND LEARNING
MATERIALS

INFORMATION AND
STRATEGIC
PARTNERSHIPS

TRAINING AND
SUPPORT FOR STAFF

MONITORING
OF VIOLENCE
AND EVALUATION
OF RESPONSES

65

A comprehensive education sector response is also comprehensive in terms of:

$$ Scope The response takes steps to both prevent and address homophobic and transphobic
violence, i.e. it includes strategies for primary prevention of and for responding to violence.
$$ Actors The response involves all relevant stakeholders i.e. education ministries, local
education authorities, teacher training institutions, schools, universities, curriculum developers,
inspectors, school principals, teachers, school nurses, students, parents, communities, and
other sectors.
$$ Scale A comprehensive response is implemented at national and sub-national levels, i.e. at
provincial, state and district level depending on the country context, not just in a few schools.

BOX 14 WHAT IS A NATIONAL LEVEL EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE?

This report focuses on education sector responses at the national level, i.e. responses implemented by
each country. However it is important to acknowledge that the education sector is organized differently
depending on the context. In each country, there are usually several decision-making levels regarding
education policies, including a range of educational authorities and institutions that make decisions in
different areas of education. The levels of autonomy for the implementation of those policies, and the
mechanisms for accountability, also vary depending on the context. The geographical levels likely to be
involved in policy-making and/or implementation include:
national level, including one or several ministries of education
state or regional level, in federal countries (such as Germany, India and USA) or in countries where
regional authorities have broad powers in relation to education (such as Belgium and Spain)
local level, such as district or municipality
school (educational institution) level

66

In countries with a centralized political and administrative system, most decisions are usually made at the
national level, while the autonomy of the other levels, including educational institutions, can be limited. For
example: there is usually a national curriculum for each subject and national teaching materials based on
those curricula; and all educational institutions in the country have to deliver the same content, using the
same materials and methods. Meanwhile, in federal countries, educational policies are mostly developed
at the state level and there might not be a single, national curriculum per subject. In some countries, local
educational authorities have extensive powers in various areas, such as the recruitment and training of
teachers.
Finally, depending on the context, schools can be more or less autonomous in terms of the teaching
methods used and, for example, the design of specific school policies. Therefore, this report recognizes
that, in practice, within some countries, responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings are not national per se and vary according to states, regions or even districts and schools.

FIGURE 15

TACKLING HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE:

A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE INVOLVES THE WHOLE EDUCATION COMMUNITY

Political leadership

National policies
and laws

Protection
policies
Education policies
and guidelines

Media

Child protection
system

School policies
School
infrastructure

School
leadership

NGOs

LEARNER

Curriculum

Extra-curricular
activities

Health
services

SCHOOL

Training and
support for
teachers

EDUCATION
SECTOR

Health
policies
Counselling
services

SOCIETY

Justice system
Teacher
training and
resources

Parents

Local
communities
Religion

Source: Adapted from UNESCO. 2015. Asia-Pacific Consultation on School Bullying Based on Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity / Expression Meeting Report. Bangkok, Thailand, p.10.

67

CASE STUDIES AUSTRALIA, CANADA AND THAILAND: A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO

HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
In Australia, the Safe Schools Coalitions approach actively supports the establishment of Gay
Straight Alliances (GSAs) and other youth-led initiatives for peer support and information. It also
provides professional development for teachers and other school staff that can be tailored to
schools specific needs. It has developed guidelines on non-discrimination, bullying and diversity
policies and a broad set of resources, including books and videos [147].
The Ontario Teachers Federation and Center in Canada developed and delivered a Safe@School
initiative. This included workshops for students, school staff and parents that address topics such as
bullying, homophobia, sexual harassment and gender-based discrimination. Safe@School resource
kits have been distributed to all Ontario schools and boards [148].
In Thailand, UNESCO, Plan International and other partners are working to implement a pilot
programme in Bangkok and Chiang Mai. This aims to prevent school bullying and other forms of
violence and to make schools more gender-responsive environments for all students regardless of
their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. The programme is designed to test embedding
policies and practices into the curriculum and daily life of the participating schools.

WHAT ARE THE STAGES IN DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATIONAL

RESPONSE TO HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE?

68

Progress in implementing measures to prevent and address homophobic and transphobic

violence in educational settings varies between regions and countries. The most comprehensive
initiatives are being implemented in Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the United
States, and a number of countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America. However, the education
sector response has been limited in the majority of countries in the world, particularly in Africa,
the Caribbean, the Middle East, Central Asia and some areas of the Pacific. In addition, it is
important to note that many countries do not have comprehensive strategies to prevent and
address violence in schools in general.
In general terms, the range of responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings appears to correlate to a countrys: socio-cultural context (in terms of the societys
beliefs and attitudes towards sexual and gender diversity, as well as to human rights and gender
equality); and legal context (in terms of the rights of LGBTI individuals and the situation of human
rights in general).
Overall, education sector responses tend to focus on homophobia and violence linked to sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression, and less on transphobia. Most responses focus in
some way on diverse expressions of gender and support students to understand that gender
may be expressed in a different way from binary models (of masculine and feminine). Responses
vary greatly in their: scope (from a single class to the national level); duration (from one-off
events to several years); and level of support that they enjoy (from individual teachers to the
highest levels of government).
In most contexts where they exist, education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational settings are relatively young. Only a small number in the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom and the United States have been evaluated.
As outlined in Table 1, experiences to date suggest three types of national education sector
responses to homophobic and transphobic violence:
$$ External response
$$ Selected response

$$ Comprehensive response
All countries while responding to their specific context and progressing at an appropriate pace
should work towards developing and implementing a comprehensive response. This kind of
response tends to require more planning and resources (human, financial and technical) than
external or selected responses (defined in Table 1). However, they are more likely to be effective
and sustainable.
While most countries do not have any specific responses to homophobic and transphobic
violence, they may take action to address violence in schools in general, such as through antibullying policies. While better than no action at all, such responses are usually inadequate if
they do not address the specificities of violence that is based on sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression.
Overall, responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings evolve over
time. The tendency witnessed in all regions is for education sectors to first allow or encourage
external responses, then to implement selected responses and occasionally to later adopt
comprehensive responses. Each type of response may help to make the case to consider moving
to the next level. The pace of evolution depends on diverse factors, such as the resources and
leadership available. It can also be disrupted, for example, if there is a change in the political
environment.

External response

TABLE 1 TYPES OF NATIONAL, STATE OR REGIONAL EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSE TO HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC
VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Description of Response

Advantages of this
type of response

Challenges to response

Designed and implemented by actors outside the

education sector, such as NGOs promoting the rights
of students or LGBTI people. Usually implemented
at the community or institution level or in selected
educational institutions only.

Allows a response
to violence with or
without support
from the whole
education sector.

The scope is proportional

to the (often limited)
resources available to the
implementers.

Example: In Poland, Campaign Against Homophobia,

an NGO, works with teachers unions, the Centre for
Education Development, local teacher training offices
and some school directors to help secondary schools
to plan, coordinate and monitor anti-discrimination
programmes and activities.

Can be flexible
and adaptable to
the context.
Helps build
the case for a
selected and/or
comprehensive
response by the
education sector
in the future.

Interventions are
implemented only at the
request of educational
authorities and, therefore,
can stop at any time.
Funding may be temporary
and, unless they are
conducted on a totally
voluntary basis, responses
might not be sustainable.
Sustainability may also be
an issue if implementation
depends only on volunteers
as their retention in NGOs
is often problematic.
It is rarely evaluated, with
effectiveness and efficiency
difficult to measure over
time.

69

Selected response
Comprehensive response

70

Description of Response

Advantages of this
type of response

Challenges to response

Designed and implemented by the education sector,

including decision-makers at different levels, and
possibly in partnership with other actors outside
the education sector to address homophobic and
transphobic violence during a limited period of time
(such as one year) or with a limited scope (such as
Grade 11 students only). Usually designed by the
education sector at a national or state level, although
sometimes implemented with a limited geographical
scope.

Responds to
specific, identified
needs.

Rarely addresses all

aspects of homophobic
and transphobic violence,
focusing on just one or two
elements (such as curricula)
leading to an incomplete
response.

Example: In 2011, in Taiwan of China, the Ministry of

Education announced that courses related to gender
equality (that had been taught in senior high school
since 2004) would be expanded to primary and junior
high schools [7].

If evaluated, can
produce data
over several years
to determine its
effectiveness.

Designed and implemented by the education sector at

the national level (or state/regional level in countries
where the education system is fully decentralized),
possibly in partnership with other actors to
systematically and comprehensively address
homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
institutions. Encompasses all or most of the elements
needed for an effective response (see Box 14).
Example: Australia has already institutionalised a
national whole-school programme that addresses
discrimination and school-violence including bullying
based on sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression or intersex characteristics. Although it
is important to note that this program has recently
been questioned by a new government. It is crucial
that progress keep being made. Countries such as
Canada, Ireland, Malta and the United Kingdom are
moving towards the development of comprehensive
responses, although scale up implementation has not
been evaluated.

Is flexible and
adaptable to the
context.
Helps build the
case for future
comprehensive
responses.

May be limited in time and

subject to changing political
support.

Several years are usually

Responds
needed to build the case for
lastingly to
a comprehensive response
homophobic
and to implement it.
and transphobic
violence on a large It requires high-level political
scale.
commitment to start.
Establishes a
clear and effective
commitment
to addressing
homophobic
and transphobic
violence.
Produces data
over several years
to determine their
effectiveness and
impact.

In general terms, external responses are easier to implement and can be deployed in most
contexts, including where there is little political support for issues related to sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression. Selected responses are less common, only seen where
education sector leadership at some level supports such issues. Comprehensive responses
are less common still, usually requiring support at the highest level of the education sector, for
example at the ministerial level.
In education sectors that are evolving from no response to an external response, the sectors
knowledge of homophobic and transphobic violence, and the political will to address it, may be
limited. A further challenge may be the resources of NGOs that, for example, may be limited to
specific contexts (such as only in the capital city or only in some schools).
In education sectors that are evolving from external to selected responses, the sector has often
commissioned or acknowledged emerging reliable research into homophobic and transphobic
violence, or sometimes reacts to specific cases of violence. They assess existing research and
external responses and may start lending initial support such as by vetting NGOs to speak
in schools, by offering pre- or in-service teacher training or by establishing a day of awareness
or support. This scaling up from community-level or institution-level responses to a wider level
requires reliable evidence to demonstrate that selected responses are needed. It also often
requires intense advocacy by civil society. There is no one-size-fits-all model.

Education sectors evolving from selected to comprehensive responses do so within the

framework of broader responses to school-related violence including bullying in general. The
sector builds on its experience with existing (external and selected) responses to establish clear
objectives. In so doing, they often strengthen their relationships with relevant NGOs and external
experts. This evolution requires subscribing to the objective of combating homophobic and
transphobic violence in educational settings, often at the highest political levels. This is made
possible thanks to policy-makers in relevant ministries having previously acquainted themselves
with sexual orientation and gender identity/expression issues. It is also often thanks to strategic
partnerships between the education sector and NGOs pushing for change. In this process,
education sector leaders can face political opposition to varying degrees, which can influence
the pace or depth of progress.
There is no one-size-fits-all response for every context. As such, the responses shared in this
report take into account legal and socio-cultural realities.
Whatever the context, and in countries where the education sector has not done anything
yet to prevent and address homophobic and transphobic violence specifically because of a
challenging social and legal context in relation to sexual and gender diversity, it is important that
efforts are situated within wider anti-violence/bullying initiatives that promote anti-discriminatory
thinking and respect for all.

CASE STUDY IRELAND: DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO HOMOPHOBIC

AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
In 2013, Ireland adopted a new comprehensive national plan to address bullying in schools,
including homophobic and transphobic bullying. Key steps in the process included:
2005: Producing evidence. Through research, BeLonGTo, a youth NGO, identified a link between
coming out and self-harm for LGBT children and young people. This led to the group being
recognized as a key population in the National Suicide Prevention Strategy.
20092011: Widening the evidence base. Two additional pieces of research, commissioned by
NGOs, generated evidence about the mental health of LGBT people and the lives of older LGBT
people, starting a national conversation about daily realities for the LGBT community.
2010: Pledging action. Teachers unions and LGBT and youth NGOs presented the evidence
to political and education sector leaders ahead of a national election, asking for action. The
political parties forming a government committed to developing anti-bullying policies (including
addressing homophobic bullying) in their programme.
2012: Getting to work. The Department of Education and Skills organized the first public antibullying forum and started an anti-bullying working group, which included policy-makers, experts
and NGOs.
2013: A new policy. The Ministers for Education and Skills and for Children and Youth Affairs jointly
launched the National Action Plan on Bullying, which referred to homophobic and transphobic
bullying. The plan included financial support for information campaigns, LGBT-sensitive school
inspections and training teachers on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression issues.
It also included incorporating homophobic and transphobic bullying into new mandatory antibullying procedures for all schools.
2015: Guidelines for implementation. The government issued national anti-bullying procedures
to help primary and post-primary schools to implement the National Action Plan on Bullying [149].

71

3.4. How is the education sector responding to homophobic and

transphobic violence?
3.4.1.

Effective policies

Few countries have developed education sector policies to prevent and address homophobic
and transphobic violence in schools, reflecting the fact that recognition of the prevalence and
harmful impact of such violence in the sector is a relatively recent development. Most countries
that have developed policies have taken one of the two following approaches:
$$ Integrating references to sexual orientation and gender identity or to homophobic and
transphobic discrimination and violence into existing education sector policies on general
violence, bullying or discrimination.
$$ Developing specific education sector policies that focus on violence and discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

72

The first approach aims to protect and support LGBTI students by mainstreaming issues
related to sexual orientation and gender identity into broader policies to prevent and address
discrimination and violence. However, available data suggest that in countries where policies
do not clearly refer to homophobic and transphobic violence, this form of violence may not be
addressed by schools. For example, a large-scale qualitative research study conducted in 19
European countries in 2013 by the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency concluded that:
Where anti-bullying measures are in place, these are often generic and they may be ineffective
in dealing specifically with bullying on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity
[150].
The second approach requires political leadership and a legal environment that is conducive
to the protection of the rights of LGBTI people. A number of countries have developed specific
education sector policies that address homophobic and transphobic violence in schools and
other educational settings (see Figure 15).

My school days
were basically
me hiding, hating
myself and never
really knowing
why.
Mia, age 22, trans woman, Sweden

NATIONAL POLICIES
National policies and plans are a key opportunity for governments to demonstrate leadership
on addressing homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings and creating an
enabling environment. They provide a common vision of what an issue means to a country and
what actions it considers most important.

I want every single LGBT young person to know that I am on their

side, and that this government will do everything it can to make
sure that their time in school is a happy one, that allows them to be
themselves and achieve all that they are capable of.
Nicky Morgan, UK Secretary for Education, speech given at the Stonewall Education Conference, 10 July
2015, London

The nature of national policies and legislation of relevance to homophobic and transphobic
violence varies greatly between countries, for example, reflecting legal traditions and political
contexts. In several countries, national constitutions forbid discrimination based on sexual
orientation and, less often, gender identity/expression.17 Although, symbolically, they offer the
highest possible legal protection, such constitutional rights may be difficult to operationalize
including in the education sector if they are not translated into practical laws and policies.
Broad national anti-discrimination policies refer to sexual orientation or gender identity/expression
in a number of countries, particularly in Asia, North America, Western and Central Europe, and
the Pacific.18, 19 In Europe, there is a notable trend to adopt national action plans or strategies to
secure the enjoyment of human rights by LGBTI people. These often include measures related
to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings.

17 States that constitutionally outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and less frequently gender identity, include Austria,
parts of Argentina, Bolivia, parts of Brazil, Canada, Ecuador, Finland, parts of Germany, Kosovo, Malta, Mexico, Norway, Portugal,
Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland [29], [264].
18 This review relied on several sources to establish the existence of anti-discrimination legislation, and does not offer a comprehensive
global overview of these laws.
19 States with anti-discrimination legislation covering sexual orientation, and less frequently gender identity, include Albania, Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, parts of China (Taiwan), Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Fiji, Finland, FYR Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Kosovo, Lithuania, Malta, Montenegro, The Netherlands,
New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Timor-Leste, the United
Kingdom and parts of the United States.

73

FIGURE 16

COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES WITH POLICIES

ADDRESSING HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

EUROPE

Belgium, France, parts of

Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta,
Montenegro, The Netherlands,
Norway, Serbia, parts of
Spain, Sweden, the United
Kingdom

LATIN
AMERICA

Argentina,
Uruguay5

AFRICA

South Africa

ASIA

the Philippines,
Taiwan of China,
Thailand5

PACIFIC

74

Australia, Fiji,
NewZealand

National legislation against discrimination (as a whole) has served as a basis to develop
national policies which either include, or are specific to, the education sector that address
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. In general,
the education sector tends to address homophobic and transphobic violence through wider
policies on violence, such as those related to bullying in schools or safe schools.
In Asia, the Philippines is the only country to include specific references to violence on the basis
of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in a national law (2013) [7] (see case study
below). In Japan, in 2015, the Ministry of Education issued landmark guidance urging local
education boards to ensure that schools cater to the needs of LGBT students [7]. At a more
local level, the 2004 Gender Equity Education Act in Taiwan of China seeks to eliminate gender
stereotypes from the curriculum and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
in schools [7]. However, a regional report developed for this review notes that implementation
measures for this Act may be inadequate to effectively prevent and address discrimination [7].
All other countries in the Asia region, apart from Pakistan, have legal or policy frameworks to
address violence in educational institutions or the health of minors, although they vary in their
nature and jurisdiction [7]. In India, following a 2014 ruling by the Supreme Court recognizing
the status of Hijras, the University Grants Commission called on all universities to recognize
transgender students and to include a transgender category on all application forms, academic
testimonials and official documents [66].

CASE STUDY THE PHILIPPINES: THE ANTI-BULLYING ACT 2013

In the Philippines, local and international research had documented alarming rates of bullying
and violence in schools [7], [25]. This encouraged policy-makers to produce bullying prevention
schemes. In 2012, the Department of Education started developing a unified policy to prevent and
manage school violence, arguing for a zero-tolerance approach.
The resulting Anti-Bullying Act, passed in 2013, requires all schools, both public and private, to adopt
policies to prevent and address all acts of bullying. It specifically addresses cyber bullying and refers
to gender-based bullying (described as any act that humiliates or excludes a person on the basis of
perceived or actual sexual orientation and gender identity). The Act defines the: nature of bullying
behaviour and prohibited acts; prevention and intervention programmes, including procedures to
handle incidents of bullying; duties and responsibilities within educational communities; training
and development; requirement for monitoring; and sanctions for non-compliance.
However, in the year following the Act, only 38 per cent of schools submitted their child protection
or anti-bullying policies. This low rate was attributed to low awareness of what the Act required,
combined with weak monitoring by the Department of Education. The Department issued a further
memorandum to clarify the data submission requirements and is working to build the sectors
capacity to implement the policy.
The Anti-Bullying Act will be integrated into teachers pre-service training, while Child Protection
Specialists will be trained nationwide. The Department of Education is working with NGOs and
experts to establish minimum standards on sexuality education that include gender-based bullying
and bullying on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. These standards will
be tested in the main regions before being implemented nationwide.

In North America, in 2002, the Supreme Court in Canada ruled that LGBT students and same-sex
parents had the right to be safe from discrimination and to see their lives reflected in the school
curriculum [151], [152]. In 2005, it ruled that school districts were liable for the discriminatory
conduct of the students who harassed and that they had a duty to provide students with an
educational environment that does not expose them to discriminatory harassment [153]. The
Ontario Education Act of Canada was amended in 2012 to specifically integrate attention to
homophobic bullying following several years of amendments to Safe School legislation [154].
The Act strengthened legal obligations for school boards to foster positive school environments
and to prevent and address inappropriate student behaviour, including homophobic or
transphobic violence. For example, principals must suspend students and consider expulsion
for misbehaviour that is motivated by bias, prejudice or hatred, including that which is based on
gender, sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. School boards must provide support
for victims of bullying, witnesses and perpetrators. In Quebec, legislation was adopted in 2012
for schools to provide healthy and safe learning environments, allowing every student to develop
their full potential regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression [155].
In the United States, LGBT students are not protected under federal legislation. However, in
2010, the Department of Education issued guidance to specify that federal provisions outlawing
discrimination on the basis of sex in education (Title IX) also offered some protection against
bullying on the basis of sexual orientation [156]. In 2014, it extended this protection on the
grounds of gender identity [157]. The Department of Justice also clarified that transgender
students must be allowed to use restrooms that correspond to their gender identity and that
failure to do so amounts to sex discrimination under Title IX.
In Latin America and the Caribbean, Argentina is the only country that offers a full normative
framework to tackle sexual orientation and gender identity/expression issues in educational contexts
through the National Law on Integral Sexuality Education (2006) (26.150), the National Law on
Education (2006) (26.206), the National Law for the Promotion of Coexistence and Tackling Social
Conflict in Educational Institutions (2013) (26.892) and a federal guide for educational responses for

75

addressing challenging situations linked to school life. The guide also contains a specific section on
discrimination and harassment due to sexual orientation or gender identity/expression.
In 2015, the Constitutional Court of Colombia and the Supreme Court of Mexico found that bullying
undermined victims dignity, integrity and education [158] and that the education sector had a direct
duty to protect students from violence based on their personal characteristics.
In Uruguay, the General Law on Education (2014) includes a general reference to non-discrimination
due to sexual orientation. In El Salvador, the General Law on Youth, while not referring to sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression, recognizes and guarantees the right to integral
comprehensive sexuality education (2013). Also the General Law on Educations article 5-A
condemns inequalities and discriminatory practices between or towards students when based on
traditional gendered roles (1990).
Other countries have instruments to prevent and counter discrimination or violence, including
bullying. Examples include the following:
In Chile, Law 20.609 (2012) and the Law on Education (2009) are in place to counter discrimination in
general and can also be applied to a school setting. However, as none of the laws are LGBT-specific,
addressing homophobic and transphobic violence is left at the discretion of individual schools.
In Colombia, no specific policy exists to tackle homophobic and transphobic violence. Law 1620
(from 2013) and the Regulatory Decree (1965) establish minimal norms for applying the Integral
Roadmap for Educational Community Living and its protocols, in order to prevent and mitigate
situations affecting school community living and the exercising of human, sexual and reproductive
rights,

76

In Honduras, the Law Against Bullying was adopted in 2014. However, it does not refer to particular
motives for bullying.
In Peru, the General Law on Education (2003) establishes that integral sexuality education is part
of the right to education. A Law promoting violence-free community living in educational institutions
(29719) exists (2011), although it does not refer to homophobic or transphobic violence.
Cuba, El Salvador and Peru guarantee the right to comprehensive sexuality education, which should
cover issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
As with other regions of the world, although these rights-based policies are on the statute books in
countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, a regional survey of 19 states conducted by the
Inter-American Institute for Human Rights in 2011 noted that, in the majority of cases, they are not
rigorously implemented and are always very general, dispersed, and in some cases ambiguous
[159].
In Europe, some countries have specific laws and policies to address homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational settings. In Belgium, the Flemish Ministry for Education and Equal Opportunities
issued a Common Declaration for a Gender-Sensitive and LGBT Friendly Policy in Schools in 2012,
establishing a framework for sexuality education and providing guidelines for schools to develop
LGBT-inclusive policies [160], [161].
In France, although no national policy mentions homophobic and transphobic violence, the Ministry
of Educations annual letter to principals has, since 2009, mentioned combating homophobia. Also, a
2012 governmental plan to combat homophobic and transphobic violence foresees specific actions
in the education sector [162]. In Portugal, the Students Statute (2012) includes protection against
discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. In Sweden, the
Discrimination Act (2009) explicitly bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression in education, and obliges pre-schools, schools and universities to take proactive
measures against violence. The United Kingdoms Equality Act (2010) makes it a duty for schools to
advance equality for their LGBT students. The Act explicitly mentions sexual orientation and gender

reassignment20 and mandates that every school should have a behaviour policy preventing all forms
of bullying [146].

BOX 15 LITHUANIA: CONFLICTING LEGISLATION

In Lithuania, the Law on Equal Treatment (2008) mandates secondary and post-secondary educational
institutions to guarantee equal opportunities for all students and specifically refers to sexual orientation.
However, Lithuania is one of only four UN member states7 to criminalize the sharing of information about
sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. Its Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental
Effect of Public Information was amended in 2010 to outlaw the sharing or discussing information that would
promote sexual relations or other concepts of family other than heterosexual relations [58]. This legally
Whatissues
you need
to know
prevents addressing
related
to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in educational
settings.
Approximately 10 per cent of young people experience feelings of same-

support

sex attraction while they are at school. Environments that are harassing and

According to European Union

research
published
2014, 90canper
cent oftheir
LGBT
individuals in Lithuania
humiliating
as a direct
effect ofin
homophobia
compromise
learning.
reported always or often hiding their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression when they were at
school (the highestWhy
level
of need
such to
behaviour
you
know it in the EU). Also 31 per cent felt discriminated against by school
or university personnel in theVictorian
year preceding
the survey
[62]are(also
the highest
percentage
primary and secondary
schools
well positioned
to create
safe and found in the EU).
supportive learning environments for all same-sex attracted young people.

