National Educator Survey on School Climate and Bullying

The number of U.S. youth identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or otherwise queer (LGBTQ+) has increased substantially. In 2015, 11 percent of high school students identified as LGBTQ+; in 2021, 26 percent of youth 13 to 17 identified as LGBTQ+.^[i] Despite this increase, LGBTQ+ youth are still disproportionately vulnerable to harassment and bullying. In 2023, nearly 60 percent of LGBTQ+ students reported having been teased, bullied, or treated badly at school.^[ii] In an online survey of LGBTQ+ students, nearly one-third (31%) reported physical harassment because of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.^[iii] Nearly thirteen percent reported having been physically assaulted.^[iv]

Students who are bullied are less likely to feel engaged in school, which harms learning. Students who are victimized at school are more likely to miss school.^[v] Indeed, in 2023, one in five LGBTQ+ students reported missing school due to safety concerns during the past 30 days, as opposed to one in ten non-LGBTQ+ students.^[vi] Some research suggests that every missed day of school reduces students’ learning.^[vii]

Bullying also worsens mental and physical health.^[viii] LGBTQ+ youth have higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality than non-LGBTQ+ youth.^[ix] According to national data, in 2023, nearly two-thirds of LGBTQ+ students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, as compared to about one-third of non-LGBTQ+ students. In the same year, about two in five LGBTQ+ students seriously considered attempting suicide, as compared to 13 percent of non-LGBTQ+ students.^[x] Anti-LGBTQ+ harassment is one cause of these large disparities: indeed, a study found that experiencing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment explained about 20 percent of disparities in mental health between LGBTQ+ teens and their peers.^[xi]

Bullying does not harm only its victims but worsens overall school climates. In addition to youth who are bullied, youth who bully and youth who witness bullying also have poorer mental health than their peers.^[xii] Moreover, anti-LGBTQ+ harassment begins early. Although students who would later identify as LGBTQ+ were teased at similar rates to students who would later identify non-LGBTQ+ at age five, by age nine, students who would later identify as LGBTQ+ were about twice as likely to be teased as students who would later identify as non-LGBTQ+.^[xiii] Given that most students weren’t already identifying as LGBTQ+ at age nine, they might have been being teased because they displayed more gender non-conforming behaviors (e.g., boys enjoyed playing with dolls or other activities typically associated with girls).

School, district, state, and federal policies that address anti-LGBTQ+ bullying can improve school climates for all students, boosting student achievement and improving students’ mental health (Seelman & Walker, 2018; Liang et al., 2023).^[xiv] One particularly well-designed study found that state-level anti-bullying laws reduce students’ reports of having been bullied; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and questioning (LGBQ) students reported the largest reductions in bullying (a 21 percent reduction for female LGBQ and a 54 percent reduction for male LGBQ students).^[1] These reductions in bullying translated into improved mental health for LGBQ students.^[xv]

State policies that are not explicitly about bullying can still impact bullying rates and school climates