A supportive school culture

In Victoria, we pride ourselves on having safe and effective schools that cater
In some countries, education
is directed at a sub-national level, as are education sector
for the diverse needs of our community. Everyone has a role in creating a safe
responses to homophobic
and
transphobic
violence. In Germany in 2010, the State of Berlin
school
environment
for all students.
Same-sex
young
people are entitled
to the
same safe schoolwhich features precise
adopted a regional Action
Planattracted
against
homophobia
and
transphobia,
as all other groups within the school. Homophobia in Victorian
actions for the educationenvironment
sector
[163].
Among
Spains
19
autonomous
communities and cities,
schools has a negative impact throughout the school community, including
as of 2015, ten have LGBT-inclusive
policies
against
violence
or
discrimination
in educational
teachers, parents and other family members.
institutions, seven of which
outline
specific
responses
procedures
for homophobic and
The word
gay and
equivalents,
when used as aand
term of
derision and
harassment, should be understood by the total school community as offensive,
transphobic violence [164].
hurtful and unacceptable. Same-sex attracted young people can and should
have the same hopes, joys and security as all others.

FIGURE 17

We must
be proactive in ensuring
that our schools are free of homophobia
EXAMPLE OF GUIDANCE
TO EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS
and are safe, affirming environments for all students, not just those who ask
FOR LGBT-INCLUSIVE
ANTI-VIOLENCE POLICIES
for support. Recognising this cohort of students is achieved by displaying
information and phone numbers on school noticeboards and acknowledging
school liaison with relevant support agencies.

Combating homophobia
Proven approaches to combat homophobia in Victorian schools include:
modelling exemplary behaviour by the school leadership team and the
teaching and student support staff

diversity

fostering a culture of openness and a celebration of diversity, and a mutual

understanding of expected behaviours in the total school community
immediately addressing issues caused by peer pressure, social stigmatisation
or bullying
following existing school governance procedures
applying existing Department of Education and Early Childhood
Development policies and support materials on bullying,
discrimination and inclusive sexuality education
recognising same-sex attracted young people as an
everyday part of the schools social mix
respecting students who choose to remain
unidentified, by making information and contacts
related to support services readily available.

5
Source: State of Victoria, 2008

20 The Equality Act 2010 refers to the protected ground of gender reassignment as follows: A person has the protected characteristic
of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for
the purpose of reassigning the persons sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex [265].

77

In the Pacific, Australias 2013 Sex Discrimination Act (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity
and Intersex Status) builds on previous state-level legislation and provides protections against
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and intersex status
(although some exemptions exist for some religious schools) [165]. Also in Australia, the State
of Victorias Department of Education and Early Childhood Development provides guidance to
support sexual diversity in schools (see Figure 7) [166].
In Fiji, the 2015 Policy onChild Protectionin Schools requires schools to respect childrens
sexual orientation and to take action against bullying, including homophobic bullying. In New
Zealand, the Ministry of Education published a Guide for Sexuality Education (2015) stating that
school anti-bullying procedures should directly address bullying related to sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression and that these incidents should be recorded as such and monitored.
The comprehensive guidance also touches upon the curriculum, school uniforms, restroom
facilities, procedures and policies in sports and extra-curricular activities.
Other countries in the region offer limited protection from school-related violence. Papua New
Guinea alone specifically forbids such practice, while other countries protect childrens health in
general or offer only limited protection to children (in Tonga).

78

In Africa, a review of policies on gender, diversity and violence in schools in Botswana, Lesotho,
Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland conducted within the study supported by UNESCO in
2015 found that countries have generic legal and policy frameworks (including in education) that
provide a conducive environment to address violence in schools. In Lesotho and Swaziland, they
are mostly related to child protection. Swaziland has an education sector policy where Schools as
Centres of Care and Support (SCCS) are supposed to be protective and secure environments which
accommodate all learners. In Botswana and Namibia, Education for All National Action Plans and
other education policies clearly mention inclusive and non-discriminatory education. However, none
of these policies make reference to sexual and gender diversity, except for South Africa [70]. Only
South Africa has explicit policies to deal with homophobic bullying in education (see case study).
The UNESCO-supported study found that, in interview, national policy-makers in Southern Africa
suggest that the overall absence of specific policies may reflect the lack of reliable evidence on the
nature, prevalence and impact of homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings in
the region, or that it is not considered a political priority. Where specific national legislation or policies
(including in the education sector) are lacking, other entry points may exist to address homophobic
and transphobic violence in educational institutions. These include international or regional human
rights frameworks, but also general laws and policies against violence in educational institutions
(for which additional guidance can be produced to detail how they apply to homophobic and
transphobic violence). Finally, national anti-discrimination laws in Southern Africa (whether or not
they mention sexual orientation and gender identity/expression) may also provide good entry points
for the education sector to consider adopting new policies or upgrading existing ones.

CASE STUDY SOUTH AFRICA: GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TO ADDRESS HOMOPHOBIC

BULLYING
In South Africa, in its resource Safer Schools for All: Challenging Homophobic Bullying (2014), the
Department of Education provides teachers, students, school principals, senior management and
school governing body members with information on how to prevent homophobic bullying. The
guidelines are intended to foster the emotional well-being and academic potential of students in
the countrys schools and to help develop safe and inclusive school spaces. The resource frames
homophobic bullying around issues of gender-based violence and sexual harassment in schools.
It was developed to be used alongside pre-existing training materials created by the Department
of Basic Educations Prevention and Management of Bullying in Schools initiative. Approximately
60,000 copies of the resource were distributed to schools around the country.

Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Sexual Violence and Harassment in Schools
also offer important advice, as well as the Speak Out: Youth Report Sexual Abuse handbooks
and posters, which educate learners about sexual abuse. In 2015, the Department of Basic
Education recommended that the topic of homophobic bullying and sexual harassment
should be addressed in the Life Orientation subject area. Schools are also expected to draw
up their own school-specific Codes of Conduct for learners that address bullying, including
homophobic bullying.
In 2015, South Africas Department of Basic Education also offered a School charter against
homophobic bullying. This outlines the need to:
promote the self-esteem of all students in all aspects of school life
value other cultures and lifestyles (Its OK to be different)
treat all people with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity/expression
ensure equal rights for everyone
offer counselling and support around issues concerning sexual and gender identity/expression
create more opportunities for discussion in school to raise awareness about homophobia and its
effects
challenge name calling of all types
distribute LGBTI resources around school
Discipline those who engage in homophobic bullying.
Source: UNESCO, 2016

SCHOOL POLICIES
For national education sector policies to work, they need to be translated into policies and
procedures at the level of educational settings (such as schools). These ensure a practical
response within the institutions where homophobic and transphobic violence actually occurs.
They also promote more equitable norms that are accepting of diversity in relation to sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression.
While national policies provide frameworks, school policies,21 including codes of conduct (see
Box 17), offer more immediate protection or guidance for those involved in homophobic and
transphobic violence whether targets or perpetrators. These policies signal to the entire
educational community that violence is unacceptable, that students safety is important and that
sexual and gender diversity is accepted and valuable [149], [167]. They can be put in place
from pre-primary through higher education levels, as well as in non-formal educational contexts.

21 School-level policies and institution-level policies are used interchangeably.

79

BOX 16 THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF SCHOOL POLICIES

A study published in 2014 by the University of British Columbia, Canada showed that, in schools with
explicit anti-homophobic bullying policies in place for more than three years, gay and bisexual boys were
over 70 per cent less likely to think about or attempt suicide, while suicide attempts among lesbian and
bisexual girls were two-thirds lower [168].
Evidence from Australia and the United States, published in 2010 to 2015, shows that inclusive policies
correlate with LGBTI students being less likely to hear pejorative language, suffer violence, consider or
attempt harming themselves and consider or attempt suicide [34], [68], [118], [165].

FIGURE 18

INCLUSIVE ANTI-BULLYING SCHOOL POLICIES

HELP COUNTER INCIDENTS OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE

Schools without an
anti-bullying policy

80

Schools with an anti-bullying policy

which does not reference sexual
orientation and gender identity

Schools with an anti-bullying

policy which does reference sexual
orientation and gender identity

... of students hear

transphobic remarks

80.2%

77.1%

59.2%

34.6%

28.3%

19.5%

... of students experience

general violence

46.5%

N/A

31.5%

... of students think about

self-harming

38.6%

N/A

25.6%

... of students harm

themselves

47.1%

N/A

34.1%

... of students think about

comitting suicide

Source: J. Kosciw et al, 2013 [14] & L. Hillier et al, 2010

Promising school policies to address homophobic and transphobic violence do the following
[120], [146], [149]:
$$ Name the problem: Policies refer explicitly to homophobic and transphobic violence, using
understood terminology.
$$ Are comprehensive: Policies refer to both how homophobic and transphobic violence can
be prevented and how it will be addressed; and have a broad scope (such as addressing
school transport as well as school buildings).

$$ Define actions: Policies clearly establish what actions will be taken to prevent and respond
to homophobic and transphobic violence.
$$ Clarify responsibilities: Policies establish clear responsibilities in the educational community
for teachers, managers, support staff, parent-teacher associations, parents and students.
$$ Are practical: Policies address the daily realities for LGBTI students, such as enabling them
to dress in their chosen school uniform and to access appropriate bathroom facilities.
$$ Are needs-based: Policies respond to the specific needs of different community members,
for instance training for staff, support structures for victims, and efficient reporting and
monitoring mechanisms,
$$ Are result-oriented: Policies have clear mechanisms for being implemented and measures
to ensure their continuous evaluation.
Effective policies in educational settings not only counter incidents of homophobic and
transphobic violence when they occur. They also reduce implicit violence at the institutional level
and, ultimately, improve social attitudes and behaviour towards LGBTI people
In addition to focused policies, there are also critical entry points within other types of school
policies that provide an opportunity to address issues related to sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression (see Box 17).

BOX 17 CODES OF CONDUCT THAT ADDRESS HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE

A code of conduct is a set of guidelines on the recognized ethical norms (or values) and standards of
acceptable conduct and behaviour in an educational setting. Codes are typically developed at a national
level and rolled out among schools and other educational settings to ensure institutional and legal back-up.
Their purpose is to:
guide and support education practitioners
protect students, teachers and school staff
achieve and maintain a high degree of educational professionalism, and
promote public trust in and support for the education profession.
Attention to homophobic and transphobic violence should be integrated into wider codes of conduct for
educational settings, such as within sections that cover school-related gender-based violence. Codes
should address the unacceptability of homophobic and transphobic violence in any form. They should
also cover mechanisms for reporting misconduct, as well as appropriate responses to LGBTI students
experiencing or witnessing violence. In addition, they should stipulate the consequences of breaching the
code, clearly showing how implementation of the code is supported by the law.
Developing a code of conduct that includes attention to homophobic and transphobic violence
encompasses a number of key steps. These include: consulting a wide range of stakeholders, including
teachers, school officials, parents and students; training and awareness-raising (so that teachers, school
staff, parents and students know about the code); reporting and sanctioning misconduct; and regularly
monitoring and reviewing the code.

Not all of the elements of promising school policies to prevent and address homophobic and
transphobic violence can be fully implemented in all countries. This is particularly the case in
countries that criminalize consensual same-sex relationships. For example, in these contexts, it
is almost impossible to make explicit references to LGBTI students, sexual orientation, gender
identity, homophobia or transphobia in any documents used in schools. However, it is always
possible to reflect on terminology that is acceptable and still understood by the whole school
community. For example, school policies might refer to the unacceptability of discriminating
against students who are perceived as different because of their appearance as homophobic
and transphobic violence often targets students based on the way they look.

81

INCLUSION OF TRANSGENDER AND INTERSEX STUDENTS IN POLICIES

Transgender children and young people come to realize (at various ages before, during or after
puberty) that the sex that they were assigned at birth does not correspond to their deeply felt
internal and individual experience. They may, or may not, want to discuss their feelings. They
may, or may not, want to wear clothes designed for other genders, reflect on the way they look
or, ultimately, express their identity in public, including in educational settings. Their peers or
educational staff may express surprise or react negatively, sometimes to the extent of subjecting
transgender students to physical or psychological violence. In these times of transition,
educational communities must support transgender students and protect them from violence.
Intersex children often have to undergo surgical and other procedures to make their appearance
conform to binary (male or female) sex norms. Such procedures are frequently justified on the
basis of cultural and gender norms and discriminatory beliefs about intersex people and their
integration into society. They are regularly decided by doctors and parents/tutors, under social
pressure, and are performed without the full, free and informed consent of the person concerned
(who is too young to be part of the decision-making). Later in life, some intersex children may
feel that they were forced into sex and gender categories that do not fit them and they may
express a gender that is different from the sex they were surgically assigned. This may lead
to discrimination and violence in educational settings - although such experiences are not yet
scientifically documented.22
Research from all regions suggests that transgender students and students who express their
gender differently from the norm face even higher rates of violence and discrimination than
LGB students [29], [42], [62], [122]. Transgender students experience specific forms of implicit
violence [44], [169], [170], for example, because:

82

$$ School uniforms are often specific to boys and girls. Transgender students may not be
authorized to wear the uniform that matches their gender identity/expression. This is
problematic because they are effectively forced to wear clothes that they sincerely feel are
for another gender.
$$ The official records of educational institutions contain students personal details, including
their gender or title. These records usually reflect students official documents, which may
not reflect their gender identity/expression. Furthermore, while records may be accurate
when a student enters a school, they may become obsolete once the student starts gender
reassignment procedures. As a result, students official documents such as their diplomas
or certificates reflect a gender that is different from their own. This can invalidate them and/
or disclose information that they wish to keep private.
$$ Educational institutions sometimes offer single-sex activities or facilities, including restrooms,
changing and showering areas for physical education, dormitories or halls of residence and
gendered sports options. These force transgender students to select male and female,
leading to a degrading choice between picking an option that does not correspond to their
gender or risking physical or psychological violence from peers or staff.

I was told that the rules of the university require us to cut our hair,
conceal our breasts and dress as males during the graduation
ceremony. We complained about the discriminatory rules for wearing
male attire. The university replied that people who have already
completed their sex change operation can wear female dress, but
otherwise we must wear male clothes.
Transgender woman, Thailand [7, p. 36]

22 Fact Sheet: Intersex, Free and Equal, United Nations for LGBT Equality (see https://www.unfe.org/system/unfe-65-Intersex_Factsheet_
ENGLISH.pdf).

Educational institutions must guarantee the safety and well-being of students who are transgender
or do not conform to gender norms. Doing so requires anti-violence and anti-discrimination
policies to specifically mention gender identity/expression. Practice suggests that effective
guidelines advise educational institutions to [122], [170], [171]:
protect transgender students right to privacy and confidentiality in relation to their gender status
respect students choice to identify as their desired gender by using their preferred pronouns and names
which may or may not correspond to the gender they were assigned at birth and ensure they are used
in official documents, such as certificates, diplomas and student cards
respect students clothing and appearance choices
train teachers and support staff about gender identity/expression issues
state within policies that diverse gender identities/expressions are welcome.

Education sectors in several countries have either started working towards or have already
published transgender-inclusive policies. Examples include:
$$ In 2015, Malta passed ground-breaking legislation outlawing a range of discriminations
based on an individuals gender identity/expression or sex characteristics [172].
$$ In 2015, Irelands Ministers for Education and for Community and Social Support hosted
a roundtable discussion with policy-makers, teachers unions, principals and transgender
rights NGOs to discuss issues and inform future policies for transgender students, including
bullying, uniforms and access to post-secondary education [173].
$$ In 2013, several provinces in Canada developed specific guidelines for educational staff
to respect the rights of transgender students and staff, for example providing guidance on
restroom facilities, uniform rules and the use of pronouns [171], [174].
$$ In 2011, the United Kingdom agreed a comprehensive multi-year policy for transgender
equality that includes measures for the education sector [175].
$$ In 2010, Australia produced comprehensive state guidelines for educational institutions to
implement new legislation on gender identity/expression and intersex status [176].
$$ In 2015, Japan produced guidance allowing transgender students to use uniforms, bathrooms
and locker rooms in line with their gender identity/expression [7].
$$ In 2010, The Netherlands produced guidance for universities to reflect students gender
accurately on diplomas [169], [177].

CASE STUDY THAILAND: PRACTICAL POLICIES TO ENSURE TRANSGENDER-INCLUSIVE

EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
In Thailand, although no national guidance exists, some vocational and technical secondary
schools allow transgender students to choose their uniform [7]. Bangkok University has issued
dress guidelines for students under the categories boy, girl, tomboy and ladyboy. Some schools
and universities have also introduced toilets that are not specific to users gender.

83

Having a policy to deal with trans, intersex and gender variant

students was the next logical step after the adoption of the Gender
Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics Act. In fact, the
policy was adopted little more than a month after the adoption of the
Act to ensure that the situation of these students is fully normalised
in schools and teachers are empowered to fully cater for their needs.
While I do know that there were issues here and there, Im told that
some trans children have never been happier, and are thriving at
school.
Helena Dalli, Maltese Minister for Civil Liberties

CASE STUDY MALTA: GROUND-BREAKING LEGISLATION AND POLICY ON GENDER

IDENTITY/EXPRESSION AND INTERSEX STATUS
In Malta, the Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics Act (2015) was adopted in
April 2015. It outlaws a range of discriminations based on an individuals gender identity/expression
or sex characteristics. To help the education sector adapt to this new law, the Ministry for Education
and Employment published the Trans, Gender Variant and Intersex Students in Schools Policy
in June 2015. This allows students to: present themselves and be addressed according to their
preferred gender; choose the facilities, such as restroom, that match their gender; and wear a
uniform that matches their gender. The policy also includes recommendations for implementation
in schools.

84

The government became aware of this issue through the parents of a six-year-old transgender child
and the negative experiences of transgender students. The Ministry for Education and Employment
set up a working group with representatives from their own Ministry, the Directorate for Education,
the national LGBTIQ Consultative Council and the Ministry for Social Dialogue, Consumer Affairs
and Civil Liberties. Over one year, the group developed the policy with input from national and
international LGBTI NGOs, experts and transgender and intersex people (who approached
politicians personally to share their experiences).
The policy applies to state educational institutions, although Church-run and independent institutions
are also encouraged to follow it, and will be monitored annually within regular government auditing.
It will also be the subject of a specific evaluation project run by the government and civil society
through research with principals, teachers, parents and students.

Intersex children often have to undergo surgical and other procedures to make their appearance conform
to binary (male or female) sex norms. Such procedures are frequently justified on the basis of cultural and
gender norms and discriminatory beliefs about intersex people and their integration into society. They are
regularly decided by doctors and parents/tutors, under social pressure, and are performed without the full,
free and informed consent of the person concerned (who is too young to be part of the decision-making).
Later in life, some intersex children may feel that they were forced into sex and gender categories that do
not fit them and they may express a gender that is different from the sex they were surgically assigned.
This may lead to discrimination and violence in educational settings - although such experiences are not
yet scientifically documented. 23

23 Fact Sheet: Intersex, Free and Equal, United Nations for LGBT Equality (see https://www.unfe.org/system/unfe-65-Intersex_Factsheet_
ENGLISH.pdf).

CASE STUDYAUSTRALIA: GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING SCHOOL POLICY ON GENDER IDENTITY,

INCLUDING INTERSEX STATUS [7]
In the State of Victoria, Australia, the Department of Education and Training has developed a guide to
ensure that schools support students gender identity, including those with intersex status. The guide is
in line with the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act (2010) and the Sex Discrimination Act (2010). It includes
stipulation that:
The young person and a family representative/caregiver must be invited to be part of the process to
formulate a school management plan.
A letter from a gender identity specialist may be requested by the school to support them in developing
their plan. This is not a conditional requirement for the school, but is intended to help ensure that schools
can adequately provide care by planning appropriately.
The guide leaves arrangements on facilities (toilets, showers and changing rooms) to the discretion of the
schools. It applies a mature minor principle around parental consent for minors advising principals to
consider whether an individual student is of sufficient maturity, understanding and intelligence to make, and
understand, the consequences of related decisions.

3.4.2.

Relevant curricula and learning materials

The second element of a comprehensive response to homophobic and transphobic violence in

educational settings is relevant curricula and learning materials.
Through their content and the way that they are delivered, curricula, learning materials and
extra-curricular activities in educational settings - such as sports or theatre convey influential
messages about normality, legitimacy and power.

FIGURE 19

FOUR PROFILES OF CURRICULA:

THE CURRICULUM CONVEYS IMPORTANT MESSAGES ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY

HOSTILE

NON-INCLUSIVE

INCLUSIVE

AFFIRMING

Explicit
negative
messages

Implicitly
negative
messages

Implicitly
positive
messages

Explicit
positive
messages

Reinforcing
harmful gender
stereotypes

Gender
transformative

Curricula are never neutral. Those that do not feature sexual and gender diversity convey the
implicit message that people with diverse sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions
are not part of society. Worse still, some curricula may explicitly convey negative messages
about LGBTI people.
Curricula generally take one of four approaches for sexual and gender diversity:
$$ Hostile curricula: i.e. they explicitly convey negative messages about LGBTI people,
which reinforce negative gender stereotypes and contribute to homophobic and transphobic
violence. For example textbooks were withdrawn by the government in Croatia (in 2009) and
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (in 2010) because they described homosexuality
as a disease.

85

$$ Non-inclusive curricula: These omit any representation of sexual and gender diversity in
their materials and, for example, ignore these aspects when discussing historical figures
who were LGBTI. This has the result of rendering LGBTI people invisible. Most curricula
worldwide fall into this category.
$$ Inclusive curricula: These convey implicit positive messages about sexual and gender
diversity when they promote the human rights of all, regardless of personal characteristics
including sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. These curricula are likely to also
encourage gender equality.
$$ Affirming curricula: These convey explicit positive messages about sexual and gender
diversity by featuring positive representations of LGBTI people and explicitly affirming their
equality in dignity and rights. They provide educators with clear
guidelines and examples on how to refer to sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression in a sensitive way.

86

Hostile and non-inclusive curricula tend to exist in contexts where

homophobia and transphobia are widespread. They do nothing
to prevent or reduce violence based on sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression. On the contrary, hostile curricula
contribute to reinforcing stereotypical and patriarchal views of
gender indirectly leading to homophobic and transphobic
violence. Meanwhile, by not challenging these stereotypical
and patriarchal views, non-inclusive curricula also contribute to
homophobic and transphobic violence in educational institutions.
In contrast, inclusive or affirming curricula may discuss definitions
of masculinity and femininity and challenge existing stereotypes
about gender and sexuality contributing to increasing LGBTI
students feeling of belonging and safety [34], [178].

Sexuality and gender sensitivity learning

materials developed by RainbowYOUTH
in New Zealand

Research suggests that curricula featuring sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
positively impact students and teachers beliefs and attitudes, encouraging critical thinking and
increasing feelings of safety at school [178]. They also help to address violence. The literature
confirms that challenging homophobia and transphobia in education is most effective when
LGBTI issues are reflected and featured through teaching and lesson plans, and when LGBTI
people are positively portrayed across the curriculum [125], [179], [180].

BOX 18 KEY FACTORS FOR EFFECTIVE CURRICULA

Evidence indicates that integrating attention to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression within
relevant, existing themes in curricula is more effective than using a stand-alone curriculum. Developing or
revising curricula should begin with a review of existing materials to identify entry points, as well as possible
inaccurate or stigmatizing content or negative stereotypes, myths or incorrect information. Successful
curricula and learning materials need to:
be informed by research on effective teaching about gender, violence prevention and life skills;
address taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality, sexual orientation and gender; identity/expression
and provide access to accurate information about diversity in sex, sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression;
enhance positive attitudes (equality, respect, rights);
provide knowledge and foster critical thinking;
develop skills and motivate action;
be age-appropriate and begin early. Values and attitudes form in early childhood, and bullying,
discrimination and intolerance can occur as early as primary school years;
draw on good practice on what works in other settings and adapt to the cultural and educational setting
context.

As detailed in the following pages, the development of effective curricula requires particular
attention to three issues [21], [181], [182]:
$$ The representation of sexual and gender diversity in curricula
$$ Entry points for addressing sexual and gender diversity in curricula
$$ Age-appropriate attention to sexual and gender diversity in curricula

THE REPRESENTATION OF SEXUAL AND GENDER DIVERSITY IN CURRICULA

In every region, the education sector appears hesitant to include representations of diverse
sexual orientations or gender identities/expressions in the curriculum although no exhaustive
data currently exists. In most countries for which data is available, curricula and learning materials
do not include any direct or indirect mention of sexual and gender diversity. Only a few countries
have developed curricula that are inclusive or affirming. In 2013, the European Unions
Fundamental Rights Agency study, conducted in 19 countries, found that respondents in most
countries argued that there is a lack of objective information about sexual orientation and gender
identity in school curricula which can impact on the formation of social attitudes [150]. Even
where policies mandate including diverse sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions
in curricula, these rarely translate into practice. Few quality learning materials on these issues
are currently in use worldwide. Some countries have started conversations about learning
materials, or have started providing LGBTI-inclusive materials as part of civics and human rights
classes, sexuality education classes, or through supplementary books, posters or information
leaflets (covered in more detail in Information campaigns and strategic partnerships below). The
overwhelming majority of existing materials still consist of heteronormative representations, and
representations of traditional masculine and feminine gender roles [179], [183][185].

BOX 19 HETERONORMATIVE CURRICULA

When teaching materials, class posters and teacher training manuals feature representations of diverse
sexual orientations and gender identities/expressions, they imply that LGBTI people are a legitimate part
of society. When they do not, they imply to both students and staff that people who are homosexual,
bisexual, transgender or intersex are outside the norm. Presenting heterosexuality as the only norm is
called heteronormativity [152], [186], [187].

In 24 countries, national or regional curricula mention issues related to sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression, although they are effectively implemented to widely varying degrees:
in Africa (South Africa), Asia (Israel, Mongolia, Nepal and the Taiwan of China), in North
America (Canada, the United States), in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, parts of Mexico and
Uruguay), in Europe (parts of Belgium, Estonia, Finland, France, parts of Germany, Iceland, the
Netherlands, Norway, parts of Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom) [188] and in the Pacific
(Australia and New Zealand). At the time of writing, Finland was in the process of updating its
curriculum in relation to sexual and gender diversity.
In a great majority of other countries, curricula ignore issues of sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression or indeed issues of gender altogether. This means sexual and gender
diversity is not addressed in school, unless individual teachers or schools choose to address
it themselves, or invite NGOs to do so. However in the absence of clear policy, schools and
teachers often hesitate to discuss sexual and gender diversity because it may be sensitive,
and they may fear disagreement from parents [189], [190]. A small-scale comparative study
in Chile, Guatemala, Mexico and Peru suggested that a third to half of young people aged
1824 discussed or heard about sexual and gender diversity to varying degrees in class [108],

87

suggesting these discussions took place at the initiative of teachers despite the curricula being
silent on the issue.

BOX 20 POLITICAL OPPOSITION TO GENDER AND SEXUAL DIVERSITY ISSUES INTHECURRICULUM

In a few countries, attempts to include issues of gender, sexuality or sexual diversity in curricula have been
met with opposition from some sectors of society including religious groups, parents groups and some
politicians.
In Europe, some of these groups argued that students should not learn about sexuality in schools, and
understood gender equality and sexual diversity as amoral concepts (which they sometimes refer to
as gender ideology or simply gender), sometimes fearing it will sexualize children or teach them to
masturbate in primary school [191]. This opposition has slowed or sometimes discouraged the adoption of
curricula supporting sexual and gender diversity [188].
For example, in France the Ministry of National Education piloted classes on sexual and gender diversity
in 2013. Following strong opposition from some sectors of society and political parties, the ministry chose
not to deploy the pilot further, and instead established programmes focusing only on sexism and genderbased stereotypes, leaving out sexual orientation and gender identity [192].
Evidence-based guidance from UNESCO and the World Health Organization, as well as from numerous
professional bodies of doctors, psychologists, teachers and parents univocally attest that it is safe to teach
children and young people about gender equality and diverse sexual orientations and gender identities/
expressions in an age-appropriate manner [193], [194].

88

In 2011, a scan of school curricula in ten East and Southern African countries (Botswana, Kenya,
Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe), undertaken
by the joint UN HIV Prevention Working Group in the region (comprised of UNICEF, UNESCO
and UNFPA), found that none of the curricula addressed sexual diversity in an appropriate way
[195]. Moreover, while almost all curricula mentioned sexual abuse, the lessons tended to be
aimed solely at girls.
A global survey on education sector responses to HIV and AIDS conducted by the UNAIDS
Inter-Agency Task Team on Education in 2011 found that 19 out of 30 countries reported having
reviewed and adapted their tertiary HIV and sexuality education curricula to address stigma,
discrimination and homophobia [196]. However, it also noted that homophobia may not be
addressed to quite the same degree, if at all, as stigma and discrimination and that combining
homophobia with these two subjects may convey a misleading impression.
When curricula do mention sexual and gender diversity, two major obstacles hinder their
implementation. First, textbook editors may omit sexual and gender diversity issues if they are
too controversial. After the government of Spain included sexual and affective diversity in its Law
on Education in 2006 [197],24 only three out of 11 textbooks analysed two years later mentioned
sexual diversity in line with the law (seven either ignored the topic or made incomplete references,
and one denigrated marriage for same-sex couples, which has been legal since 2005) [198].
(However, the change led to increased discussion of the topic in class, as three-quarters of
teachers nationwide reported discussing it with students [199] Second, delivering an inclusive
curriculum relies on teachers being informed and confident enough to discuss sexual and
gender diversity, an issue they may not be familiar with: in South Africa, although the curriculum
mentions sexual orientation explicitly, it is seldom addressed in class. Both teachers and policymakers frequently regret weak support or the absence of clear guidance for them to bring up
these issues in class.

24 The national curriculum has since been reviewed in 2013, and no longer includes sexual and gender diversity at the national level.
The curriculum varies between regions, and several regions include sexual and gender diversity in their curricula [164].

In a small number of countries, ethically questionable curricula misrepresent homosexuality,

bisexuality, transgender identities or LGBTI people as deviant or abnormal. A UNESCO report
from the Asia Pacific region [7] found that some textbooks perpetuate negative stereotypes
and include inaccurate, stigmatising and discriminatory information. Examples were found in
Mainland China, Hong Kong SAR, the Philippines, the Republic of Korea and Thailand.
In 2005, a textbook on secondary education pedagogy in the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia described homosexuality as abnormal and homosexual people as highly neurotic
and psychotic persons in the chapter Negative Aspects of Sexual Life [200]. It was withdrawn
in 2010. In Croatia, the textbook With Christ to Life described homosexuality as intrinsically
disordered and contrary to the natural law. It was withdrawn by the Ministry of Education in 2009,
following the European Committee of Social Rights conclusion that it was biased, discriminatory
and degrading [145]. In Moldova, NGOs reported in 2011 that the Medical University still used
textbooks describing homosexuality as a disease [188]. NGOs in Serbia also found that several
textbooks analysed between 2006 and 2014 featured strongly homophobic views, linking
homosexuality to mental disorders or malignant paranoid psychosis [201]. These textbooks
spread false information and directly contribute to homophobic and transphobic violence.

The perception of LGBTI people is pathologized. We are seen as

people with a mental illness as is still reflected in textbooks, or as
immoral Problems about education include outdated learning
materials, and very conservative and homophobic educators.
Lesbian woman, China [7, p. 54]

ENTRY POINTS IN CURRICULA

Choosing where to discuss sexual and gender diversity in curricula must be done bearing in
mind the social, cultural and historical context of each country. Literature and practice suggest
that it is best to discuss sexual orientation and gender identity/expression issues in the following
contexts [194], [202][205]:
Citizenship, human rights or civics classes, where discussions can take place on: diversity, tolerance
and respect for all; concepts of bias, prejudice, stigma, discrimination and bullying; international and
national frameworks that protect human rights; national laws on equality and non-discrimination (in
particular laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression,
when they exist); and the role of civil liberties in democratic societies.
History and politics classes, where discussions can take place about: relationships in other societies;
contemporary political debates about marriage, family laws or anti-discrimination laws; and political
debates in neighbouring countries.
Language, literature and art classes, where discussions can take place on: the lives and relationships of
authors or artists who were LGBTI; cultural works or artefacts representing diverse forms of relationships;
or works of art related to sexual and gender diversity.
Health, personal education and sexuality education classes, where age-appropriate discussions can
take place on: gender; gender roles, norms and stereotypes; ones own sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression, including issues of respect and disclosure; or the diversity of sexual orientations and
gender identities/expressions in society.

89

BOX 21 INTERNATIONAL GUIDANCE ON SEXUALITY EDUCATION

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that primary and secondary school curricula
should address issues around discrimination [206]. The Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education has
noted that in order to be comprehensive, sexual education must pay special attention to diversity, since
everyone has the right to deal with his or her own sexuality.
Both UNESCO and the WHO have issued detailed and evidence-based recommendations on addressing
issues around sexual orientation and gender identity/expression within sexuality education [193], [194].

Some countries have included sexual and gender diversity in recent reforms of their curricula. For
example, Finlands review of its national core curriculum for basic education, due to be finalized
in 2016, is expected to have more visible references to sexual and gender diversity [207]. In
2008, Mongolia included sexual behaviour and diversity in its sexual and reproductive health
curriculum for Grades 69, including lesbian and gay individuals as textbook examples[7].
In the Netherlands, while no national curriculum exists, primary and secondary schools must
work towards core educational objectives [208]. These were updated in 2012 to encourage
teachers to introduce sexual and gender diversity across all subjects, particularly in sexuality
education, biology, citizenship and social classes. In the Philippines, where the Reproductive
Health Law (2013) mandates sexuality education, NGOs are working with the Department of
Education to establish minimum standards on sexuality education that address both genderbased and homophobic and transphobic violence [7].

90

In Sweden, the curriculum for primary and secondary education was updated in 2015 to include
concepts of sexuality, gender and identity in several subjects. In the United Kingdom, the
regional government of Scotland built on its existing curriculum and Getting It Right for Every
Child agenda [209] to produce guidance for teachers and school managers to address sexual
and gender diversity across subjects including health and well-being, social studies, religious
and moral education, art, literature, history, philosophy and social studies [210].

BOX 22 INCLUSION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION INCURRICULA IN

SOUTHERN AFRICA
In Southern Africa, the review of curricula conducted within the multi-country study supported by UNESCO
in 2014-2015, revealed that some of them include elements related to sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression.
In Lesotho, the Life Skills curriculum was revised in 2012 to incorporate comprehensive sexuality education,
creating the space for the teaching of gender and diversity-related issues. In Namibia, the Life Skills
curriculum for Grade 8 explicitly addresses the topic gender roles in relation to different types of families.
For example, the students are expected to in their own words define and discuss different sexual
patterns, such as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual and celibacy (choice to refrain from sexual
intercourse), in their own words define sexism in writing and [lastly] appreciate [their] own sexuality [70].
In the Grade 12 Life Skills curriculum, the unit of self-awareness requires students to understand what
homosexuality is, the impact it has on the individual and issues of conduct.
In Swaziland, the Guidance and Counselling Life Skills Education Curriculum and Teachers Manual from
Grades 812 include a wide spectrum of topics on sexuality including: gender-based violence; sexual
abuse and reporting sexual abuse; self-image; self-esteem; self-concept; sexual identity; societal norms
and values; assertiveness; dealing with emotions; exploring issues of sexual orientation; the impacts of
sexual abuse; and transiting to senior secondary, among others. However, teachers are not well trained
and, therefore, are not able to deliver these programmes.

Beyond individual subjects, sexual orientation and gender identity/expression can feature in
educational curricula in diverse ways [211], [212]. Examples include:
Using examples in textbooks that illustrate diverse families and individuals (including LGBTI people) in
subjects such as science, economics or languages.
In class or school assemblies, referring to sexual orientation and gender identity/ expression within larger
discussions on equality, non-discrimination or violence in schools.
Inviting external speakers such as local LGBTI NGOs to discuss sexual orientation or gender identity/
expression, which may alleviate any anxiety felt by teaching or support staff.
Marking specific days to mobilize the educational and wider community around human rights.

BOX 23 UNESCO LESSON PLAN FOR THE INTERNATIONAL DAY AGAINST HOMOPHOBIA
ANDTRANSPHOBIA
In 2012, UNESCO developed four age-specific and age-appropriate lesson plans for primary and secondary
education [213], encouraging teachers to use the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia
(17 May) to promote tolerance, prevent homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings and
create safer learning environments for students. Some lessons focus on gender norms, stereotypes and
definitions of masculinity and femininity, without discussing sexual orientation or gender identity/expression
directly. This can be useful in contexts where homosexuality is criminalized or highly stigmatized.

AGE-APPROPRIATE CONTENT IN CURRICULA

Research with younger children indicates that personal beliefs and attitudes about sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression form during the early stages of childhood [205], [214],
[215]. This means that early and age-appropriate responses are crucial to prevent negative
attitudes and violent behaviour [216]. Yet, LGBTI-inclusive materials can mostly be found in
secondary or post-secondary curricula.
Some countries do include sexual and gender diversity in primary education. For example, in
China, the Beijing Normal University has piloted a school-based sexuality education programme
for migrant children in a limited number of schools [66]. It integrates diversity issues into the
curriculum from year five and addresses bullying on the basis of sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression. In Taiwan of China, the Ministry of Education announced courses related
to gender equality taught in senior high school since 2004 would be expanded to primary and
junior high schools [7].

BOX 24 HOMOPHOBIC INSULTS IN PRIMARY AND PRE-PRIMARY INSTITUTIONS

In a US survey of over 1,000 primary school students and 1,000 kindergarten and primary school teachers
in 2012, almost half of students and half of teachers reported hearing the word gay (used pejoratively)
often [214].
In a UK survey of 1,832 primary school teachers in 2014, seven out of ten respondents heard students use
the word gay pejoratively, while three out of ten heard students use homophobic insults such as poof,
dyke, queer and faggot [215].

In Finland, a project involving teachers and parents promotes non-violence, security and equality
between kindergarten and Grade 9, examining violence from a gender perspective concerning
both girls and boys [217]. In Germany, the State of Berlin has introduced sexual diversity into the
primary curriculum, focusing on the concepts of difference, tolerance and acceptance [21]. In

91

Ireland, social, personal and health education features in primary and junior curricula, including
discussions of sexual orientation in the context of childrens personal development, health and
well-being [218]. Also, some schools in Israel work with NGOs to teach children in kindergarten
about different types of families and gender roles [21].

CASE STUDY CANADA: ONTARIOS HEALTH AND PHYSICAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM

Ontarios new Health and Physical Education (HPE) curriculum was published in 2015. It provides
students with accurate, up-to-date and age-appropriate information supported by research and
public health data on their health and well-being. Students learn about healthy relationships and
consent, online safety, mental health and various forms of diversity, including sexual orientation and
gender identity/ expression.
Prior to its review, the HPE curriculum was over 15 years out of date. For example, it did not take
into account any internet activity or social media. Between 2007 and 2014, the review was guided
by research, expert advice from academics and comparisons with other curricula nationally
and internationally. Over 70 health-related organizations contributed to reports submitted for
consideration. Thousands of parents were consulted through an online survey and face-to-face
meetings, as were parent and student organizations.
Parent groups in particular wanted to know what their children would learn about. In response,
the Ministry created a series of parent resource guides to explain the contents of classes. While
some parents and religious groups expressed concern, significant public support for the revised
curriculum was confirmed through polling and public statements.

92

The new curriculum now mainstreams equality and inclusion across all subjects and features ageappropriate content. For example, students in Grade 3 learn to describe how visible and invisible
differences (including sexual orientation and gender identity/expression) make each person unique.
They also learn how to identify ways of showing respect for differences in others. In Grade 6, students
learn to address various stereotypes (including homophobia) and assumptions about gender roles
or expectations. In Grade 8, students learn about sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
and how these concepts are connected to respect for themselves and others.

3.4.3.

Training and support for staff

Educators must be given the opportunity to acquire the necessary

skills, provided with high quality teaching tools and materials, and
receive sufficient support from education authorities to promote
equitable and inclusive education in safe and secure teaching and
learning environments.
Fred Van Leeuwen, General Secretary, Education International, July 2015 Foreword, Quadrennial Survey on
Equality and Diversity 20102014

The third of the elements of a comprehensive education sector response to homophobic and
transphobic violence in support and training for teachers and other school staff.
Teachers foremost but also support staff, counsellors, caretakers, head teachers, managers
and inspectors are central to any effective response to homophobic and transphobic violence
in educational institutions. Staff are responsible for preventing violence, responding to it when it
occurs, and promoting inclusion and acceptance.

However, to fulfil their supportive role and to teach inclusively, teachers themselves need support
[189], [210], [219]. This includes:
$$ opportunities to clarify their own attitudes and behaviours about sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression;
$$ practice, through teacher education programmes, to test different pedagogical approaches
and strategies and to become prepared with new content;
$$ access to resources such as inclusive curricula and teaching and learning materials to
influence classroom practice.
Research suggests that the skills and attitudes of educational staff, particularly teachers, about
sexual orientation and gender identity/expression greatly impacts students. Supportive staff
appear to strengthen a range of positive indicators for LGBTI students [219][221]. These
include:
$$ reduced incidence of missing school
$$ reduced feelings of insecurity
$$ greater academic achievement
$$ higher educational aspirations, and
$$ a stronger sense of belonging in school.

IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER TRAINING AND SUPPORT

In most countries, educational staff lack adequate training and
resources to help them understand and address sexual orientation
and gender identity and expression and, more specifically,
homophobic and transphobic violence. Evidence from education
sector professionals and NGOs also suggests that generic training
on violence in educational settings is not sufficient to address
homophobic and transphobic violence adequately.

The Creating LGBTQ Safer & Accepting

Schools workbook is delivered to
schools by Egale Canada Human Rights
Trust in support of Canadas vision to
make education safe and accepting
for all.

In several countries, the education sector is allocating increasing resources to the training and
support of educational staff (both teaching and non-teaching) in this area through manuals,
professional development courses and professional guidance on homophobic and transphobic
violence.
In practice, this is often in-service training, small-scale and not mandatory and educational staff
lack the resources to genuinely understand and address sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression issues, particularly when it comes to homophobic and transphobic violence [189],
[205], [222], [223]. As a result, teachers can be less likely to intervene against this form of
violence than against other types of violence [189], [224]. In 2013, a study by the European
Unions Fundamental Rights Agency revealed that, in the Member States studied, with the
exception of Ireland, all education professionals interviewed said they received no training about
LGBT issues as part of standard specialised professional education [150]. When training was
available, it was typically voluntary and not part of mandatory teacher training or professional
development.

Ive had literally no training at all about how to deal with it: so no, I
would not feel comfortable dealing with it.
Teacher in the United Kingdom[150]

93

Teachers in Slovenia say that they do not feel competent to stop homophobic insults or physical
violence [189], while only 8 to 17 per cent of teachers in Spain and the United Kingdom say they
received sufficient training [199], [215] In the 2014 Annual Report on Human Rights in the State
of Bolivia, 94 per cent of LGBT respondents stated that, in their experience, teachers lacked
appropriate knowledge of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression [225]. However,
some teachers wish it were otherwise. In Japan, six out of ten primary and secondary school
teachers state that they would have liked to receive training on issues of sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression [7].

I personally believe that I have enough information about the topic.

But it is important that I am aware that I also have a few unaddressed
fears about it. How to tackle homophobia is not addressed specifically
at seminars about violence and discrimination.
Lev, school teacher in Slovenia [189, p. 26]

Where training does take place, it seems to make a measurable difference for teachers. This
has been seen in Nepal (see case study). In the United States, after attending the Respect for
All programme of the New York City Department of Education, half of teachers were more willing
to intervene when hearing homophobic or transphobic language. Also, the same proportion
said they were more aware of LGBT students experience and two out of five said the training
had enhanced their ability to communicate with students about sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression [226].

94

I am much more confident in my ability to talk to students about

gender/sexuality issues; whereas before the training I felt sympathetic
but was hesitant to speak up.
High school counsellor and social worker, US [226, p. 10]

CASE STUDY NEPAL: TEACHER TRAINING AND POOL OF SUPPORTIVE TEACHERS

Since 2013, sexuality and gender diversity has featured in Nepals national school curriculum on
sexual and reproductive health for Grades 6, 7 and 8. In 2014, to facilitate the introduction of the
new curriculum, and to familiarize teachers with issues linked to sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression, the NGO Blue Diamond Society developed and implemented a specific training
course for teachers and school administrators.
The course features a training manual, booklet (with frequently asked questions) and toolkit for head
teachers, teachers, students and parents. The toolkit provides basic information about issues linked
to gender, sexuality, sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. It helps schools to identify
problems that LGBTI students may face, including violence, and offers possible solutions.
As of 2015, the toolkit had been used to train teachers in the countrys central, eastern and western
regions. The World Bank supported the development and implementation of the trainings. Following
the training, some of the teachers formed the Chetana (Awareness) Trainers Pool in order to train
more teachers and offer practical support to educational staff when dealing with LGBT issues.
According to the Trainers Pool, it trained over 600 teachers in central Nepal in 201314.

PRE AND IN-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING

Ideally, to reach as many people as possible, sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
should be part of pre-service training for teachers. In practice, however, most training worldwide
takes place in-service.
Preservice training occurs nationally or sub-nationally in Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil,
Canada, Mexico, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Argentina and parts of Brazil provide professional development programmes for many in the
educational community: teachers in training; teachers in service; school superintendents;
deputy directors and directors; support staff; and non-teaching staff, including counsellors,
doctors and social workers. These programmes include themes related to the prevention of
discrimination and management of violence, including homophobic and transphobic violence
[158]. In Belgium, regional pedagogical guidance services offer both pre-service and in-service
training programmes, supported by NGOs and commercial entities. Sub-national education
authorities also support a centre for expertise in sexual health that provides LGBTI-inclusive
education and training to teachers.

CASE STUDY AUSTRALIA: PRE-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING [165]

In Australia, the Society and Education Unit is a required unit for some primary and secondary
teaching degrees at the University of New England. It introduces teachers to issues linked to sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression in schools through the sociology of education.
The course was developed as, since 2013, the Sex Discrimination Amendment Act has required
schools to provide education without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender
identity/expression or intersex status. The University of New England sought to train future teachers
in this respect, with a 13-week university unit in its current format since the same year. The course
encourages future teachers to recognize their assumptions about LGBTI individuals and to learn
about approaches to gender and sexuality in schools. The 12 lectures and tutorials present critical
and post-modern theories of gender and sexual orientation. Three assessments require future
teachers to apply these theories to their experiences at school, to their own sexuality education
resources and to their own teaching plans.
Through interactive lectures, future teachers learn theory through various activities, including
making videos, dancing and role-playing different teaching approaches. Skills to develop lessons
are taught and assessed, so that all future teachers finish the course with clear plans and resources.
Across different contexts (whether at university, in rural contexts or online with no face-to-face
sessions), teachers are trained to understand their professional duty to care for LGBTI students and
the pedagogical approaches to include sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in class.
Teachers have rated the unit very highly, saying they most valued learning practical skills and how
to address these issues in a fun way.
This unit was incredibly stimulating!!! It made you think outside of the box and become aware of
some biases that you may have, which in turn allows you to compensate for this and break out of the
stereotypes. It also gave you an insight into sexual education which I havent got from any other unit.
Teacher in pre-service training, 2014 class

While in-service training and support is more common, its scope can be more limited as it is
often optional and constitutes an additional task for teachers. In the majority of cases, these
trainings are developed by LGBTI rights NGOs or teachers unions and are implemented or
endorsed by the education sector nationally, sub-nationally or at the level of institutions.
Examples of promising practices exist. In Canada, the Ministry of Education of Ontario supports
the NGO Egale to develop online resources to train school boards about sexual and gender

95

diversity. The same NGO delivers workshops for school teachers, managers and directors to
create LGBT-inclusive and safe school environments. In Quebec, teacher training programmes
have reached over 10,000 professionals since starting in 2012.
In partnership with two vetted NGOs, the sub-national government of Berlin in Germany organizes
trainings on diversity for educational staff, which feature discussions of sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression [227]. These appear extremely popular, increasing from one to two per
year before 2010 to 2030 per year as of 2015. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the Government
Equalities Office and Department of Education support the NGO Stonewall to train school staff
(particularly in faith schools, rural schools and schools with high percentages of disadvantaged
students or minority ethnic backgrounds), local authorities and educational institutions about
sexual orientation and gender identity/expression [228].

CASE STUDY URUGUAY: IN-SERVICE TEACHER TRAINING

Uruguays comprehensive education policy to combat homophobic and transphobic violence and
discrimination is part of the National Programme for Sexual Education. It teaches trainee teachers
about: self-awareness; gender and identity in the family; gender and domestic violence; social
stereotypes; and the role of media and advertising stereotypes.

96

In order to train teachers, the education sector relied on partnerships not only between different
sectors of government, but also with concerned public services and civil society organizations.
Teacher training for sexuality education was delivered in partnership with NGOs, which was
particularly helpful for demystifying and discussing topics linked to sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression, including violence. The training aimed to help teachers foster an educational
culture based on the respect of human rights and openness to sexual and gender diversity. Training
was made available through online and in-class sessions. As of 2015, some 200 teachers had been
trained nationwide.
This experience met with some resistance. For example, conservative civil society groups opposed
the training and slowed the dissemination of the Guide to Education and Sexual Diversity for teachers.
Nevertheless, the training raised teachers awareness about power relationships, such as between
majority and minority groups. Overall, it made an important contribution to the implementation of
LGBT-inclusive sexuality education.

Where there is little or no cooperation between the education sector and NGOs, training
resources tend to lack LGBTI-specific content, often only including passing references to sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression or homophobic and transphobic violence (as part of
wider training on violence).
Manuals and guides can be popular ways to provide in-service support. In 2011, Norways
Directorate for Education and Training published and now regularly updates a guide on
relationships and sexuality for primary school teachers and school nurses [207]. In the United
States, the Department of Education in Michigan published a guide in 2011 on creating safe
schools for LGBT students and has provided training for teachers in over 180 school districts
[229].

CASE STUDY SWEDEN: A NORM CRITICAL APPROACH

The Swedish National Agency for Education trains educational staff in sexuality and relationship
education. It also develops related support materials. The curriculum for these subjects addresses
strengthening students self-esteem and identity and fostering respect for others bodily integrity.
The agency uses a norm critical approach. This means that, instead of focusing on individuals
and groups who are different from a norm, it examines how and why norms determine who is
normal or abnormal. This encourages staff to undertake a deeper reflection about discrimination
and difference.

INADEQUATE TRAINING AND SUPPORT

Education sector professionals and NGOs suggest that some trainings and resources that they
receive remain too generic often only referring briefly to sexual orientation and gender identity/
expression or to homophobic and transphobic violence. This is often the case in countries
where the education sector cooperates little or rarely with LGBTI groups, human rights NGOs or
teachers unions that have expertise in relevant areas.
For example, in France, the Ministry of National Education includes homophobic and transphobic
violence in teachers wider training on harassment. However, the specificities of this type of
violence are left out. Anecdotal evidence points to similar challenges to training provided by
ministries of education, youth, social services or equality in Chile, Colombia, Croatia, El Salvador,
Guatemala, Lithuania, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Slovenia and Uruguay.

3.4.4.

Support for students and families

In many countries for which data has been analysed,

support is offered to students who are the targets of violence
(including bullying), either in schools or outside of schools
through referral mechanisms. However, staff in charge of
providing support are often poorly prepared to deal with
cases of homophobic and transphobic violence. They
are not comfortable discussing issues related to sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression. They may even
hold homophobic or transphobic views themselves and,
therefore, cannot meet the needs of the LGBTI students who
request support or are referred to them.

KIT ESPACIO
SEGURO
Gua para Ser
un/a Aliado/a de
Estudiantes LGBT

Cuando un profesor o profesora te acepta,

significa el mundo para ti. Sabes que las cosas
estarn bien y que ellos estarn ah para ti.
Estudiante 11 Grado, Carolina del Norte, EEUU

Only in some instances do education sectors offer support

that can address the needs of students who are the targets
GLSEN Safe Space Kit adapted for use in Chile
of homophobic and transphobic violence and, sometimes,
their families. The types of support provided are varied. They can include: counselling services
in educational institutions by trained staff; national helplines for the targets of violence; peer
support through gay-straight alliances and school clubs; or groups for parents of LGBTI
students.25 Support can be provided both inside and outside educational settings. In some
countries, school nurses are the only staff in schools who provide support to LGBTI students
who are targets of violence, which may contribute to the pathologisation of LGBT people [150].

25 Because of the variety of responses, it is not possible to accurately list the countries in which they take place.

97

Outside educational settings, support is often delivered by NGOs, with or without support from
the education sector. Specific support is available mostly in contexts where a general culture of
counselling and personal support exists that, in turn, is applied to LGBTI issues.

In Belgium, there are a number of ways for a student to file a

complaint if they experience violence or harassment in a school. There
are helplines offered by NGOs or public services. One is actually run
by the Ministry of Education. A young person can phone in or mail
and talk about their experience. An expert counsellor will try and
provide help, support and if needed refer the student to other Youth
support services.
Interview with a civil servant from the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training

SUPPORT IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Experience shows that the subjects of homophobic and transphobic violence are likely to seek
support from teachers and peers in their educational community [230], [231]. The education
sector and academia has started exploring how counsellors and other educational staff can
provide effective services. However, literature documenting or guiding this work appears to be
minimal, with more research needed [222], [232]. Practitioners note that it is also crucial to
support the perpetrators of violence, to help them: reflect on their actions; work with others;
develop better social skills; and explore power in socially acceptable ways [124], [233].

98

Peer support is an especially important form of support to LGBTI students who experience
homophobic and transphobic violence. It might take the form of student associations, youth
groups, peer mentoring systems, extra-curricular or club-based activities. Such initiatives can
help to create feelings of connectedness, empathy and respect. They can also build confidence,
leadership behaviours and social skills.
Peer mediation or peer counselling schemes can also be established in educational settings,
where students including those who are LGBTI are trained to assist other students in mediating
peer conflict or assisting students who may be distressed. These programmes are more likely to
be effective when students have been trained in simple counselling skills, and school staff are
committed to the long-term maintenance of the programme.
Numerous schools and universities in Australia, Canada, China, India, the Netherlands, New
Zealand, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States provide space for peer-to-peer
support. This includes clubs or groups where LGBTI or questioning students and their friends
meet and interact safely, known as Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs). These are student-led,
school-based clubs that are open to all learners regardless of their sexual orientation or gender
identity/expression. They aim to improve the school environment, challenge discrimination and
homophobic bullying and support learners who may be LGBTI. In educational institutions with
a GSA, LGBTI students experience less social isolation, tend to have better self-esteem and
achieve better academic performance [129], [234], [235]empirical studies investigating GSAs
and their impact are sparse. Utilizing a sample of college students drawn from a large Southern
university (N = 805; 78% White; 61% female; average age 22. They are twice as likely to say that
their educational community is supportive of LGBTI people. There are over 4,000 GSAs in the
United States [115], [234], [235] .

CASE STUDY INDIA: BREAKING BARRIERS, A GAY-STRAIGHT ALLIANCE

Breaking Barriers is a GSA at the Tagore International School in Delhi. Under guidance from a
member of staff, students aged 1417 years run the alliance to foster empathy, understanding and
acceptance towards LGBTI students.
In 2013, a student posted Im a lesbian and you cant understand me to the schools Facebook
page. This prompted two students and a member of staff to examine LGBTI students experience
of violence and discrimination in the school. In the first six months of the project, with support from
school managers, a group of 50 students were trained to address issues of gender and sexuality
across various school activities.
The students set up: a Facebook page featuring encouraging postings about LGBTI issues; a notice
board in the school; an anonymous complaint box for LGBTI students to discuss any violence or
discrimination; and a shelf dedicated to issues of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
in the school library. They also started documenting their work through video. National and local
NGOs supported their work through training for the wider school community.
We indirectly focus on bullying by creating empathy and imparting information. Also, there is a zerotolerance policy in our school for gender and sexuality based bullying, though we have faced no occasion
so far to take action. As a personal observation, it is no longer politically correct in our school to make
insulting gender and sexuality-based jokes, which goes a long way. Also, open conversations about
sexuality are more frequent in senior classrooms, which reduce ignorance-based bullying.
Shivanee Sen, Assistant Counsellor and Project Mentor
Implementation of the project included challenges and obstacles. Families with opposing views
prevented some students from taking part in the groups activities. Also, after the 2013 overturning
of the Delhi High Courts 2009 ruling (decriminalizing consensual acts between adults of the same
sex), some schools have refused to host workshops.

99
The alliance was initially scheduled to take place over a year. However, continuing commitment
by the students and teachers led to the project continuing. The alliance received overwhelmingly
positive reactions from the school community, as well as from local NGOs. Its work was covered
in local and national media and, in 2014, received an award for socially conscious young
leadership. In future, the students hope to deliver workshops in other schools in New Delhi.
In the State of Berlin in Germany, the regional action plan against homophobia mandates every
school to nominate a contact person for sexual and gender diversity [163]. They are identified
as a recommended contact point for students and the subjects of violence or discrimination and
they keep themselves abreast of developments on homophobic and transphobic violence. The
region offers courses for these contact points, for example, on specific support for transgender
students or on links between homophobia and racism.

CASE STUDY MEXICO: COMPREHENSIVE WORKSHOP ON HOMOPHOBIA AND

TRANSPHOBIA
In Mexico, in partnership with UNESCOs Regional Bureau of Education for Latin America and the
Caribbean, the NGO Democracy and Sexuality Network (DEMYSEX) developed a workshop to raise
awareness about homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings and to support the
education sector to prevent it.
The workshops last 12 hours and are supported by detailed facilitation guidelines and tailor-made
educational resources, including presentations, case studies, graphics and other materials. The
workshops were implemented in Chile, Guatemala and Mexico. They allow teachers and educational
authorities to:
review the characteristics, root causes and specific examples of homophobic and transphobic
violence
understand the importance of approaching homophobic and transphobic violence as a specific
issue, not only as part of general violence in schools
understand homophobic and transphobic violence from a human rights perspective
consider how educational staff can counter homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings
identify measures to gradually prevent and consistently manage homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational settings.

100

Support can also be offered to students families. Launched in 2007, Project Touch was the first
social service for LGBT young people and their families in Hong Kong SAR. The programmes
educational workshops have reached 30,000 students and 2,000 school professionals, while its
counselling services have reached over 1,200 LGBT young people and 250 parents. Among the
student and parents participating, 83 per cent reported improved emotional health, while 80 per
cent of parents reported improved relationships with their children [7].

BOX 25 SUPPORT FOR STUDENTS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

Findings from the multi-country study supported by UNESCO in 20142015 in Southern Africa (see Box
7) indicate that some mechanisms are in place in schools for reporting incidents of violence and referrals.
In Swaziland, for example, Disciplinary Committees in schools are commonly used to determine what
happens to the perpetrators of violence, while the Guidance Teachers attend to the targets of the violence
and determine the response, depending on the severity of the case. However, the existing mechanisms
were not perceived to provide sufficient support for students who experience diversity-related violence
(as defined in the study), mostly as a result of the lack of information and training for the staff, including
teachers, who are supposed to provide support.
I have assisted these children who identify as different or are identified as different. I need training because
I currently feel like a hypocrite. I dont understand them and I dont accept them myself even though I assist
them. Training will help me understand them and work through my own prejudices.
Teacher, Lesotho [70]

SUPPORT OUTSIDE OF EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS

Evidence indicates that, when violence occurs in schools, students are most likely to, first, turn
to a teacher for support. As such, responses at and by educational settings are of primary
importance with teachers trained to listen to students, support them and help report incidents.

It is also important that, where necessary, they can refer students and their families to additional,
external support that they might need. Examples include hotlines, child protection services,
health services or LGBTI groups.
In Australia, Minus18, a youth-led network for LGBT teens, provides mental health advice and
peer support through online chat, in addition to workshops and social events for young people
[7]. Also in Australia, the NGO Safe Schools supports school counsellors and chaplains who feel
unable to help LGBTI students directly enabling them to find vetted community services [66].
In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Labour set up an LGBT hotline in 2012, while the services of a
national suicide prevention network were extended to LGBT young people [7]. In Malta, the NGO
Malta Gay Rights Movement provides psycho-educational services to teachers, counsellors and
social workers, as well as a psychosocial support to students and parents. Here, the University
of Maltas student LGBT society also provides information in universities.
In Slovenia, Legebitra, an LGBT NGO, has provided peer and professional psychosocial support
to students, parents and educational staff since 1999, with the support and endorsement of the
local authorities and national government [236].

CASE STUDY ARGENTINA: HELPING TRANSGENDER PEOPLE ENTER EMPLOYMENT

In Argentina, the Employment Insurance and Training scheme is a programme by the Ministry of
Labour, Employment and Social Security that facilitates the employment of workers that experience
difficulties in finding jobs. The programme is offered to people who belong to groups that are likely
to suffer discrimination.
Since 2013, transgender people have been able to enter this programme through local employment
offices or NGOs working on gender identity/expression. Beneficiaries receive a monthly allowance
for up to two years to help them complete their primary or secondary education, look for a job and/
or receive vocational training to improve their professional skills. The scheme also supports those
who wish to follow a Self-Employment Programme, developing skills to set up a small business.
The Ministry opened the programme to transgender people based, among other data, on a 2012
survey by the National Institute of Statistics and Census. The surveys results showed that only 20
per cent of transgender people had finished their secondary education, while 85 per cent said they
were, or had been involved, in sex work. The same percentage also reported being barred from
employment based on their gender identity/expression.

In Canada, to support the families of LGBT students, the Ministry of Education in Ontario
implements Parents Reaching Out, a grant programme to increase parents engagement in
local communities [237]. As part of these grants, the Ministry has supported workshops to help
parents learn about sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

BOX 26 ONLINE RESOURCES SUPPORTING LGBTI STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES

Many education sectors have embraced online resources as a means to offer services that can be
anonymous and easily accessible by many. With the potential to reach high numbers at comparatively
little cost, such resources related to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings have
started to be developed in almost all regions. Government and education sector websites feature LGBTIinclusive content in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden,
the United Kingdom and the United States.

101

SUPPORT ONLINE
Cyber bullying can include online: name calling; slandering; threats, stalking; unsolicited
materials of a sexual nature; and stealing or exposing subjects personal data without their
consent. Cyber bullying has several unique characteristics that differentiate it from other types
of violence in educational settings. Digital communications offer anonymity to perpetrators. They
also enable the wide and often uncontrolled dissemination of text, pictures or videos, which
may include intimate or sexual materials. Perpetrators may feel less accountable when their
actions take place online. Importantly, increasing evidence demonstrates that online and offline
bullying are closely linked [238][240]we have documented the prevalence of cyberbullying
and school bullying victimization and their associations with psychological distress. Methods.
In the fall of 2008, 20406 ninth- through twelfth-grade students in MetroWest Massachusetts
completed surveys assessing their bullying victimization and psychological distress, including
depressive symptoms, self-injury, and suicidality. Results. A total of 15.8% of students reported
cyberbullying and 25.9% reported school bullying in the past 12 months. A majority (59.7%.
As with other forms of homophobic and transphobic violence in settings, LGBTI students are
more likely to experience cyber bullying than their non-LGBTI peers. A study in the US of 4,400
randomly selected students aged 1118 years found that LGBT respondents were almost twice
as likely as their peers to experience cyber bullying [239].
There is limited evidence of countries specifically addressing cyber bullying. The United Kingdoms
Government Equalities Office has launched the website Stop Online Abuse to offer support to
targets of cyber bullying and to help them report incidents. The website particularly targets women
and LGBT people, providing legal advice and practical tips to respond to abusive comments
online. It includes a specific section on transphobia [241]. The United States Department of Health
and Human Services has set up a similar section on its website Stop Bullying [242].

102

3.4.5.

Information campaigns and strategic partnerships

A community-wide, youth-led approach is needed to combat

bullying involving teachers, parents, schools and children. An
effective framework should involve the collaboration of governments,
organizations and individuals to build best practices for dealing
with and preventing bullying [] Our focus should be on tolerance,
knowledge and empowerment rather than on punitive measures.
Megan Mitchell , Childrens Commissioner. Speech given at the Bullying, Young People and the Law
Symposium. 18 July 2013, Melbourne, Australia

PARTNERSHIPS WITH CIVIL SOCIETY

Civil society (LGBTI NGOs, teachers unions, health professionals, faith groups, parent groups)
working on sexual orientation, gender identity/expression and education issues in every region
have developed and contributed considerable expertise in preventing and reducing homophobic
and transphobic violence in educational institutions. This has paved the way (sometimes decades
in advance) for the education sectors own responses. The sector has welcomed civil societys
input to varying degrees, depending on its own readiness and understanding of the issue, as
well as the wider political context.
Research for this report found that policy-makers from Asia, North America, Latin America,
Europe and the Pacific acknowledge that partnerships with civil society, particularly LGBTI NGOs,
contribute to successful responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational

settings. For example in the research conducted by the European Unions Fundamental Rights
Agency in 2013, Virtually all public officials referred to the fundamentally important role of
LGBT NGOs in influencing the nature and pace of reform in LGBT rights, including in relation in
education [150]. The most promising responses from the education sector to homophobic and
transphobic violence in educational settings have involved civil society in some way. Overall,
cooperation between the sector and civil society tends to deepen and become more frequent as
both parties realize that cooperation is mutually beneficial. These partnerships may encompass
initiatives such as: information campaigns about sexual and gender diversity; marking specific
events (see Box 25); establishing anti-bullying networks; conducting long-term awarenessraising and training programmes; supporting the development of education policies; hosting
regional policy conferences; and implementing local responses at the level of schools or districts.

103
The #PurpleMySchool campaign in 2015, run by UNESCO, UNDP and Being LGBTI in Asia seeks to raise awareness of school bullying
of LGBTI people based on their sexuality or gender identity.

BOX 27 MARKING SPECIFIC DAYS TO MOBILIZE ACTION

Teachers and educational institutions can seize opportunities presented by specific days to discuss sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression. For example:
International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (17 May) marks the anniversary of the 1990
decision by the World Health Organization to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. The day is
marked in over 130 countries by institutions, NGOs and educational communities.
International Human Rights Day (10 December) is celebrated by numerous human rights actors,
national and international institutions, and by the United Nations.
Other relevant international days officially recognized by the United Nations, such as the International
Day of Non-Violence (2 October) and the International Day for Tolerance (16 November).
Pink Shirt Day (22 May) in New Zealand or Purple Friday (December) in the Netherlands encourage
people to talk about bullying, oppose it and show their support for sexual and gender diversity by wearing
pink or purple. Resources are available for educational institutions to use on the day.
LGBT History Month in the United Kingdom (February) and the United States (October) offers an
opportunity for educational communities and teachers to explore sexual and gender diversity in national
or global history.
Day of Silence organized by Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in the United States
(April) sees students across the country pledge a day of silence to call attention to the silencing effect of
homophobic and transphobic violence in schools. This is also observed in New Zealand.

Experience shows that, for these partnerships to be successful, they must: use reliable evidence;
benefit from political leadership and an enabling political climate; and be implemented in good
faith by all parties. Partnerships between the education sector and civil society usually seek to
[89], [243]:
$$ build and disseminate evidence on the nature, prevalence and impact of homophobic and
transphobic violence in educational settings;
$$ improve and share expertise about discrimination and violence in educational institutions;
$$ include sexual and gender diversity in curricula and teaching materials;
$$ support educational staff to deal with issues of sexual and gender diversity; and
$$ support students and their families confronted with homophobic and transphobic violence.
For policy-making in this area, governments in some Latin American countries (including
Argentina, Colombia, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, parts of Mexico and Peru) convene crosssectoral working groups that include civil society to advise government departments on issues
related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. In Belgium, in 2015 the Flemish
Ministry of Education launched a Consultation Platform on Bullying, bringing together youth and
LGBT NGOs, school networks, pedagogical guidance services and student organizations to
strengthen the regions response to homophobic and transphobic bullying. In New Zealand, in
2015 the Human Rights Commission, Ministry of Education, NGOs and teacher unions jointly
produced Bullying Prevention and Response a guide for schools on how to prevent and
respond to bullying, including that of homophobic and transphobic nature [244].

104

Partnerships in the field of curriculum development and staff training exist in countries such as
Cambodia. Here, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport has collaborated with NGOs and
community groups to develop a sexuality education curriculum for Grades 710 [7]. In Nepal,
joint work between the Ministry of Education and the Blue Diamond Society, an LGBT NGO,
led to including sexual orientation and gender identity/expression in the national curriculum for
health, physical education, social studies and population education for Grades 69. The NGO
then partnered with lawyers, schools, teachers, students and parents to develop a toolkit to help
teachers to implement the new curriculum. This was piloted with over 600 teachers in 2014, with
support from the World Bank [7].
In Canada, the Ministry of Education in Ontario works closely with teacher and manager unions,
the Ontario Human Rights Commission, LGBT and gender equality NGOs and an anti-bullying
network to develop and deliver evidence-based resources for educational institutions [245].
The education sector and civil society have also come together to publicly discuss responses to
homophobic and transphobic violence in educational setting a practice that proved useful for
sharing promising practices. NGOs from Poland, Slovenia and the United Kingdom undertook
joint research and convened an international conference (Breaking the Walls of Silence, Ljubljana,
2013) on homophobic and transphobic violence in secondary schools in the European Union
[182]. This was conducted in partnership with Slovenias national and local youth office, national
equality body and teacher associations. In the US, the government convened two national
conferences: (the White House LGBT Conference on Safe Schools and Communities, 2012
[246]; and the White House Conference on Bullying Prevention, 2010 [46], which included LGBT
youth issues. These brought together several hundred students, teachers, parents, community
advocates, law enforcement officers and elected officials. Similarly, ILGA-Europe, an LGBTI
NGO, organizes regular roundtables with policy-makers from education ministries in Europe to
discuss responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings [247].
Such partnerships can also be conducted at the local level. For example, in Portugal, the
Department of Youth and Education of the Valongo City Council has partnered with local
organizations to offer peer education and diversity workshops in local schools, as well as to train
city council staff on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

At the level of educational institutions, partnerships between the education sector and civil
society can help to respond to homophobic and transphobic violence in situ. They provide useful
support to educational staff who have to respond to incidents of violence where and when they
occur.
In Poland, the Campaign Against Homophobia, an LGBT NGO, works with teachers unions,
the Centre for Education Development, local teacher training offices and school directors to
help secondary schools to plan, coordinate and monitor their programmes and activities against
discrimination and violence. Based on this work, the NGO also disseminates promising practices
across schools. In the United Kingdom, the Government Equalities Office and the Department for
Education finance eight NGOs nationwide to help schools to prevent and reduce homophobic
and transphobic violence [146].
NGOs can also support initiatives in universities. In China, the NGO Common Language
promotes inclusive university curricula by supporting teachers and student clubs to discuss
sexual and gender diversity. As of 2015, the organization worked with 13 universities nationwide
and supported over 30 local groups (mainly student associations) to organize LGBT-inclusive
activities [7]. In Turkey, another LGBT organization, KAOS GL, works with selected universities,
students, counsellors and teachers unions to organize events around International Day against
Homophobia and Transphobia.

PARTNERSHIPS TO RAISE AWARENESS

The education sector can also partner with civil society to promote information campaigns on
sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
In Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador and Mexico, education ministries and governmental
bodies responsible for social inclusion and non-discrimination policies have supported and
promoted information campaigns in partnership with NGOs. In Canada, Quebecs provincial
government has supported the Family Coalition, an LGBT NGO, to develop an information
campaign on same-sex families. The NGO has developed resources for teachers, parents and
students and, by 2015, had trained 3,500 teachers in 700 educational institutions.
In France, the Ministry of National Education organized several information campaigns
displaying information posters, in schools and elsewhere in cities, advertising a helpline offering
support services for LGBT young people. In Ireland, the Ministry of Education has funded the
NGO BeLonG To Youth Services long-running campaign against homophobic and transphobic
bullying to honour commitments under its National Action Plan on Bullying [248].
There are multiple examples of NGOs being invited into educational settings to deliver awareness
raising and trainings on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. In Scotland, LGBT
Youth Scotland delivers sessions in schools conducted by young social workers or peer
educators aged between 13 and 18 years, usually under the supervision of a teacher to explore
students beliefs and attitudes about diversity [243]. In France, three NGOs are vetted by the
Ministry of National Education and can be invited by individual schools to speak to students.
Strategic partnerships and information campaigns are critical for effective education sector
responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings. They complement
the other five elements: national and school-level policies; relevant curricula and learning
materials; support and training for teachers and other school staff; support for students and
families. Each element is vital in its own right. However, all are needed to ensure a response that
is truly comprehensive.

105

3.4.6.

Monitoring of violence and evaluation of responses

Currently the monitoring of violence in schools and the evaluation of efforts to tackle violence
against children worldwide are deeply fragmented, of highly uneven quality and not directly
comparable [249]. Few countries systematically collect comprehensive data at a national level
on violence in schools, including school-related gender-based violence. This is often linked to
the lack of effective reporting mechanisms set up by the education sector to register incidents of
violence in educational institutions. Educational authorities and other governmental institutions
often fail to include indicators and questions on violence in schools in the existing surveys aimed
at collecting general data on education, such as the annual school census that is managed in
many countries by Education Management Information Systems (EMIS).
Some multilateral organizations, including UN agencies, have conducted international or regional
school-based, household or online surveys that include some questions on the school climate
and violence in schools, although they do not always allow the measurement of school-related
gender-based violence.
As a result there is little data on violence in schools in general, which makes it difficult to analyse
the evolution of the prevalence of violence and its nature over time. Research on the monitoring
of violence in educational institutions also remains at an early stage, with on-going initial research
into global measurement frameworks but no agreement at this stage on international indicators.

106

The problem is more acute when it comes to measuring homophobic and transphobic violence
in educational settings. Data collected by governments or international organizations are even
more scarce. This is due to various reasons: in some cases policy-makers are not aware of this
particular form of violence due to the lack of information and/or invisibility of LGBTI students.
Even when reporting mechanisms are available, incidents of homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational institutions may be underreported by targets of violence because of the
fear that they could be stigmatized and bullied even more. This is a vicious circle that contributes
to the lack of visibility of LGBTI students and the violence they face. For example, the research
conducted in 2013 by the European Union Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) stresses that
LGBT students remain unseen in educational institutions and that the interviews with education
professionals have shown the underreporting of LGBT bullying issues is a major challenge
across the majority of EU Member States [150]. Absence of monitoring is also explained by lack
of interest, denial of the problem by the education sector, fear of negative reactions from some
sectors of society, especially in contexts where consensual same-sex relationships between
adults are criminalized.
The scarcity of the data on homophobic and transphobic violence in schools is problematic for
various reasons: first, it prevents painting accurate global, regional and national pictures of this
kind of violence to understand it better. Second, it contributes to sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression being ignored when designing national and local anti-violence policies, and
contributes to the invisibility of homophobic and transphobic violence in the eyes of the education
sector. Finally, in most countries the education sector does not have the evidence necessary to
design and implement appropriate and effective responses to this kind of violence.
These reasons make it urgent for the education sector to start systemically monitoring homophobic
and transphobic violence in educational institutions, and systematically evaluate responses to it.
There are a series of methodological and ethical challenges in designing surveys, collecting and
analysing the data on homophobic and transphobic violence. However, this should not prevent
the education sector from doing it while strengthening its efforts to monitor violence in general
and gender-based violence in educational institutions.

I was told I brought

shame to my society
and my religion.
I have endless
nightmares and
suffer depression.
Nora, age 25, lesbian, Middle East

CURRENT MONITORING OF VIOLENCE BY GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AND

MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS
Despite the global state of play, valuable efforts exist to monitor school-related violence including
homophobic and transphobic violence in a small number of countries. These can usefully inform
new monitoring and evaluation efforts.
Examples of monitoring of homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings by governmental bodies
Currently, governmental bodies only monitor school-related homophobic and transphobic violence
in the socio-cultural and legal contexts that are most favourable to sexual and gender diversity. This
tends to be in countries where long-established NGOs have spent years or decades working to
promote and protect the human rights of LGBTI people and raising awareness about the violence
that affects them in educational settings and elsewhere. Governmental bodies usually start to carry
out their own monitoring after these organizations have started monitoring violence years, if not
decades, earlier. This is problematic, since reliable data on homophobic and transphobic violence in
contexts more hostile to sexual and gender diversity is needed as much, if not more.
Governmental bodies have made efforts to directly monitor homophobic and transphobic violence
in educational settings in eight countries out of the 94 countries surveyed for this report: Belgium,
France, parts of Germany (at the sub-national level) and Colombia (at the municipality level), Mexico,
Mongolia, the Netherlands and the United States (Norway had included sexual orientation and
gender identity markers in previous national student surveys, but stopped in 2012).
$$ In Belgium, the governmental Centre for Equal Opportunities initiated a nationwide Diversity
Barometer on Education, which includes a survey of diversity and discrimination on the basis
of characteristics protected under anti-discrimination laws (including but not limited to sexual
orientation and gender identity). The survey will take place every six years, starting in 2016. It will
review existing research, evaluate diversity policies and practices in schools, and suggest new
approaches to protecting students [250].
$$ In Colombia, the Department of Education of the District of Bogot surveyed homophobic and
transphobic violence in secondary schools in 2006, 2011 and 2013 (when the departments of
culture, of sports and of womens rights joined the initiative). These large-scale studies collected
questionnaires from 118,000 students (in its latest version) in Grades 611, allowing probabilitybased sampling and strongly reliable findings [113].

107

$$ In France, the Ministry of Education seeks to record incidents linked to sexual orientation as part of a
survey on general security in schools sent to headmasters annually [91]. However policy-makers,
teachers unions and NGOs agree it does not accurately monitor school-related homophobic and
transphobic violence: the survey focuses only on the gravest incidents of violence, and incidents
motivated by homophobia or transphobia can and have been reported without their bias motive.
$$ In Germany, the Department of Education of the State of Berlin monitors violence in educational
institutions through a central complaint point, although so far no complaints have been received
in relation to homophobic and transphobic violence [251]. At the time of writing this report
(December 2015), discussions were on-going about implementing low-threshold independent
complaint points (or ombudspersons) in every school district to deal with discrimination, including
on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. According to compulsory
guidelines on mobbing, harassment and bullying given to every school, head teachers must
assess whether incidents of violence must be reported to the state Department of Education
[252].
$$ In Mexico, a 2009 survey of school-related gender-based violence by the Ministry of Public
Education and UNICEF included an exploration of discrimination and violence towards lesbian,
gay and bisexual students. The large-scale survey covered 300 primary and 100 secondary
schools and involved interviews with teachers and head teachers, focus group discussions with
students and 30,000 questionnaires [112].
$$ In Mongolia, in 2013 the National Human Rights Commission conducted a small-scale survey
as part of its research for a national report on human rights and freedoms. The survey asked
respondents whether they had been subjected to discrimination or assault based on their sexual
orientation or gender identity in their educational environment [77].

108

$$ In the Netherlands, a biennial survey on social safety in schools directly informs the Ministry of
Education, Culture and Sciences national strategy for gender equality and sexual diversity; it
covers issues of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
$$ In the United States, three large data collection exercises routinely take place. First, over the
years, state and local school surveys on risk behaviours have progressively included questions on
students sexual identity or behaviour, feeding into the federal Youth Risk Behaviour Survey (YRBS).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have analysed data from YRBS surveys from 200109
[60], and produced critical evidence demonstrating the frequency and impact of homophobic
and transphobic violence in public high schools. This led to commissioning additional research
into the safety and well-being of LGBT young people. Building on these state and local initiatives,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention chose to include items related to sexual orientation
in both the federal and state/local versions of the 2014 YRBS. This will lead to ground-breaking
population-based federal and state data on the experiences of LGBT young people. Second,
since 2009 the Department of Education has been monitoring student harassment of other
students based on their sexual orientation or gender identity as part of the federal School Survey
on Crime and Safety. Finally, since the school year 20152016 it is mandatory for all schools to
provide the federal government data on violence based on sexual orientation, and on violence
based on gender identity/expression (to be monitored under sex-related violence).
When governmental bodies survey homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
institutions themselves, they tend to do so as part of wider surveys on general safety or
violence in schools.
In six of the 94 countries for which data has been collected for this report, governmental bodies do
not monitor homophobic and transphobic violence in educational institutions themselves but have
directly used data collected by research institutes or NGOs to inform their work. This is the case in
Australia, Canada, Ireland, Malta, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.
$$ In Australia, ministries of education in several states and territories cited research by LGBT NGOs
as a source for designing and implementing education sector responses to homophobic and
transphobic violence. NGOs have continued to monitor homophobic and transphobic violence,
contributing to the improvement of state and lately, national responses to violence.

$$ In Canada, research conducted by NGOs and academics informed amendments to legislation

(the Keeping Our Kids Safe at School Act 2010 and the Accepting Schools Act 2012) and
contributed to the development of inclusive resources and training for the education sector.
$$ In Ireland, research by NGOs led to LGBT young people being recognized as a key population
in the national suicide prevention strategy of 2005 [253]. Further research conducted in 2009 [92]
fed into the development of LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying policies in 2013.
$$ In Malta and New Zealand, ministries of education have used data produced by NGOs in the
design of national policies and guidance on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
institutions [172], [254].
$$ In the United Kingdom, the Government Equalities Office and the Department for Education
commissioned and used research by NGOs to inform the national LGBT policy [255], inclusive
school policies [256], teacher trainings and the national curriculum.
Governmental bodies appear to rely on data generated by NGOs only in Anglophone countries in
North America, Western Europe and the Pacific, where well-resourced NGOs working on human
rights, sexual orientation and gender identity/expression have operated for several decades.

BOX 28 MONITORING OF HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS BY

RESEARCH INSTITUTES AND NATIONAL NGOS
Non-governmental actors collect the great majority of existing data on school-related homophobic
and transphobic violence in educational settings worldwide. National and international NGOs, notably,
have undertaken these efforts since the 1990s in some countries, and have greatly contributed to the
development and evolution of relevant specific indicators. Their research is frequently done on smaller
scales than studies done or supported by governmental bodies and multilateral organizations, often due to
limited resources. However, they provide a useful starting point for understanding the nature and impacts
of homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings, and should be taken into consideration
by the education sector.
It is useful to involve NGOs promoting the human rights of LGBTI people at the design or test stages of
studies. These organizations can provide useful guidance on the specificities linked to sexual orientation and
gender identity/expression, including in the formulation of questions (for example, they may shed light on
specific forms of violence experienced by transgender students), as well as the identification of respondents
and the analysis of the data. Findings of studies conducted by NGOs can help governments to design further
research, or consider implementing selected responses to homophobic and transphobic violence
Ultimately, however, the education sector cannot rely on NGOs to collect data over a long period of time as
it is costly and therefore hardly sustainable. Sometimes it is impossible for this to take place (for example,
where NGOs are barred entry into educational institutions).

While an increasing number of countries are starting to monitor gender-based violence in

educational settings, particularly in the global South, these countries do not tend to monitor
homophobic and transphobic violence yet.
Monitoring of violence in educational settings by multilateral organizations and
international NGOs
Multilateral organizations including UNESCO, UNICEF, UNDP and the WHO routinely monitor
violence in educational institutions as part of their monitoring international development metrics
such as literacy, access to education or public health. Since violence can and frequently does
negatively affect individuals education and health, multilateral organizations often include
questions on violence in the large-scale surveys they conduct. In parallel and sometimes in
partnership, international childrens rights NGOs (INGOs, such as Plan International or Save
the Children) also survey violence in educational institutions as part of large-scale projects and

109

programmatic work related to education or childrens rights. Studies by multilateral organizations

and INGOs often produce data comparable internationally.
Multilateral organizations and INGOs frequently monitor school-related violence and schoolrelated gender-based violence, particularly in countries in Africa, Latin America and the
Caribbean, and Asia. They have developed reliable methodologies for collecting data on the
nature, prevalence, impacts and responses to violence, including specific indicators.

BOX 29 LARGE-SCALE STUDIES BY MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS SURVEYING VIOLENCE

ORGENDER-BASED VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS
Several large-scale studies have surveyed violence or gender-based violence in educational settings,
often through research repeated over several years. These studies offer sound methodology for monitoring
violence in educational institutions. Although the indicators and questionnaires used in these studies are not
specific to homophobic and transphobic violence, it would be worth exploring how they could be adapted
to provide data on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational institutions (see a discussion of
indicators in the last part of this section).
The Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS), developed by the WHO and US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in partnership with UNAIDS, UNESCO and UNICEF. The GSHS includes
information on experiences of violence among students aged 1317 in 66 low- and middle-income
countries in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, Europe and the Pacific) [257].
The Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children cross-national survey (HBSC), managed by the WHO,
regularly collects data about the health, well-being, social environments and health behaviours of children
aged 11, 13 and 15 in 44 countries and regions in Europe and North America [10].

110

The Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education (LLECE), managed by
UNESCO, collects data on the educational achievements of primary school students in 15 Latin America
and Caribbean states, and includes indicators on violence as it relates to students achievements [258].

Multilateral organizations and INGOs rarely monitor school-related homophobic and transphobic
violence. When they do so, it is always in the context of wider research on violence against
children, gender-based violence or educational achievements, or in the context of international
development programming. Some of these studies focus on students views on LGBTI
individuals, which may help to assess how accepting or hostile educational institutions are for
LGBTI students.
$$ In Brazil, UNESCO analysed previous research about young people and sexuality in 2004.
The research used questionnaires, individual interviews and focus group discussions to
survey 16,422 students, 4,532 teachers and 3,099 parents on their personal views of sexual
and gender diversity [259]. Similar research into the views of 5,000 teachers had been
conducted in 2002 [260].
$$ In Costa Rica, UNICEF and UNDP conducted a study of secondary school students views on their
lives at school, at home and in their community in 2011 [261]. The study involved 1,907 interviews
with students. While it did not directly monitor violence, it surveyed respondents attitudes and
beliefs vis--vis sexual and gender diversity, and the place of LGBT individuals in society.
$$ In Nepal, the UNDP surveyed 1,178 LGBT adults in partnership with a research institute
in 2014. The survey asked respondents whether they had experienced discrimination or
violence at school [69].
As part of its large-scale survey of LGBT peoples experience of discrimination and violence
in its 28 Member States, the European Union asked 93,079 respondents about school-related
homophobic and transphobic violence [62]. This exercise, so far unique, has produced directly
comparable international data on the scope and prevalence of homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational institutions.

Evaluating education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in

educational settings
Education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings
have so far only been formally evaluated in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the
United States. These examples offer useful guidance for the education sector in other countries
that may be considering evaluating their own responses to violence. The evaluations provide
policy-makers and political decision-makers with reliable information regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of existing responses evidence that will be invaluable to design future responses.
$$ In the Netherlands, the Ministry of Education evaluated a project on the social safety of
LGBT students, piloted in 130 primary and secondary schools in the years 20122013 and
20132014. The project sought to support schools in rolling out updated national education
objectives on sexuality and sexual diversity. The evaluation was to determine the pilots impact,
and assess what factors affected this impact (for example, teachers skills, or support from
school management). The evaluation collected data through questionnaires and interviews
with students and teachers, and found that these new objectives did have a measurable
positive impact on social safety for students. Among other key lessons, the ministry found
that support from teachers and school management was crucial to success, and that LGBTI
NGOs could play a useful role in terms of initiating discussions in schools (see case study).

CASE STUDY NETHERLANDS: EVALUATING THE CURRICULUM

Following new nationwide educational attainment targets adopted in 2012 for sexuality and sexual
diversity curricula, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science encouraged educational settings
to increase their focus on sexual and gender diversity to improve the social safety of LGBTI students.
To determine the new curriculas effectiveness, the ministry ran a pilot project in which 130 schools
were required to introduce at minimum:
information sessions on LGBTI issues with external experts
lessons in social interactions for students
training or guidance for teachers to deal with LGBTI issues
including mentions of sexual and gender diversity across the curriculum (and not only in sexuality
and sexual diversity), and
involving parents.
Half the schools received grants to implement the changes in the first year of the pilot, and the other
half in the second year. In all schools, students completed questionnaires at the start and end of
both school years (in the last two grades in primary schools, and in the first two grades in secondary
schools). The impact was assessed by measuring students attitudes towards LGBTI people, their
experience of violence and their resilience to it, their safety (both objective and subjective) and the
schools own attitude towards sexual and gender diversity.
Teachers also filled in questionnaires, and interviews were held at 20 selected schools with head
teachers, teachers, students, external speakers and some parents.
The study found that, in primary schools, a greater number of students (regardless of their sexual
orientation or gender identity) reported feeling safer in their classroom and of belonging to their
school after the pilot was implemented. A third of teachers and students felt safety had increased,
notably as homophobic and transphobic insults were used less often.
Similar findings of increased safety were reported in secondary schools, with more visible differences
in schools that were previously less open to sexual and gender diversity.
Among the challenges that arose, some schools or teachers were reluctant to participate in the pilot
to avoid difficult discussions, or potential resistance, particularly in schools with a large number of
Muslim students.

111

$$ In the United Kingdom, the Government Equalities Office commissioned a qualitative study
to explore which responses to homophobic and transphobic bullying were the most effective.
The study took place over four months in 2014, and found that a mixture of responses
prevention, classroom-based teaching and addressing homophobic and transphobic
bullying as it happened on school grounds was the best way to address homophobic and
transphobic bullying [146].

CASE STUDY UNITED KINGDOM: EVALUATING A WIDE RANGE OF RESPONSES

In 2014, the Government Equalities Office commissioned an independent research agency to
evaluate the most effective education sector responses to homophobic and transphobic bullying.
The research unearthed a range of views from educational staff, which helped the government to
assess different responses for their effectiveness.
First, the evaluation reviewed existing legislation and policies guiding the education sectors
responses to homophobic and transphobic bullying, and existing educational resources paying
particular attention to resources specific to cyber bullying, or bullying targeting bisexual or
transgender students.
Second, evaluators interviewed 20 teachers and educational staff involved in the delivery of antibullying responses across different schools, as well as four school case studies each including
the observation of responses to homophobic and transphobic bullying, interviews or focus group
discussions with staff, and focus group discussions with students who were involved in the responses
or had been bullied themselves.
The evaluation allowed classifying education sector responses into four different approaches:

112

Proactive approaches to prevent homophobic and transphobic bullying in whole educational

communities, sometimes by involving parents and more community actors. These approaches
were found to be more effective than responses limited to specific subjects or age groups.
Interactive teaching or discussions in class delivered by teachers or external speakers on sexual
and gender diversity.
Playground or school life approaches to address homophobic and transphobic behaviour where
and as it takes place, for instance, by encouraging staff and students to react systematically to
the use of homophobic or transphobic language.
Reactive and supportive approaches to record incidents and support victims and perpetrators of
homophobic and transphobic bullying.
The evaluation concluded that whole-school approaches, together with interactive teaching and
discussions in class, were the most effective methods for preventing homophobic and transphobic
bullying, while playground and reactive or supportive approaches were best to address bullying
when it happened.

$$ In the United States, GLSEN evaluated a programme by the New York City Department for
Education training teachers to deal with homophobic and transphobic violence. Carried out
in 2013, the evaluation surveyed 813 teachers before, during and after their participation in
the training, and compared their responses to those of staff who did not receive any training.
The evaluation found that trained teachers had measurably more confidence to deal with
homophobic and transphobic violence in schools, which in turn measurably improved the
social climate and students safety (see case study).

CASE STUDY UNITED STATES: EVALUATING A TRAINING FOR TEACHERS

In 2007, the New York City Department of Education launched the Respect for All initiative,
mandating among other measures that each school should designate at least one staff member
to receive reports of bias-motivated violence, including homophobic and transphobic violence. With
the support of five NGOs, the Department of Education developed a two-day training programme
for secondary school teachers to address bias-related violence, with a specific focus on violence
linked to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.
The training was offered to teachers across New York schools over three years between 2007 and
2010, and 69 trainings were delivered in the first year alone.
In 2008, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) sought to find out whether the
programme had impacted on participants awareness, knowledge, beliefs and behaviour in relation
to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression issues.
The Department of Education and an ethical review committee approved the research. GLSEN
surveyed 813 teachers before, six weeks after and six months after the training, also comparing
results with teachers who had not completed the programme. These quantitative findings were
complemented by focus group discussions with some of the teachers who received training.
The evaluation found that after the training, participating teachers:
reported better knowledge of terms related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
knew better where to find appropriate LGBTQ-related educational resources
looked for LGBTQ-related resources more frequently
communicated more with colleagues and students about LGBTQ issues, and
engaged themselves more in the creation of safer schools for LGBTQ students.
Teachers empathy for LGBTQ students, views on the importance of reacting to homophobic and
transphobic remarks and level of comfort when intervening remained the same, or varied only
marginally.
The evaluation produced valuable evidence that specific training could successfully help teachers
to foster a safer social climate in schools for LGBTI students.

CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE LIMITATIONS IN MEASURING HOMOPHOBIC AND

TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS
Collecting data on violence targeting children in schools is challenging for a mixture of different
reasons that are closely interlinked:
$$ Methodological issues: When trying to measure the scope of violence in schools and to find
out about the types of violence experienced by students, some key issues include: from what
categories of the school community to collect the data; what data should be collected from
each categories; and using which methods. For example, should there be studies or surveys
where researchers ask students directly about violence in school, through self-reports
about the violence they experienced as targets or perpetrators? Or should they be asked
about incidents of violence that they have witnessed as bystanders? Should any of these
questions be asked via self-administered questionnaires or questionnaires administered by
researchers in schools? Does it make more sense to collect this data outside of schools,
for example, through household surveys? Or through online surveys where students have
access to the internet? Or is it better to rely on mechanisms for reporting incidents of violence
in educational institutions when they are available, either in the schools themselves or outside
schools (governmental hotlines, internet-based reporting systems, police and justice sectors,
etc.)? What questions can be asked of children, using terminology that is easy to understand,
age-appropriate and culturally sensitive?

113

$$ Legal and ethical issues: In most countries there are strict rules related to research involving
children, as they are under the age of consent. Therefore requesting informed consent from
the children in a study involves their parents and guardians. Asking children about violence,
and particularly violence they have experienced themselves, can be traumatic. Finally,
researching issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity/orientation in education
and in relation to children has additional challenges. In some contexts it is not legal to
discuss these issues either in schools or even outside of schools. Where it is legal, it may be
considered as a very sensitive topic to be discussed with children and young people. Asking
children and young people questions related to their sexual orientation and gender identity in
the school setting is ethically questionable, as it could embarrass them and expose them to
stigma and discrimination, unless questions are asked in strict confidence and anonymity is
granted by independent researchers external to schools.
Education sector policy-makers should consider the following aspects when engaging in
monitoring and evaluation efforts. They are a simple overview, and are covered extensively in
publications on research with children.
Specificities of research on violence affecting children in schools
As for all research, informed consent from participants is essential: they must be told and must
understand why they are invited to participate in research, what questions will be asked and how
their answers will be used. Specific national legislation may determine whether and how consent
can be obtained from children. This may involve their parents or guardians, and must be done
with extreme care and respect for respondents privacy (as they may not want to disclose their
sexual orientation or gender identity/expression to their relatives).

114

In addition to informed consent, research must guarantee anonymity: participants must be

guaranteed that their answers will not be linked to their names, they must be told whether and
how long their data will be kept, and by whom. This is essential from an ethical perspective, and
to enable respondents to answer questions sincerely.
Surveying children or adults about violence they have experienced can be difficult or
traumatic, and can only be done with due diligence for respondents own safety and well-being.
Leading them to remember or discuss their experience of violence must be done in a safe
environment, where a trained researcher will offer appropriate help if necessary (for example,
speaking to a counsellor, or directing respondents to a helpline) and report the situation to the
relevant authorities if necessary (particularly if the respondent is in immediate danger). These
safeguards must be provided however the research takes place: when filling an online form
(for example, by offering online support, or redirecting respondents to a helpline), when filling a
printed form in class (for example, by providing the whole class with information on dealing with
violence afterwards) or in interviews (for example, by offering immediate support). In addition
to these initial considerations, research on violence must always be carried out in line with
applicable professional standards for social research.
Specificities of research on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
Researching issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression may require
using specific terminology. Although LGBTI-related terms may not be familiar to policy-makers
and researchers, it is important to use them appropriately in order to refer to the right groups
and concepts. Terms vary between regions and countries, and must be used appropriately
depending on the context. In contexts where sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
issues are taboo or where governmental bodies hesitate to collect data, it may be useful to refer
to people who are different/perceived as different in terms of gender, for example, as it was
decided by researchers and education policy-makers for the study conducted in four countries
in Southern Africa [70].

Monitoring homophobic and transphobic violence must be done with regards to applicable laws,
particularly in contexts criminalizing LGBTI identities, and in no circumstances must anyone
students, teachers, educational staff, parents or researchers be put at risk due to the research.
Mechanisms and methods to monitor violence
Large-scale school-based or population-based quantitative surveys are essential to
understanding the prevalence of violence in educational institutions, and its impact on education
and health at the scale of a country or region. When it comes to the prevalence of homophobic
and transphobic violence, this type of research currently takes place in only ten countries
(Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the
United Kingdom and the United States). Where governments do carry out research directly,
they generally survey homophobic and transphobic violence as part of mechanisms already in
place: annual school censuses; or surveys on violence, social safety, health and risk behaviours,
or the general school climate. Using mechanisms already in place offers a cost-effective and
reliable way to produce data based on a large and representative set of answers. Large-scale
quantitative research allows rigorous sampling and analysis, and when repeated allows the
analysis of trends and variations over time. It is an essential part of monitoring efforts.
As well as surveys, many countries use, or should use, data collected on incidents of violence
though reporting mechanisms made available to students, school staff, parents, etc. in educational
institutions and outside educational institutions (hotlines, internet, police and justice, etc.).
Small-scale or community-based research is more frequently conducted by NGOs or research
institutes, and is essential to understand the nature of homophobic and transphobic violence in
educational institutions, and its impact on the education and health of individuals. Although it is
more common, this type of research produces findings that are only valid for the sample studied,
and not for the general population. However, small-scale studies are necessary to understand
the nature of homophobic and transphobic violence, and can usefully inform responses by the
education sector:
Community-based samples, while not representing the broader population, serve an important
purpose and should not be dismissed as has often occurred within government agencies. Rather,
these studies reflect the lived experience of self-identified LGBT youth and are vital sources of
essential data to reflect the changing cultural experiences of LGBT youth, ethnic and cultural
differences, risk and protective factors, socialization and development. [262, p. 111].
This research allows trained researchers to ask specific questions about homophobic and
transphobic violence, and to analyse the phenomenon and its specificities in more detail.
This approach is often a useful complement to large-scale quantitative surveys. However, it is
unsustainable for the majority of NGOs to monitor homophobic and transphobic violence over
long periods of time due to the high costs involved, and most NGOs inability26 to carry out repeat
research over multi-year periods. It may be desirable for governmental bodies to partner with
NGOs to conduct surveys that are planned over a long period of time. There is also a problem
with data being generated by NGOs, particularly LGBT organizations, as data can be biased or
perceived as such by policy-makers in many contexts. It is then a problem in terms of the use of
the data by the education sector, whether bias exists or not.
Whatever the size of the research on violence in educational institutions, common data collection
methods are self-administered questionnaires for students and staff, individual interviews with
students, staff or parents, and online surveys for the same groups. When it comes to evaluating
education sector responses, the most common data collection methods are desk research and
policy analysis. This is sometimes complemented by case studies or surveys with education

26 This inability is often due to the forms of funding available to NGOs, which do not allow reliable planning or programming over long
periods of time.

115

professionals to establish whether policies on homophobic and transphobic violence exist in

their local context (school or school district).
Gender identity/expression is too frequently left out of research. Frequently, data collection
by the education sector will focus on homophobia or respondents sexual orientation, and
ignore transphobia or respondents gender identity/expression. This can be due to the fact
that governmental data collection efforts are informed by legislation and policy in the area
of discrimination, which can refer to the ground of sexual orientation but not gender identity/
expression. Even if legislation does not touch upon gender identity/expression, including this
characteristic when researching violence can lead to useful findings (including on the necessity
to update existing laws and policies).
While most research on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings only takes
place once, repeating research allows the monitoring of evolving trends, particularly on the
prevalence of violence. This is crucial to understanding whether existing responses work over
time, and to what extent. Repeating research is easier and more cost-effective for governmental
bodies than for NGOs or research institutes, especially when done as part of regular data
collection exercises such as school censuses or regular surveys on violence.
Finally, monitoring homophobic and transphobic violence has intrinsic limitations, including
under-reporting. Victims of bias-motivated violence report incidents less frequently than other
victims [18], [263] for a number of reasons: they may not want their sexual orientation or gender
identity (or any other part of their lives) disclosed, for instance to parents; they may feel ashamed;
they may fear retaliation or repeat violence; or they may simply not know this type of violence can
and must be reported.

116

Under-reporting is a major obstacle to monitoring homophobic and transphobic violence, and

leads to data that potentially under-represents the prevalence of violence. To address this,
monitoring mechanisms must be carefully designed and set up, ideally with the help of experts
on homophobic and transphobic violence.

CASE STUDY PERU: SYSTEMATICALLY RECORDING AND RESPONDING TO INCIDENTS OF

VIOLENCE
The SseVe system in Peru explicitly covers homophobic and transphobic violence, and offers a
useful framework to systematically record and respond to violence in schools:
Register the incident.
Respond to the situation via interviews with those involved and their families, while guaranteeing
the students protection.
Offer help to the victims affected, should they require medical or legal support, before any
communication with their parents.
Follow up to find out what further actions were undertaken in the school community, for instance
mediation sessions with a teacher.
Close the case when there is evidence that students well-being has improved.
The SseVe system allows identifying when incidents are motivated by homophobia or transphobia,
and can provide the number or percentage of reported cases in which specific insults were
proffered, for example. SseVe has great potential as a mechanism to systematically record and
respond to specific forms of violence.

The importance of disaggregation

Disaggregating data means separating it based on specific criteria. For example, asking students
about their own sexual orientation in addition to their experience of violence will allow researchers

to compare how much violence students experience if they are heterosexual, homosexual or
bisexual. Asking students about their age and gender allows a greater understanding of how
violence affects specific age groups or genders differently.
Disaggregation, particularly by age, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity/expression,27
is essential in terms of producing relevant and useful data on homophobic and transphobic
violence in educational institutions. It reveals patterns that are invisible when looking at a
whole group: for example, it may lead to the realization that lesbian students and male-tofemale transgender students are more exposed to some forms of violence (for example, sexual
violence), or that transgender students face specific challenges (for example, more school days
skipped). Without disaggregation, it would also be impossible to measure how much violence
affects students when they are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex or heterosexual.
Disaggregation is done by asking respondents about their personal characteristics as part
of surveys or interviews, and keeping this data linked to the rest of their answers. It must be
done in the context of anonymous research that cannot be used to determine a persons sexual
orientation or gender identity/expression and their name.
Existing research on violence in educational settings still rarely disaggregates data by gender,
let alone by sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. More disaggregated data is
essential in order to understand how violence affects different groups, and how the education
sector can effectively respond to different forms of violence.

REVIEW OF INDICATORS USED TO MONITOR SCHOOL-RELATED VIOLENCE

INCLUDING HOMOPHOBIC AND TRANSPHOBIC VIOLENCE AND MONITOR AND
EVALUATE EDUCATION SECTOR RESPONSES
For the purpose of this report, a review of indicators used to monitor violence in educational
settings was conducted. They included: (a) indicators that meet the exact criteria of what
an indicator should be; and (b) questions included in surveys, which are often referred to as
indicators, even if they cannot be defined as such. They have been used in both quantitative
and qualitative studies, on large or small scales, and most of them have already produced data.
The review considered 437 indicators used in approximately 114 countries and territories to
monitor the prevalence and nature of violence in educational institutions, its impacts (mostly on
those targeted by violence), and education sector responses to violence. Indicators considered
for the review are used by different categories of institutions:
$$ Governments: ministries, national research institutions including centres for statistics, and
other governmental bodies
$$ Independent research institutions
$$ International governmental organizations (multilateral organizations) such as UN agencies
$$ International NGOs (INGOs)
$$ National NGOs
$$ Corporate sector.
The review distinguished three broad categories of violence in educational institutions:
$$ Violence in general, or school-related violence
$$ School-related gender-based violence
$$ Violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

27 Sexual orientation and gender identity are different, and must be surveyed separately. A transgender person may be homosexual,
bisexual or heterosexual, for example. See Glossary.

117

Indicators reviewed monitor and/or evaluate processes, outcomes or impacts in relation to the
following main three areas:
$$ Prevalence and nature of violence
$$ Impact of violence
$$ Education sector responses to violence
The review was a desk-based review of existing documents. UNESCO commissioned two reviews
in the Asia-Pacific region and in Latin America, in order to find out about specific indicators used
in those two regions, particularly through access to documents available only in Portuguese and
Spanish in Latin America. Although the review considered a large number of indicators, it does
not claim to be comprehensive, as researchers did not have access to documents not available
in English, French, Portuguese and Spanish.
Indicators to monitor the nature and prevalence of violence
Indicators that focus on the nature and prevalence of violence measure what it consists of, and
how often it occurs:
$$ Indicators related to the nature of violence: nature of violent incidents (verbal, physical,
sexual, online); location of violent incidents (in private, in the classroom, in public spaces,
around school, online); profile of perpetrators (peers, adults); profile of victims (age, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity/expression); bias motivation (use of specific terms against
victims, such as homophobic or transphobic insults).

118

$$ Indicators related to the prevalence of violence: number or percentage of students

reporting being victims of violence; number or percentage of students reporting perpetrators
of violence; number or percentage of students reporting witnessing violence; frequency of
violent incidents.
Indicators to monitor the impact of violence
Indicators that focus on the impact of violence measure mostly negative impacts of violence
on the education and health of those who are targeted by violence, and in some cases on
perpetrators and bystanders:
$$ Indicators related to the impact of violence on education: levels of academic achievement;
levels of academic motivation; targets and bystanders feeling of safety; number of school
days missed; number or percentage of students who dropped out of school (victims,
perpetrators or witnesses); number or percentage of students who were excluded from
school (victims, perpetrators or witnesses).
$$ Indicators related to the impact of violence on health: levels of self-confidence; victims
image towards others; use of substances; reports of self-harm ideation and attempts; reports
of suicide ideation and attempts.
Indicators to monitor or evaluate education sector responses
Indicators that focus on the education sectors responses to violence, either monitor responses,
i.e. find out whether they exist, and coverage (how many people are reached); or evaluate their
effectiveness (outcomes) and impact, i.e. find out whether responses have the intended effects.
They include:
$$ Indicators related to policies: existence of laws, policies or codes of conduct at the national,
local or school level; student, teacher and parent awareness of these policies.
$$ Indicators related to reporting mechanisms: existence of mechanisms to report violence;
student, teacher and parent awareness of these mechanisms; frequency of use.

$$ Indicators related to curricula: representation of sexual and gender diversity in curriculum

materials; reported discussion of sexual and gender diversity in classroom discussions.
$$ Indicators related to training for staff: reported training received on sexual orientation
and gender identity/expression issues; reported training received on homophobic and
transphobic violence.
$$ Indicators related to attitudes and beliefs: students, teacher or parents attitudes and
beliefs towards violence (whether it is legitimate or normal for example).
Overall conclusions on existing indicators
$$ The majority of indicators that were identified and reviewed for this report monitor violence
in general.
$$ Very few indicators monitor school-related gender-based violence in particular. The vast
majority of indicators focus only on sexual violence targeting girls, perpetrated either
by male students or teachers. This is a narrow definition of school-related gender-based
violence, which is now evolving to include violence based on gender norms and stereotypes
in general, and not targeting girls only. Disaggregation by sex, of data collected through
indicators on school-related violence in general, should be the rule as it can be helpful to
understand school-related gender-based violence. However, there should be specific
indicators that monitor the prevalence and nature of this form of violence, its impacts and
education sector responses to school-related gender-based violence.
$$ The review identified a significant number of indicators on violence based on sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression (120 indicators).
Characteristics of indicators on violence based on sexual orientation and gender
identity/expression
Out of the 120 indicators identified by this review, almost all of them are used by NGOs and
universities, in a limited number of countries. Only a few governments have started to collect
data on homophobic and transphobic violence in educational institutions. Efforts are still recent
and monitoring is not systematic yet in most of those countries.
Data for the indicators used by NGOs is often collected through surveys conducted outside of
schools. For example, this may be done through online surveys among students who self-identify
as LGBTI, or among adults who also self-identify as LGBTI and report about their experience of
violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression while they were in school,
sometimes several years prior to their response.
This is linked to the various legal and ethical constraints already discussed in this report when
asking students questions about the prevalence, nature and impacts of violence and homophobic
and transphobic violence in particular. In many countries, the law prevents researchers from
asking young people under the age of consent questions about their sexual orientation and
gender identity, and therefore violence based on those grounds, particularly in the school
context. In some countries, the criminalization of LGBTI peoples characteristics, identities or
behaviours also makes this type of research impossible.
For obvious reasons of anonymity and confidentiality, information linked to students sexual
orientation or gender identity/expression may not be collected through surveys organized
or conducted by educational authorities, unless trusted and efficient measures are in place
to guarantee anonymity. When data collection on homophobic and transphobic violence is
carried out in educational institutions, this is usually done through anonymous self-administered
questionnaires. In other cases students are asked to report about the experience of students in
general in their school in relation to homophobic and transphobic violence, and not on their own
experience.

119

Taken together, these characteristics mean that the data currently available on violence based
on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression often offer a limited understanding of
its nature, prevalence and impacts.
Tables 2 and 3 provide selected examples of indicators measuring school-related violence, and
violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity/expression. They provide a starting
point for action to be taken by the education sector in order to start monitoring violence based
on sexual orientation and gender identity in educational institutions, or to strengthen what has
already been done. Educational authorities have the responsibility to ensure that indicators used
to collect data on violence in schools in general somehow also capture data on homophobic
and transphobic violence. Indicators currently used in some countries to collect data
specifically on homophobic and transphobic violence, in particular by NGOs, cannot always
be used by educational authorities themselves because of the above-mentioned constraints.
In some contexts hostile to sexual and gender diversity, they cannot even be used by external
stakeholders because the terminology is not acceptable. Efforts are therefore needed to develop
internationally recognized indicators that can be used by a range of stakeholders in the education
sector, and can be adapted to different contexts.

TABLE 2 SELECTED EXAMPLES OF INDICATORS ON SCHOOL-RELATED VIOLENCE

Indicator

Institution(s) using the indicator &

where (global, regional and/or country
level)

Prevalence and nature of violence

120

Percentage of students who have been victims of any form of violence in

schools (e.g. bullying, corporal punishment or abuse by teachers)

Plan International/India

Percentage of students reporting cyber bullying/Percentage of students

who were cyber-bullied in the previous six months

Microsoft study in 25 countries/Hong

Kong SAR

Number of non-fatal victimizations against students ages 1218 and rate

of victimizations per 1,000 students

National Center for Education Statistics,

Bureau of Justice Statistics/US

Percentage of public school students in Grades 912 who reported having

been in a physical fight at least once during the previous 12 months

Ministry of Education/Argentina

Percentage of students abused by their schoolmates/adults in the school

Ministry of Education/Argentina

Percentage of students who are victims of harassment/intimidation/

physical violence nationwide

Vital Voices Association/Plan

International/Ombudsman of the
Republic of Bolivia

Percentage of students who report the following abuse: I have been

insulted, I have been ignored, I have been called offensive nicknames,
I have been rejected, I have been spoken badly of, Things of mine were
hidden, Things of mine were stolen

Secretariat of Public Education, National

Institute of Public Health/Mexico

Percentage of students who feel safe at school

Australian Council for Educational

Research/Australia

Impacts of violence
Number of school-associated violent deaths, homicides and suicides of
youth aged 518

National Center for Education Statistics,

Bureau of Justice Statistics/US

Percentage of students who, during the past 30 days, did not go to school
because they felt they would be unsafe at school or on the way to or from
school

WHO GSHS/Global

Proportion of children who skipped school because they were afraid/felt

unsafe to go to school due to violence in the last 12 months

UNICEF/Asia Pacific region

Percentage of students aged 1218 who reported avoiding school

activities or one or more places in school because of fear of attack or
harm during the school year

National Center for Education Statistics,

Bureau of Justice Statistics/US

Education sector responses

Percentage of students who, during this school year, were taught in any of
the classes about how to avoid being bullied

WHO GSHS/Global

Indicator

Institution(s) using the indicator &

where (global, regional and/or country
level)

Proportion of children who know what to do/who to turn to in case of

victimization

UNICEF/Unknown

Percentage of schools with protective school policies in place

UNICEF/Unknown

Proportion of students who disagree with the statement that calling

students names doesnt hurt them

USAID/Ghana, Malawi

Proportion of teachers who had knowledge of and received training on the

Teachers Code of Conduct

USAID/Ghana, Malawi

Proportion of teachers who believe students have the right not to be hurt
or mistreated

USAID/Ghana, Malawi

Proportion of schools that have a Code of Conduct addressing all acts of

school-related gender-based violence

USAID/Global

Proportion of teachers who believe they have the responsibility to act as a

protector of childrens rights

USAID/Ghana, Malawi

Percentage of schools with system of reporting, referral and monitoring

on violence against children cases established and functional

Plan International/Philippines, Sri Lanka

Percentage of schools with protective school policies in place

UNICEF / Asia Pacific region

Existence of national child protection policy in educational institutions

UNICEF/Indonesia, Lao PDR, Mongolia,

Papua New Guinea, Philippines,
Thailand

Existence of national education step-by-step response procedures for

child protection infringements in place

Governments/Papua New Guinea,

Philippines

TABLE 3 SELECTED EXAMPLES OF INDICATORS ON VIOLENCE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY/
EXPRESSION
Indicator

Institution(s) using the indicator &

where (global, regional and/or country
level)

Prevalence and nature of violence based on sexual orientation and

gender identity/expression
Percentage of respondents who felt discriminated against by school or
university personnel in the last 12 months because of being LGBT

European Union Agency for

Fundamental Rights/EU

Percentage of respondents who experienced negative comments or

conduct at school because of being LGBT

European Union Agency for

Fundamental Rights/EU

Percentage of respondents who heard or saw negative comments or

conduct because a schoolmate/peer was perceived as being LGBT

European Union Agency for

Fundamental Rights/EU

Number of times a student appeared to be rejected from school because

s/he was perceived as being homosexual

Secretara de Educacin del Distrito/

Bogot, Colombia

Percentage of children who were subjected to discrimination based on

their sexual orientation and gender identity in the school or educational
environment

National Human Rights Commission/

Mongolia

Percentage of children who have ever been assaulted at school or in an

educational environment because of their LGBT status

National Human Rights Commission/

Mongolia

Percentage of respondents who experienced discrimination based on their

LGBT status in school

UNDP and Williams Institute/Nepal

Percentage of students having been in a physical fight on school property

one or more times during the 12 months before the survey/and sexual
identity

Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention/US

Frequency that LGBT students experienced verbal harassment in the past

school year

GLSEN/USA

121

Indicator

Institution(s) using the indicator &

where (global, regional and/or country
level)

Frequency that LGBT students experienced physical harassment in the

past school year

GLSEN/USA

Frequency that LGBT students experienced physical assault in the past

school year

GLSEN/ USA

Impacts
Percentage of LGBT students who feel unsafe at school because of actual
or perceived personal characteristics

GLSEN/USA

Percentage of LGBT students who avoid spaces at school because they

feel unsafe or uncomfortable

GLSEN/USA

Percentage of LGBT students who avoid school activities because they feel GLSEN/USA
unsafe or uncomfortable
Education sector responses

122

[Percentage of schools with] Classes in which positive representations of

LGBT-related topics are taught

GLSEN/USA

LGBT students perceptions of the effectiveness of staff responses to

incidents of harassment and assault

GLSEN/USA

Percentage of LGBT students taught LGBT-related topics in any classroom

curriculum

GLSEN/USA

LGBT students reports on the availability of LGBT-related curricular

resources

GLSEN/USA

Frequency that LGBT students family members intervened in incidents of

harassment and assault

GLSEN/USA

These indicatorsalready in useshow that the education sector is able to meaningfully

monitor violence in different socio-cultural and legal contexts. On the basis of these
indicators, ministries of education, multilateral organizations and civil society should work
towards developing a robust framework to monitor violence in educational institutions, including
gender-based violence and including homophobic and transphobic violence.

4.
RECOMMENDATIONS

123

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 4 uses the findings of this report to present recommendations to the education sector.
The seven recommendations focus on strategic and practical actions to strengthen future
responses to homophobic and transphobic violence in educational settings.
The following recommendations focus on strategic and practical actions to develop and
strengthen effective and comprehensive education sector responses to homophobic and
transphobic violence. They take into consideration the specificities of different legal and sociocultural contexts in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity.

4.1. Systematic monitoring of violence

124

RECOMMENDATION 1: THE EDUCATION SECTOR SHOULD MONITOR

SYSTEMATICALLY THE PREVALENCE OF VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL
SETTINGS, INCLUDING VIOLENCE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND
GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION.
Specifically:
$$ Use existing routine data collection mechanisms that already include questions on the school
environment and safety, for example, school-based surveys managed by the education
sector, reporting mechanisms for incidents of violence, regional and international surveys
such as the Global School-based Student Health Survey and the Health Behaviour in SchoolAged Children cross-national survey.
$$ Ensure that these mechanisms include appropriate and sensitive indicators and questions
related to homophobic and transphobic violence and that data are disaggregated by age,
gender, sexual orientation and gender identity/expression to identify the prevalence and
nature of violence that is experienced by different groups of LGBTI students.
$$ Adapt terminology to the context, particularly in countries where same-sex relationships are
illegal.
$$ Review relevant and reliable data collected through specific studies conducted by NGOs
and research institutions

4.2. Comprehensive national and school-level policies

RECOMMENDATION 2: THE EDUCATION SECTOR SHOULD ESTABLISH
COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL AND SCHOOL POLICIES TO PREVENT AND
ADDRESS VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS, INCLUDING VIOLENCE
BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION.
Specifically:
$$ Ensure that policies are evidence-based and refer explicitly to students who are particularly at
risk of violence, including students whose sexual orientation and gender identity/expression
is perceived as different from the norm.
$$ Integrate issues relating to homophobic and transphobic violence into education sector
policies on violence, bullying, safe schools, inclusive education and anti-discrimination where
such policies exist.
$$ Use culturally-appropriate terminology in policies in countries where sexual and gender
diversity are sensitive issues, for example, refer to students whose expression does not
conform to gender norms or stereotypes rather than LGBTI students.
$$ Involve students, particularly those who are LGBTI, in the development of policies, including
through collaboration with civil society organizations that represent LGBTI people and
students or work on issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression.

4.3. Inclusive curricula and learning materials

RECOMMENDATION 3: ENSURE THE CURRICULA AND LEARNING MATERIALS
ARE INCLUSIVE.
Specifically
$$ Provide all students with access to non-judgmental and accurate information on sexual
orientation and gender identity/expression.
$$ Include education about discrimination and respect for all in the curriculum at all levels of the
education system, starting at an early age.
$$ Ensure that curricula and learning materials are evidence-based and inclusive with respect
to sexual orientation and gender identity/expression, including representation in content
and illustrations, and remove or avoid inaccurate and stigmatising content in curricula and
learning materials. In contexts where it is difficult to mention sexual and gender diversity in
curricula and learning materials, it is still possible to address issues such as definitions of
masculinity and femininity, gender roles and stereotypes and how these can be harmful to
individuals and society.
$$ Identify and use appropriate entry points in curricula to help students understand issues
related to sexual orientation and gender identity in a way that is age-appropriate and culturally
sensitive, for example, through citizenship, human rights or civics, history and politics,
language, literature and art, and health, personal and sexuality education.

125

4.4. Support for training and other school staff

RECOMMENDATION 4: PROVIDE TRAINING AND SUPPORT TO TEACHERS
AND OTHER EDUCATION AND SCHOOL STAFF TO PREVENT AND ADDRESS
VIOLENCE IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS, INCLUDING VIOLENCE BASED ON
SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION.
Specifically
$$ Provide teachers with pre-service and in-service training to deliver content related to sexual
orientation and gender identity in the curriculum, ideally through a participatory approach to
training that enables teachers to reflect on their values, attitudes, language and behaviours.
In contexts where it is difficult to mention sexual and gender diversity, teacher training may
focus on issues such as definitions of masculinity and femininity, gender roles and stereotypes
and how these can be harmful to individuals and society.
$$ Ensure that teachers, other school and educational staff receive training to enable them to
respond to violence, particularly bullying, in educational settings. This involves having the
knowledge, attitudes and skills to: identify incidents of violence, including homophobic and
transphobic violence, and immediately stop them; report incidents to the relevant authorities
using existing mechanisms and procedures; and listen to students who are victims of
homophobic and transphobic violence or witnessing it and provide them with support, either
directly or by referring them to the relevant school staff or external institutions.

126

4.5. Safe, inclusive and supportive school environments

RECOMMENDATION 5: ENSURE SAFE SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTS THAT ARE
FULLY INCLUSIVE AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THOSE STUDENTS AFFECTED
BY VIOLENCE, INCLUDING VIOLENCE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND
GENDER IDENTITY/EXPRESSION, AS WELL AS FAMILIES.
Specifically
$$ Communicate school policies related to safety and inclusion to the whole school and ensure
that they are monitored by school management.
$$ Put in place effective mechanisms and procedures to report any incident of violence; these
should be available in schools and, as appropriate, outside of schools, for example, hotlines
or internet-based reporting mechanisms that protect privacy and confidentiality.
$$ Ensure that reporting mechanisms can document incidents of violence that are based on
sexual orientation and gender identity in a culturally-sensitive way, so that these are properly
reported.
$$ Introduce or amend regulations that promote inclusiveness for transgender students, for
example, respect for transgender students preferred names, clothing and appearance
choices, processes to safeguard the privacy of students who transition while in schools, and
the confidentiality of students intersex status.
$$ Ensure that students affected by violence can report incidents in confidence, without having
to disclose their sexual orientation or gender identity against their will and without feeling
judged.
$$ Make available appropriate support or referral for support from trained staff for students
affected by homophobic and transphobic violence, including those who are targets of
violence, bystanders and families.

$$ Ensure that support is also available to the perpetrators of homophobic and transphobic
violence, so that they understand the reasons for their attitudes and behaviours and can
change them.
$$ Encourage peer support networks among students.

4.6. Information campaigns and partnerships with civil society

RECOMMENDATION 6: PROVIDE ACCESS TO NON-JUDGMENTAL AND
ACCURATE INFORMATION ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY/
EXPRESSION IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS, THROUGH INFORMATION
CAMPAIGNS AND PARTNERSHIPS WITH CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE WIDER
SCHOOL COMMUNITY.
Specifically
$$ Ensure that educational settings offer accurate, age-appropriate and evidence-based
information on sexual and gender diversity through, for instance, information campaigns
including posters, leaflets and films. These campaigns can often complement the inclusion
of relevant information in the formal curriculum.
$$ Encourage the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in the design, implementation
and evaluation of activities that prevent and address violence, including homophobic and
transphobic violence:
## parents and parent associations, teachers unions, student organizations.
## civil society organizations that offer evidence-based expertise and are ready to work with
the education sector to address homophobic and transphobic violence, including NGOs
that represent LGBTI people; youth NGOs; and NGOs working on human rights, sexual
and reproductive health, or gender. In some countries these organizations have already
gained expertise in the response to school-related violence, including homophobic and
transphobic violence.
$$ Establish partnerships with other sectors that play a role in preventing and addressing
violence in schools, for example, health and social services.

4.7. Evaluation of education sector responses to violence

RECOMMENDATION 7: THE EDUCATION SECTOR SHOULD EVALUATE THE
EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS AND IMPACT OF ITS RESPONSES TO VIOLENCE,
INCLUDING VIOLENCE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER
IDENTITY/EXPRESSION.
Specifically
$$ Ensure that all programmes and interventions are evaluated regularly to assess whether or
not they are working.
$$ Evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and impact of education sector responses to violence
including the extent to which the response is comprehensive. This should include, for
example, evaluating the way in which programmes are delivered, the effectiveness of training
and delivery of the curriculum, the extent to which mechanisms are being used, the cost

127

effectiveness of interventions, and their impact on prevention of and responses to violence

in schools.
$$ In countries where the education sector response has been limited, an initial assessment of
the situation, priority needs and opportunities to implement the elements of a comprehensive
response can be conducted. This also provides a baseline against which to monitor the
progress and impact of the response.

128

BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] UNESCO, Education sector responses to homophobic bullying. Paris, France: UNESCO,
2012.
[2]

UNESCO, Teaching Respect for All, UNESCO, Paris, 2014.

[3]

E. Fraser and K. Fancy, Global Guidance on Addressing School-Related Gender-Based

Violence, UNESCO, 2015.

[4]

UN, Report of the independent expert for the United Nations study on violence against
children A/61/299, 2006. [Online]. Available: http://www.unicef.org/violencestudy/reports/
SG_violencestudy_en.pdf. [Accessed: 26-Sep-2015].

[5]

UNICEF, Hidden in plain sight: A statistical analysis of violence against children, UNICEF,
2014.

[6]

D. A. Wolfe and D. Chiodo, Sexual harassment and related behaviours reported among
youth from grade 9 to grade 11, CAMH Centre for Prevention Science, 2008.

[7]

UNESCO, From Insult to Inclusion: Asia-Pacific report on school bullying, violence and
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, UNESCO, Paris and
Bangkok, 2015.

[8]

M. F. G. Lucassen, T. C. Clark, and E. Moselen, Youth12 The Health and Wellbeing of

Secondary School Students in New Zealand: Results for Young People Attracted to the
Same Sex or Both Sexes, The University of Auckland, Auckland, 2014.

[9]

E. Roland and G. Auestad, Seksuell orientering og mobbing, Senter for Atferdsforskning,

Stavanger, 2009.

[10] avaria, National Report on Homophobic Attitudes and Stereotypes among Young People
in Belgium, NISO Project, 2013.
[11] GMR, UNESCO, and UNGEI, School-related gender-based violence is preventing the
achievement of quality education for all: Policy Paper 17 at 59th session of the Commission
on the Status of Women in New York City, 59th session of the Commission on the Status of
Women in New York City. UNESCO, p. 16, 2015.
[12] K. Kozai and E. Coliver, Establishing an Effective Framework to Address School-Related
Gender Based Violence, Human Rights Advocates, San Francisco, 2013.
[13] ICGBV, Addressing School Related Gender Based Violence: Learning from Practice:
Learning Brief No. 10, Irish Consortium on Gender Based Violence, Dublin, 2013.
[14] UNESCO and UNGEI, School-Related Gender Based Violence in the Asia-Pacific Region,
UNESCO, Bangkok, 2014.
[15] Plan International, A Girls Right to Learn Without Fear: Working to end gender-based
violence at school, Plan Limited, Surrey, 2013.

129

[16] S. Bloom, J. Levy, N. Karim, L. Stefanik, M. Kincaid, D. Bartel, and K. Grimes, Guidance
for Gender Based Violence (GBV) Monitoring and Mitigation within Non-GBV Focused
Sectoral Programming, CARE USA, 2014.
[17] Plan UK, Ending school-related gender-based violence: Briefing paper, London, 2013.
[18] F. Leach, M. Dunne, and F. Salvi, School-Related Gender based Violence: A global review
of current issues and approaches in policy, programming and implementation responses
to School-Related Gender-Based Violence (SRGBV) for the Education Sector, UNESCO,
2014.
[19] I. Meyer, Statement of Ilan H. Meyer, Ph.D. Before The United States Commission on Civil
Rights Briefing on Peer-To-Peer Violence And Bullying: Examining The Federal Response
May 13, 2011, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/
safe-schools-and-youth/meyer-usccr-testimony-may2011/. [Accessed: 15-Jul-2015].
[20] G. M. Herek, Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults
in the United States: prevalence estimates from a national probability sample, J. Interpers.
Violence, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 5474, Jan. 2009.
[21] UNESCO, Review of Homophobic Bullying in Educational Institutions, UNESCO, Paris,
France, 2012.
[22] K. Robinson, A study of young lesbian and gay peoples school experiences, Educ.
Psychol. Pract., vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 331 351, 2010.

130

[23] R. B. Toomey, C. Ryan, R. M. Diaz, N. A. Card, and S. T. Russell, Gender-nonconforming

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth: school victimization and young adult
psychosocial adjustment., Dev. Psychol., vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 15801589, 2010.
[24] J. I. Kjaran and G. Kristinsdttir, Schooling sexualities and gendered bodies. Experiences
of LGBT students in Icelandic upper secondary schools, Int. J. Incl. Educ., pp. 216, 2015.
[25] UNDP and USAID, Being LGBT in Asia: The Philippines Country report, UNDP, Bangkok,
2014.
[26] GLSEN, From teasing to torment: School Climate in America: A Survey of Students and
Teachers, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, New York, 2005.
[27] U.S. Department of State, 2012 Human Rights Reports, U. S. Department of State
Compendium of LGBT references, Washington, 2012.
[28] ASSAf, Diversity in Human Sexuality: Implications for Policy in Africa, Academy of Science
of South Africa, Uganda National Academy of Sciences, Pretoria, South Africa, 2015.
[29] A. Carroll and P. Itaborahy, State-Sponsored Homophobia: A World Survey of Laws:
Criminalisation, protection and recognition of same-sex love, ILGA, Geneva, 2015.
[30] P. C. Perezneito, B. C. Harper, and J. Coarasa, The Economic Impact of School Violence:
A Report for Plan International, Plan International, London, 2010.
[31] CSN, Preventing Bullying: The Role of Public Health and Safety Professionals, Childrens
Safety Network, Newton, MA, 2011.
[32] A. Park and F. Halawi, Lack of Equal Treatment and Access to Equal Opportunity for
LGTBQ People in the United States: Submission to the United Nations Universal Periodic
Review of United States of America, The Williams Institute, Los Angeles, 2015.
[33] S. K. Choi, B. D. M. Wilson, J. Shelton, and G. Gates, Serving our Youth 2015: The
Needs and Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Youth

Experiencing Homelessness, The Williams Institute with True Colors Fund, Los Angeles,
2015.
[34] J. Kosciw, E. A. Greytak, N. A. Palmer, and M. J. Boesen, The 2013 National School
Climate Survey: The experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth in Our
Nations Schools, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, New York, 2014.
[35] METRO, Youth Chances Summary of First Findings: The Experiences of LGBTQ Young
People in England, METRO Youth Chances, London, 2014.
[36] E. Formby, The impact of homophobic and transphobic bullying on education and
employment: A European survey 2013, IGLYO and Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield,
2013.
[37] C. Cceres and X. Salazar, Eds., Era como ir todos los das al matadero... El bullying
homofbico en instituciones pblicas de Chile, Guatemala y Per. Documento de trabajo,
IESSDEH, UPCH, PNUD, UNESCO, Lima, 2013.
[38] UNESCO, Bullying targeting secondary school students who are or are perceived to be
transgender or same-sex attracted: Types, prevalence, impact, motivation and preventive
measures in 5 provinces of Thailand, Mahidol University, Plan International Thailand,
UNESCO Bangkok Office, Bangkok, 2014.
[39] METRO, Youth Chances Survey of 16-25 year olds: First Reference Report, METRO Youth
Chances, London, 2014.
[40] PNUD, Informe sobre la situacin de los derechos humanos de las mujeres trans en El
Salvador, PNUD y Procuradura para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos, San Salvador,
El Salvador, 2013.
[41] E. Smith, T. Jones, R. Ward, J. Dixon, A. Mitchell, and L. Hillier, From Blues to Rainbows:
The mental health and well-being of gender diverse and transgender young people in
Australia, La Trobe University and University of New England, Melbourne, 2014.
[42] T. Jones and L. Hillier, Comparing trans-spectrum and same-sex-attracted youth in
Australia: Increased risks, increased activisms, J. LGBT Youth, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 287
307, 2013.
[43] UNESCO, Namibia Country Report, 2016.
[44] E. A. Greytak, J. Kosciw, and E. Diaz M., Harsh Realities: The Experiences of Transgender
Youth in our Nations Schools, Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, New York,
2009.
[45] M. V. L. Badgett, S. Nezhad, K. Waaldijk, and Y. V. D. M. Rodgers, The Relationship between
LGBT Inclusion and Economic Development: An Analysis of Emerging Economies, USAID,
the Williams Institute, 2014.
[46] U.S. Secretary of Education, White House Summit on Bully Prevention Conference
Materials. US Secretary of Education, p. 104, 2011.
[47] UNICEF, Tackling Violence in Schools: A global perspective Bridging the gap between
standards and practice, Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on
Violence against Children, New York, 2012.
[48] C. Taylor and T. Peter, Every Class in Every School: Final Report on the First National
Climate Survey on Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia in Canadian Schools, EGALE,
Canada Human Rights Trust, Toronto, ON, 2011.

131

[49] M. Schoonacker and E. Dumon, WELEBI: Onderzoek naar het mentaal en sociaal
welbevinden van lesbische en biseksuele meisjes, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.
jeugdonderzoeksplatform.be/nl/databank-jeugdonderzoek/welebi-onderzoek-naar-hetmentaal-en-sociaal-welbevinden-van-lesbische-en-biseksuele-meisjes. [Accessed: 17Nov-2015].
[50] L. Kuyper, Young people and sexual orientation: Summary and discussion, The Dutch
Institute for Social Research, 2015.
[51] KPH, Violence Motivated by Homophobia. Warsaw: KPH - Kampania Przeciw Homofobii,
2011.
[52] W. B. Bostwick, I. Meyer, F. Aranda, S. Russell, T. Hughes, M. Birkett, and B. Mustanski,
Mental health and suicidality among racially/ethnically diverse sexual minority youths,
Am. J. Public Health, vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 11291136, 2014.
[53] Committee on LGBT Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities, The Health
of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better
Understanding. Washington: National Academies Press (US), 2011.
[54] Youth Coalition, COJESS Mxico, and Eneache, Primera encuesta nacional sobre bullying
homofbico, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.enehache.com/EncuestaBullying/
Bullying homofobico-1.pdf. [Accessed: 23-Nov-2015].
[55] M. Makuchowska and M. Pawlga, Situation of LGBT Persons in Poland: 2010 and 2011
Report, Kampania Przeciw Homofobii, Warsaw, 2012.

132

[56] R. Kuhar, S. Maljevac, A. Koletnik, and J. Magi, Vsakdanje ivljenje istospolno usmerjenih
mladih v Sloveniji Analiza raziskave, Drutvo informacijski center Legebitra, Ljubljana,
2008.
[57] J. Magi and A. Janjevak, Excuse me, Miss are you a Lesbian? Report on LGBT Teachers
in Slovenia, Information Centre Legebitra, Ljubljana, 2011.
[58] Republic of Lithuania, Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect
of Public Information, 2009. [Online]. Available: http://www.iglhrc.org/sites/default/
files/319-1.pdf.
[59] B. L. Lough Dennel and C. Logan, Life in Scotland for LGBT Young People: Education
Report, LGBT Youth Scotland, Glasgow, 2012.
[60] CDC, Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health-Risk Behaviors Among Students
in Grades 9-12: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Selected Sites, United States, 20012009, Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion, 2011.
[61] Concern Worldwide, National Study on School-Related Gender-Based Violence in Sierra
Leone: Final Report, Concern Worldwide, CRS, IBIS, Plan International, 2010.
[62] FRA, EU LGBT survey: Main results, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,
Luxemburg, 2014.
[63] UN, Discrimination and violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and
gender identity: Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights - A/HRC/29/23, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/
HRC/RegularSessions/Session29/Documents/A_HRC_29_23_en.doc. [Accessed: 12Nov-2015].

[64] IACHR, An Overview of Violence against LGBTI Persons, Annex press release 153/14, 2014.
[Online]. Available: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/media_center/PReleases/2014/153A.asp.
[Accessed: 22-Sep-2015].
[65] O. Ahmed and C. Jindasurat, A Report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence
Programs; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and HIV-Affected Hate Violence in
2013, 2014.
[66] UNESCO, Asia-Pacific Consultation on School Bullying based on Sexual Orientation and
Gender Identity / Expression - Meeting Report, UNESCO, Bangkok, Thailand, 2015.
[67] J. Takcs, Social exclusion of young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT)
people in Europe, ILGA Europe, IGLYO, Brussels, 2006.
[68] L. Hillier, T. Jones, M. Monagle, N. Overton, L. Gahan, J. Blackman, and A. Mitchell,
Writing Themselves In 3: The third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of
same sex attracted and gender questioning young people, Australian Research Centre in
Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, 2010.
[69] UNDP and the Williams Institute, Surveying Nepals Sexual and Gender Minorities: An
Inclusive Approach - Executive Summary, UNDP, Bangkok, 2014.
[70] UNESCO, Gender, diversity and violence in schools in five countries in Southern Africa:
Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland (draft), UNESCO, 2015.
[71] GLN, Homophobia in Schools in Pietermaritzburg, Gay and Lesbian Network, South
Africa, 2011.
[72] ACPF, The African Report on Violence against Children, The African Child Policy Forum,
Addis Ababa, 2014.
[73] UNGEI and UNESCO, School-Related Gender-Based Violence (SRGBV): UNGEI UNESCO Discussion Paper, November 2013, UNESCO, UNGEI, 2013.
[74] L. Antonowicz, Too often in Silence: A report on School-based Violence in West and
Central Africa, UNICEF, Plan West Africa, Save the Children Sweden, West Africa and
ActionAid, 2010.
[75] N. Collet, Hong Kong NGO fights homophobia in schools, 2010. [Online]. Available:
http://www.fridae.asia/gay-news/2010/08/13/10223.hong-kong-ngo-_ ghts-homophobiain-schools. [Accessed: 12-Aug-2015].
[76] Inochi Resupekuto Howaito Ribon Kyanpen, Findings from 2013 Survey on LGBT students
School Experience, EndoMameta, Tokyo, 2014.
[77] NHRC of Mongolia, 12th Report on Human Rights and Freedoms in Mongolia, National
Human Rights Commission of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, 2013.
[78] OCHR Kazakhstan, Assessment of violence against children in schools in Kazakhstan,
Astana, Commissioner for human rights in the Republic of Kazakhstan & UNICEF Office
in Kazakhstan, Astana, 2013.
[79] UNICEF, Report on assessment of prevalence and dynamic of violence in schools in
Kyrgyzstan, UNICEF, 2010.
[80] Soros Foundation, Unacknowledged and Unprotected: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender People in Kazakhstan, Soros Fundation - Kazahkstan, 2009.
[81] S. Singh, A. Krishan, and S. Mishra, Experienced discrimination and its relationship with
life chances and socioeconomic status of sexual minorities in India, Amaltas Research;
World Bank Group, New Delhi, 2015.

133

[82] S. I. Khan, M. I. Hussain, S. Parveen, M. I. Bhuiyan, G. Gourab, G. F. Sarker, S. M. Arafat,

and J. Sikder, Living on the extreme margin: Social exclusion of the transgender population
(Hijra) in Bangladesh, J. Heal. Popul. Nutr., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 441451, 2009.
[83] HRW, Im Scared to Be a Woman: Human Rights Abuses Against Transgender People
in Malaysia, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2014.
[84] Y. K. Teh, The Mak Nyahs: Malaysian Male to Female Transexuals. Singapore: Eastern
University Press, 2002.
[85] KRYSS, On the Record: Violence Against Lesbians, Bisexual Women and Transgender
Persons in Malaysia, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC),
New York, 2014.
[86] WAO, CEDAW & Malaysia: Malaysian Non-Government Organisations Alternative Report:
Assessing the Governments progress in implementing the United Nations Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination agasint Women (CEDAW), Womens Aid
Organisation and Malaysian NGO CEDAW Report Group, Selangor, 2012.
[87] O. Pizmony-Levy, A. Kama, G. Shilo, and S. Lavee, Do My Teachers Care Im Gay? Israeli
Lesbigay School Students Experiences at their Schools, J. LGBT Youth, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
3361, 2008.
[88] O. Pizmony-Levy, G. Shilo, and B. Pinhasi, Is There a New Israeli Gay Teenager?, J. LGBT
Youth, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 340368, 2009.
[89] J. Magi, Combating Homophobia and Transphobia in Education: Consultation of ILGAEurope membership, ILGA Europe, 2013.

134

[90] SETA ry, FINLAND: The Human Rights status of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and
Intersex People: Submission to the United nations Human Right Council for its Universal
periodic Review of Finland (13th Session, 2012), 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.
sateenkaariperheet.fi/userfiles/documents/UPR_review_-_Human_Rights_status_of_
Lesbian_Gay_Bisexual_Transgender_and_Intersex_People_-_Sateenkaariperheet_-_
Seta_-_Trasek_211111.pdf. [Accessed: 13-Nov-2015].
[91] M. Teychenn, Discriminations LGBT-phobes lcole tat des lieux et recommendations:
Rapport de Michel Teychenn Monsieur le Ministre de lducation nationale, Ministre de
lducation nationale, Paris, 2013.
[92] P. Mayock, A. Bryan, N. Carr, and K. Kitching, Supporting LGBT Lives: A Study of the
Mental Health and Well-being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, GLEN,
BeLonGTo, Health Service Executives National Office for Suicide Prevention (NOSP),
Dublin, 2009.
[93] R. Sijbers, D. Fettelaar, W. De Wit, and T. Mooij, Sociale veiligheid in en rond scholen.
Nijmegen: Universiteit Nijmegen, 2014.
[94] V. Ylmaz and . Gmen, Summary Results of the Social and Economic Problems of
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transsexual (LGBT) Individuals in Turkey, Cent. Policy Res.
Turkey, vol. IV, no. 6, pp. 97105, 2015.
[95] NUS, Education Beyond the Straight and Narrow: LGBT students experience in higher
education, National Union of Students, 2014.
[96] A. Guasp, The School Report: The experiences of gay young people in Britains schools
in 2012, Stonewall UK, Centre for Family Research - University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
2012.

[97] R. Taavetti, K. Alanko, and L. Heikkinen, Wellbeing of LGBTIQ Youth research project:
Summary of results, Seta ry, Helsinki, 2015.
[98] DSSGI, NOU - Norges offentlige utredninger: hre til Virkemidler for et trygt psykososialt
skolemilj, Departementenes sikkerhets- og serviceorganisasjon Informasjonsforvaltning,
Oslo, 2015.
[99] M. Bendixsen and L. E. O. Kennair, Resulater fra prosjekt Seksuell helse og trakassering
i videregende opplring 2013 - 2014, Trondheim, 2014.
[100] R. Antnio, T. Pinto, C. Pereira, D. Farcas, and C. Moleiro, Bullying homofbico no contexto
escolar em Portugal, Psicologia, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1732, 2012.
[101] J. Takcs, L. Mocsonaki, and T. P. Tth, Social Exclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgender (LGBT) People in Hungary: Research Report, Httr Support Society for
LGBT People in Hungary, 2008.
[102] MGRM, LGBT Discrimination in Malta: A survey on sexual orientation and gender identity
discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in Malta, 20062008, Malta Gay Rights Movement, Mosta, 2011.
[103] J. Swierszcz, Summary Report Equality Lesson Attitudes and Needs of School Staff and
Youth Towards Homophobia in School, Kampania Przeciw Homofobii, Warsaw, 2012.
[104] N. Bijeli and A. Hodi, Heteronormativity in Secondary Schools in Zagreb: Young Men
Wearing Make-up, Kissing and Walking Proudly, Druboslovne Razpr., no. 73, pp. 4360,
2013.
[105] F. E. Sheregi, School-related violence against children and adolescents under the age of
14, Centre for sociological surveys, 2012.
[106] UNICEF, Investigating the Prevalence and Impact of Peer Abuse (Bullying) on The
Development of Jamaicas Children, UNICEF, Kingston, 2015.
[107] Sentiido, El bullying por homofobia debe salir del clset, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://
sentiido.com/el-bullying-por-homofobia-debe-salir-del-closet/. [Accessed: 14-Aug-2015].
[108] C. F. Cceres, A. Silva-Sansebastian, X. Slazaar, J. Cuadros, F. Olivos, and E. Segura,
Estudio a travs de internet sobre bullying y sus manifestaciones homofbicas en
escuelas de Chile, Guatemala, Mxico y Per, y su impacto en la salud de jvenes varones
entre 18 y 24 aos: Informe Final, Instituto de Estudios en Salud, Sexualidad y Desarrollo,
Lima, 2011.
[109] M. E. Ferreyra, Gender Identity and Extreme Poverty, in Urgency Required: Gay and
Lesbian Rights are Human Rights, I. Dubel and A. Hielkema, Eds. Humanist Institute for
Cooperation with Developing Countries (Hivos), 2010, p. 290.
[110] UNICEF, La Voz de los Nios, Nias y Adolescentes y Discriminacin, UNICEF, 2011.
[111] E. S. Alba, Y. Herrera, and B. Freire, Informe sobre la situacin de los derechos humanos
de las poblaciones LGBTI, Fundacin Ecuatoriana Equidad, Ecuador, 2013.
[112] SEP and UNICEF, Informe nacional sobre violencia de genero en la educacion basica en
Mexico, UNICEF Mxico, Mxico, 2009.
[113] SED, Educacin para la ciudadana y la convivencia: Encuesta de Clima Escolar y
Victimizacin, 2013, Secretara de Educacin del Distrito Secretara Distrital de Cultura,
Recreacin y Deporte, Observatorio de culturas, Bogota, 2013.
[114] MOVILH Joven, Encuesta sobre Educacion sexual y Discriminacion, MOVILH, Santiago
de Chile, 2012.

135

[115] EGALE Canada, Every class in every school: Final report on the first national climate
survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools: Executive
Summary, Toronto, 2011.
[116] T. Peter, C. Taylor, and L. Chamberland, A Queer Day in Canada: Examining Canadian
High School Students Experiences With School-Based Homophobia in Two Large-Scale
Studies, J. Homosex., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 186206, 2014.
[117] A. R. DAugelli, Mental Health Problems among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youths Ages
14 to 21, Clin. Child Psychol. Psychiatry, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 433456, Jul. 2002.
[118] R. L. Stotzer, Sexual Orientation-Based Hate Crimes on Campus: The Impact of Policy on
Reporting Rates, Sex. Res. Soc. Policy, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 147154, 2010.
[119] R. G. Russo, The Extent of Public Education Nondiscrimination Policy Protections for
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Students: A National Study, Urban Educ., vol.
41, no. 2, pp. 115150, 2006.
[120] Ministre de la Justice, Quebec Policy Against Homophobia, 2009. [Online]. Available:
http://www.justice.gouv.qc.ca/english/ministere/dossiers/homophobie/homophobie-a.
htm#policy. [Accessed: 14-Jul-2015].
[121] The McCreary Centre Society, Not yet equal: The Health of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual
Youth in BC, The McCreary Centre Society, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2007.

136

[122] J. Veale, E. Saewyc, H. Frohard-Dourlent, S. Dobson, B. Clark, and The Canadian Trans
Youth Health Survey Research Group, Being Safe, Being Me: Results of the Canadian
Trans Youth Health Survey, Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre,
School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, 2015.
[123] C. H. Lee, An ecological systems approach to bullying behaviors among middle school
students in the United States., J. Interpers. Violence, vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 16641693, 2011.
[124] J. F. Richard, B. H. Schneider, and P. Mallet, Revisiting the whole-school approach to
bullying: Really looking at the whole school, Sch. Psychol. Int., vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 263284,
2012.
[125] I. Meyer and R. Bayer, School-Based Gay-Affirmative Interventions: First Amendment
and Ethical Concerns, Am. J. Public Health, vol. 103, no. 10, pp. e1 e8, 2013.
[126] J. P. Elia, Bisexuality and School Culture: School as a Prime Site for Bi-Intervention, J.
Bisex., vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 452471, 2010.
[127] H. N. Bishop and H. Casida, Preventing Bullying and Harassment of Sexual Minority
Students in Schools, Clear. House A J. Educ. Strateg., vol. 84, no. 4, pp. 134138, 2011.
[128] S. Robers, J. Kemp, J. Truman, and T. D. Snyder, Indicators of School Crime and Safety:
2011, National Center for Education Statistics, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013.
[129] J. G. Kosciw, N. A. Palmer, R. M. Kull, and E. A. Greytak, The Effect of Negative School
Climate on Academic Outcomes for LGBT Youth and the Role of In-School Supports, J.
Sch. Violence, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 4563, 2013.
[130] C. Symons, G. O. Sullivan, M. B. Andersen, and R. C. J. Polman, The Impact of
Homophobic Bullying during Sport and Physical Education Participation on Same-SexAttracted and Gender-Diverse Young Australians Depression and Anxiety Levels: The
Equal Play Study, College of Sport and Exercise Science, Victoria University, and the
Institute for Sport, Exercise and Active Living, 2014.

[131] L. Hillier, D. Dempsey, L. Harrison, L. Beale, L. Matthews, and D. Rosenthal, Writing

Themselves In: A National Report on the Sexuality, Health and Well-Being of Same-Sex
Attracted Young People, Social Research, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and
Society, Melbourne, 1998.
[132] L. Hillier, A. Turner, and A. Mitchell, Writing Themselves in Again: 6 Years on - The 2nd
national report on the sexuality, health & well-being of same sex attracted young people
in Australia, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society, La Trobe University,
Melbourne, 2005.
[133] E. Denison and A. Kitchen, Out on the Fields: The first international Study on Homophobia
in Sport, Out on the Fields, 2015.
[134] CRC, Adolescent Health and Development in the Context of the Convention on the Rights
of the Child: General Comment no.4, 2003. [Online]. Available: http://www.ohchr.org/
Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/Health/GC4.pdf. [Accessed: 12-Aug-2015].
[135] C. Cornu, Preventing and addressing homophobic and transphobic bullying in education:
A human rights-based approach using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child, Journal of LGBT Youth, Volume 13, Issue 1-2, 2016.
[136] UNESCO, The Dakar Framework for Action - Education For All: Meeting Our Collective
Commitments, UNESCO, Dakar, Senegal, 2000.
[137] UN, United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ipu.org/splz-e/unga16/2030-e.pdf. [Accessed: 22-Dec-2015].
[138] OHCHR, Resolution on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity A/
HRC/27/L.27/Rev.1, 2014.
[139] UN, Joint UN statement on ending violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender and intersex people. UN Human Rights Office of the High
Commissioner, 2015.
[140] Ministers of Health and Education of Latin America, Mexico City Ministerial
Declaration Educating to Prevent, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://new.paho.org/hq/
dmdocuments/2009/Mexico City Ministerial Declaration Educating to Prevent-Eng.pdf.
[Accessed: 23-Jul-2015].
[141] HRW, Jamaica: Combat Homophobia Repeal Anti-Buggery Law; Protect LGBT People,
2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/18/jamaica-combathomophobia. [Accessed: 09-Aug-2015].
[142] La Asamblea General, Derechos Humanos, Orientacin Sexual E Identidad De Gnero
AG/RES. 2653 (XLI-O/11), 2011. [Online]. Available: https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/AGRES_2653_XLI-O-11_esp.pdf. [Accessed: 15-Sep-2015].
[143] CoE, Committee of Ministers Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)5 on measures to combat
discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity, 2010. [Online].
Available: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1606669. [Accessed: 15-Aug-2015].
[144] CoE, European Social Charter, 1996. [Online]. Available: http://conventions.coe.int/
Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/163.htm.
[145] Interights, Interights vs. Croatia, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.interights.org/
croatia-sex-ed/index.html. [Accessed: 12-Sep-2015].
[146] A. M. Mitchell, M. Gray, K. Green, and K. Beninger, What works in tackling homophobic,
biphobic and transphobic (HBT) bullying among and young people? Evidence review and
typology of initiatives, Government Equalities Office, London, 2014.

137

[147] SSC, Safe Schools Coalition, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.safeschoolscoalition.

org.au/. [Accessed: 09-Oct-2015].
[148] CSSN, The Canadian Safe School Network, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://
canadiansafeschools.com/. [Accessed: 09-Oct-2015].
[149] DES, Anti-Bullying Procedures for Primary and Post-Primary Schools, Department of
Education and Skills, Ministry for Education and Skills, Dublin, Ireland, 2013.
[150] FRA, Professionally speaking: challenges to achieving equality for LGBT people. Vienna Austria: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2016.
[151] Supreme Court Judgements, Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4
S.C.R. 710, 2002 SCC 86, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/
scc-csc/en/item/2030/index.do. [Accessed: 10-Aug-2015].
[152] M. Smith, Questioning heteronormativity: Lesbian and gay challenges to educational
practice in British Columbia, Canada, Soc. Mov. Stud., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 131145, 2004.
[153] Court of Appeal for British Columbia, School District No. 44 (North Vancouver) v. Jubran,
2005 BCCA 201 (CanLII), 2005. [Online]. Available: http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/
doc/2005/2005bcca201/2005bcca201.html. [Accessed: 10-Aug-2015].
[154] Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Bill 13, Accepting Schools Act, 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2549. [Accessed: 23-Sep2015].

138

[155] Assemble nationale du Qubec, Bill 56: An Act to Prevent and Stop Bullying and Violence
in Schools, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/
projets-loi/projet-loi-56-39-2.html. [Accessed: 20-Aug-2015].
[156] U.S. Department of Education, Dear Colleague Letter, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://
www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html. [Accessed: 12-Jul2015].
[157] U.S. Department of Education, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence,
2014. [Online]. Available: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-titleix.pdf. [Accessed: 12-Oct-2015].
[158] UNESCO Santiago, La violencia homofbica y transfbica en el mbito escolar: hacia
centros educativos inclusivos y seguros en Amrica Latina, UNESCO, Santiago, 2015.
[159] IIDH, Informe Interamericano de la Educacin en Derechos Humanos Un estudio en 19
pases: Desarrollo en las polticas de convivencia y seguridad escolar con enfoque de
derechos, Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, San Jose, 2011.
[160] Flemish Department of Education, Gender aware and LGBT friendly policies in education,
Brussels, 2012.
[161] Flemish Government, The Common Declaration for a Gender Sensitive and LGBT Friendly
Policy in Schools, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/
esd/11thMeetSC/Documents/2015_Good_practices_gender_in_ESD_BE_Flanders.pdf.
[Accessed: 13-Aug-2012].
[162] Republique Franaise, Programme dactions gouvernemental contre les violences et
les discriminations commises raison de lorientation sexuelle ou de lidentit de genre,
Premier Ministre, 2012.
[163] LADS, Berlin supports self-determination and the acceptance of sexual diversity! Berlin
Senate Resolution of 16th of February 2010, Berlin, 2010.

[164] J. I. Pichardo Galan, M. de Stefano Barbero, J. Faure, M. Saenz, and J. Williams Ramos,
Abrazar La Diversidad: propuestas para una educacin libre de acoso homofbico y
transfbico, Subdireccin General para la Igualdad de Trato y la no Discriminacin, 2015.
[165] T. Jones, Policy and Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex Students. Cham,
Heidelberg, New York, Dordrecht and London: Springer International Publishing, 2015.
[166] DoEECD, Supporting Sexual Diversity in schools, Student Wellbeing & Health Support
Division Office for Government School Education Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development Melbourne, Melbourne, State of Victoria, 2008.
[167] T. Jones and L. Hillier, Sexuality education school policy for Australian GLBTIQ students,
Sex Educ., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 437 454, 2012.
[168] E. M. Saewyc, C. Konishi, H. A. Rose, and Y. Homma, School-based strategies to
reduce suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and discrimination among sexual minority and
heterosexual adolescents in Western Canada, Int. J. Child, Youth Fam. Stud., vol. 5, no. 1,
pp. 89112, 2014.
[169] ILGA-Europe, TGEU, and OII Germany, Joint contribution by ILGA-Europe, Transgender
Europe and OII- Germany towards the European Commissions assessment of the state of
affairs vis--vis gender discrimination in education and the provision of financial services.
ILGA Europe, Brussels, 2010.
[170] STA, Transgender Experiences in Scotland, Research Summary, Scottish Trangender
Alliance, Edinburgh, 2008.
[171] TDSB, TDSB Guidelines for the Accommodation of Transgender and Gender Non
Conforming Student and Staff, Toronto, 2013.
[172] MoEE, Trans, Gender Variant and Intersex Students in Schools: Policy. Ministry of
Education and Employment, Valetta, Malta, p. 24, 2015.
[173] K. Donnelly, Department of Education officials discuss transgender students and their
future in Irish schools, News Education, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.independent.
ie/irish-news/education/department-of-education-officials-discuss-transgender-studentsand-their-future-in-irish-schools-31586779.html. [Accessed: 25-Nov-2015].
[174] DOEECD, Guidelines for Supporting Transgender and Gender-nonconforming Students,
The Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Province of
Nova Scotia, 2014.
[175] MfE, Advancing transgender equality: a plan for action, UK Government Equalities Office,
London, 2011.
[176] Victoria DfET, Policy on Gender Identity, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.education.
vic.gov.au/school/principals/spag/health/pages/genderidentity.aspx#link37. [Accessed:
08-Oct-2015].
[177] CoE, Combating discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity:
Council of Europe standards, Council of Europe Publishing, Strasbourg, 2011.
[178] F. Bucx, F. Van Der Sman, and C. Jalvingh, Different class - Evaluation of the pilot Social
safety of LGBT children at school: Summary and Conclusions, The Dutch Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science, 2014.
[179] G. Richard, The Pedagogical Practices of Qubec High School Teachers Relative to
Sexual Diversity, J. LGBT Youth, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 113143, 2015.

139

[180] IGLYO, Policy Paper on Education, International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender
and Queer Youth and Student Organisation, Brussels, 2009.
[181] IGLYO, Minimum standards to combat homophobic and transphobic bullying, International
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Youth and Student Organisation, Belgium,
2014.
[182] J. Magi and J. Swierszcz, Breaking the Silence: Talking about Homosexuality in the
Secondary School. Ljubljana: Information Centre Legebitra, 2012.
[183] E. McIntyre, Teacher discourse on lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils in Scottish schools,
Educ. Psychol. Pract., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 301314, 2009.
[184] M. Mitchell, M. Gray, and K. Beninger, Tackling homophobic, biphobic and transphobic
bullying among school-age children and young people: Findings from a mixed method
study of teachers, other providers and pupils, Government Equalities Office, London,
2014.
[185] L. Rodrigues, A. Brs, C. Cunha, P. J. Petiz, and C. Nogueira, Teachers Discourses on
Young Lesbians in the Portuguese School Context, Rev. Electrnica Actualidades Investig.
en Educ., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 119, 2015.
[186] J. Takcs, LGBT youth at school: being threatened by heteronormative oppression, J.
Contemp. Educ. Stud., vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 6890, 2009.
[187] R. Depalma and M. Jennett, Homophobia, transphobia and culture: deconstructing
heteronormativity in English primary schools, Intercult. Educ., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1526,
2010.

140

[188] CoE, Discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in Europe,
Council of Europe Publishing, France, 2011.
[189] J. Magi, Homophobia in our school? A report on teachers experiences with homophobia
in Slovene secondary schools, Information Centre Legebitra, Ljubljana, 2012.
[190] M. Topolovec, Homophobia in our School? Comparative analysis of Slovene-Polish
research on attitudes and experiences of secondary school teachers with homosexuality
and homophobia in schools, Information Centre Legebitra, Ljubljana, 2012.
[191] Heinrich Bll Stiftung, Anti-Gender Movements on the Rise? Strategising for Gender
Equality in Central and Eastern Europe, Heinrich Bll Stiftung, 2015.
[192] ILGA Europe, Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Trans and Intersex People in Europe 2015, ILGA Europe, Brussels, 2015.
[193] WHO, Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: A framework for policy makers,
educational and health authorities and specialists, WHO Regional Office for Europe and
BZgA, Cologne, 2010.
[194] UNESCO, International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education: An EvidenceInformed Approach for Schools, Teachers and Health Educators, UNESCO, France, 2009.
[195] UNESSCO, UNPFA, and UNICEF, Sexuality education: a ten-country review of school
curricula in East and Southern Africa, UNESCO, New York, 2012.
[196] UNAIDS IATT on Education and UNESCO, 2011 - 2012 Education Sector HIV and AIDS
Global Progress Survey: Progression, Regression or Stagnation?, UNESCO, Paris, 2013.
[197] MdECD, Royal decree 1631/2006 of 29th December 2006, Curriculum for citizenship and
human rights education, 2006. [Online]. Available: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.
php?id=BOE-A-2012-10473. [Accessed: 14-Aug-2015].

[198] FELGBT, La diversidad afectivo-sexual y familiar en los manuales de Educacin

para la Ciudadana y los Derechos Humanos, Federacin estatal de lesbianas, gays,
transexuales y bisexuales, Madrid, 2008.
[199] J. I. Pichardo Galan, M. de Stefano Barbero, L. Puche Cabezas, B. Molinuevo Puras, and
O. Cabrera Moreno, Diversidad Sexual Y Convivencia: Una Opotunidad Educativa. Madrid:
FELGTB y Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2013.
[200] COWI, Study on Homophobia, Transphobia and Discrimination on Grounds of Sexual
Orientation and Gender Identity Sociological Report: the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, The Danish Institute for Human Rights, 2009.
[201] Labris, Ministry of Education closes the door to the homophobia, 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://labris.org.rs/en/ministry-of-education-closes-the-door-to-the-homophobia/.
[Accessed: 04-Dec-2015].
[202] WHO, Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe: Guidance for Implementation, WHO
Regional Office for Europe and BZgA, 2011.
[203] IGLYO, The impact of homophobic and transphobic bullying on education and employment:
Advocacy Recommendations, International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and
Queer Youth and Student Organisation, Brussels, 2014.
[204] GALE, GALE Toolkit Working with Schools 1.0: Tools for school consultants, principals,
teachers, students and parents to integrate adequate attention of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender topics in curricula and school policies. Amsterdam: Global Alliance for LGBT
Education, 2012.
[205] GLSEN, Ready, Set, Respect! GLSENs Elementary School Toolkit, Gay, Lesbian &
Straight Education Network, New York, 2012.
[206] V. Muoz, Educacin sexual, derecho humano: La piedra y el viento. Informe preliminar
del Relator Especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre el derecho humano a la educacin
sexual integral, CLADEM, Montevideo, 2010.
[207] Government of Norway and Finnish government, CoEs Follow-up to Recommendation
CM/Rec(2010)05, 2011. [Online]. Available: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/
hrpolicy/Others_issues/LGBT/Follow_up_en.asp. [Accessed: 13-Sep-2015].
[208] MECC, Best practices from The Netherlands: OHCHR request as follow up
to Res. 27 /32 (Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity), 2014.
[Online].
Available:
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/
DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016801e8db8. [Accessed: 14-Sep-2015].
[209] The Scottish Government, Getting It Right for Every Child programme, 2015. [Online].
Available: http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Young-People/gettingitright. [Accessed: 09Oct-2015].
[210] LGBT YS and LTS, Toolkit for Teachers: Dealing with Homophobia and Homophobic
Bullying in Scottish Schools, LGBT Youth Scotland, Glasgow, 2009.
[211] IGLYO and OBESSU, Guidelines for Inclusive Education: Sexual Orientation, Gender
Identity and Gender Expression, International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and
Queer Youth and Student Organisation, Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
[212] J. Cowley, The Education Equality Curriculum Guide: Supporting teachers in tackling
homophobia in school, Cara-Friend and The Rainbow Project, Belfast, 2011.

141

[213] UNESCO, Lesson Plan: IDAHO, 2012. [Online]. Available: http://www.unesco.org/new/

fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/ED/pdf/IDAHOLessonplan2013.pdf. [Accessed: 23-Jun2015].
[214] GLSEN, Playgrounds and Prejudice: Elementary School Climate in the United States: A
Survey of Students and Teachers, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, New York,
2012.
[215] A. Guasp, G. Ellison, and T. Satara, The Teachers Report 2014: Homophobic Bullying in
Britains Schools, Stonewall UK, London, 2014.
[216] EADSNE, Key Principles for Promoting Quality in Inclusive Education Recommendations for
Policy Makers. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs
Education, 2009.
[217] ALLIES, Teachers and Parents Alliance for Early Violence Prevention in pre-school,
2015. [Online]. Available: http://wwwedu.oulu.fi/Apropos/allies/ALLiES_eGUIDE.htm.
[Accessed: 12-Sep-2015].
[218] DES, Primary School Curriculum: Social, Personal & Health Education, Department of
Education and Science, Dublin, Ireland, 1999.
[219] G.-K. Charonis, A. Kokkinou, D. Prisacariu, and E. Tamulionyte, Teachers Guide to
Inclusive Education, IGLYO - International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and
Queer Youth and Student Organisation, Belgium, 2015.

142

[220] S. Vega, H. G. Crawford, and J. Van Pelt, Safe Schools for LGBTQI Students: How Do
Teachers View Their Role in Promoting Safe Schools?, Equity Excell. Educ., vol. 45, no. 2,
pp. 250260, 2012.
[221] K. Craig, D. Bell, and A. Leschied, Pre-service Teachers Knowledge and Attitudes
Regarding School-Based Bullying, Can. J. Educ., vol. 234, no. 2, pp. 2133, 2011.
[222] D. K. Kwok, S. Winter, and M. Yuen, Heterosexism in school: the counselling experience
of Chinese tongzhi students in Hong Kong, Br. J. Guid. Couns., vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 561
575, 2012.
[223] S. Aerts, M. Van Houtte, A. Dewaele, N. Cox, and J. Vincke, Sense of Belonging in
Secondary Schools: A Survey of LGB and Heterosexual Students in Flanders, J. Homosex.,
vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 90113, 2012.
[224] N. M. Edwards, Using Nail Polish to Teach about Gender and Homophobia, Teach. Sociol.,
vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 362372, 2010.
[225] Coalicion Boliviana de LGBT, Informe Anual Derechos Humanos Estado Plurinacional
de Bolivia: Personas lesbianas, gays bisexuales, transexuales y transgnero, Coalicion
Boliviana de LGBT, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, 2014.
[226] E. A. Greytak and J. G. Kosciw, Year One Evaluation of the New York City Department of
Education Respect for All Training Program, Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network,
New York, 2010.
[227] QueerFormat, QueerFormat, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.queerformat.de/.
[Accessed: 09-Oct-2015].
[228] Stonewall UK, Training Partners, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/
get-involved/education/training-partners. [Accessed: 12-Sep-2015].
[229] CDC, LGBTQ Youth Programs-At-A-Glance, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.cdc.
gov/lgbthealth/youth-programs.htm. [Accessed: 07-Jul-2015].

[230] S. J. Lemoire and C. P. Chen, Applying Person-Centered Counseling to Sexual Minority

Adolescents, J. Couns. Dev., vol. 83, no. 2, pp. 146154, Apr. 2005.
[231] L. C. Smith, R. Q. Shin, and L. M. Officer, Moving Counseling Forward on LGB and
Transgender Issues: Speaking Queerly on Discourses and Microaggressions, Couns.
Psychol., vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 385408, Jun. 2011.
[232] M. Luke and K. M. Goodrich, LGBTQ Responsive School Counseling Supervision, Clin.
Superv., vol. 31, pp. 81102, 2012.
[233] UNESCO, Stopping Violence in Schools: A guide for Teachers, UNESCO, 2011.
[234] M. G. F. Worthen, The Interactive Impacts of High School Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs)
on College Student Attitudes Toward LGBT Individuals: An Investigation of High School
Characteristics, J. Homosex., vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 21750, 2014.
[235] P. Clarke and B. Macdougall, The Case for Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) in Canadas
Public Schools: An Educational Perspective, Educ. Law J., vol. 21, pp. 143165, 2012.
[236] J. Magi and S. Maljevac, Research for Action: Challenging Homophobia in Slovene
Secondary Education (to be published), J. LGBT Youth, 2016.
[237] Ontario Ministry of Education, Parents Reaching Out Grants, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/parents/reaching.HTML. [Accessed: 31-Jan-2016].
[238] S. K. Schneider, L. ODonnell, A. Stueve, and R. W. S. Coulter, Cyberbullying, school
bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students, Am. J.
Public Health, vol. 102, no. 1, pp. 171177, 2012.
[239] S. Hinduja and J. W. Patchin, Cyberbullying Research Summary: Bullying, Cyberbullying
and sexual orientation, Cyberbullying Research Center, 2011.
[240] P. Burton and T. Mutongwizo, Inescapable violence: Cyber bullying and electronic
violence against young people in South Africa, Cent. Justice Crime Prev., no. 8, pp. 112,
2009.
[241] UK Equalities Office, Stop Online Abuse, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.
stoponlineabuse.org.uk/. [Accessed: 12-Sep-2015].
[242] U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Stopbullying.gov, 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.stopbullying.gov/. [Accessed: 09-Oct-2015].
[243] E. Paterson, F. McMillan, and S. Maljevac, Challenging homophobia together: A guide to
developing Strategic Partnerships in Education, LGBT Youth Scotland, Edinburgh, 2011.
[244] BPAG, Bullying prevention and response: a guide for schools, Bullying Prevention
Advisory Group, New Zealand, 2015.
[245] Ontario Ministry of Education, Safe Schools: Publications, 2015. [Online]. Available:
https://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/publications.html. [Accessed: 31-Jan-2016].
[246] The White House, On the Road in Arlington, Texas: Focus on Safe Schools & Communities,
2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/26/road-arlingtontexas-focus-safe-schools-communities. [Accessed: 31-Jan-2016].
[247] ILGA Europe, EU education ministries discuss how to enable safe and inclusive schools,
2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.ilga-europe.org/what-we-do/our-advocacy-work/
education/events/education-meeting-lisbon-2015.

143

[248] DES, 29 January, 2013 - Ministers Quinn and Fitzgerald launch Action Plan on Bullying,
2013. [Online]. Available: https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2013Press-Releases/PR- 2013-01-29.html. [Accessed: 31-Jan-2016].
[249] UNICEF, Measuring Violence against Children: Inventory and assessment of quantitative
studies, Division of Data, Research and Policy, UNICEF, New York, 2014.
[250] IGKC, Interfederal Centre for Equal Opportunities, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://www.
diversiteit.be/. [Accessed: 24-Nov-2015].
[251] SBJW, Ihre Ansprechpartner, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.berlin.de/sen/bjw/
service/ihre-ansprechpartner/. [Accessed: 24-Nov-2015].
[252] SBWF, Notfllplane fr Berliner Schulen, Senatsverwaltung fr Bildung, Wissenschaft und
Forschung, Berlin, 2011.
[253] Health Service Executive, Reach Out: Irish National Strategy for Action Suicide Prevention
2005 - 2014, Dublin, 2006.
[254] Ministry of Education, Sexuality Education: A guide for principals, boards of trustees, and
teachers. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education, 2015.
[255] MfE, Working for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Equality: Moving Forward, UK
Government Equalities Office, London, 2011.
[256] DoE, Preventing and tackling bullying: Advice for headteachers, staff and governing
bodies, Home Office Government, London, 2014.

144

[257] CDC, Global School-based Student Health Survey (GSHS), 2015. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cdc.gov/gshs/. [Accessed: 09-Oct-2015].
[258] LLECE, Latin American Laboratory for Assessment of the Quality of Education, 2015.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/santiago/education/educationassessment-llece/. [Accessed: 09-Oct-2015].
[259] M. G. Castro, M. Abramovay, and L. Bernadette da Silva, Juventudes e sexualidade,
UNESCO: Brasil, 2004.
[260] UNESCO, O Perfil dos Professores Brasileiros. Sao Paolo: UNESCO, 2004.
[261] UNICEF and UNDP, Cuaderno de desarrollo humano: Convivir es mejor: estudiantes
hablan sobre el barrio, la casa y el cole, UNDP, San Jos, Costa Rica, 2011.
[262] I. Rivers and C. Ryan, Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth: victimisation and its
correlates in the USA and UK, Cult. Heal. Sex., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 103 119, 2003.
[263] B. L. Lough Dennel and C. Logan, Prejudice-based bullying in Scottish schools: A research
report. Glasgow: Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2015, p. 124.
[264] ILGA Europe, Rainbow Europe, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://rainbow-europe.org/.
[Accessed: 08-Oct-2015].
[265] UK Equalities Office, UK Equality Act 2010, 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf.

United Nations
Educational, Scientic and
Cultural Organization

No country can achieve inclusive and equitable

quality education if its own students are
discriminated against or experience violence based
on their actual or perceived sexual orientation and
gender identity - a type of violence often referred to
as homophobic and transphobic violence and which
is found prevalent in all educational settings in many
countries.

OUT IN

This publication summarises the main findings of

a global review - providing the first ever overview
of the most up-to-date data on the nature, scope
and impact of, as well as current actions to address,
homophobic and transphobic violence in educational
settings worldwide. It also provides education sector
stakeholders with a framework for planning and
implementing effective responses as part of wider
efforts to prevent and address violence in schools.

THE OPEN
Education sector
responses to violence
based on sexual
orientation and gender
identity/expression

Education
Sector
United Nations
Educational, Scientic and
Cultural Organization

9 789231 001505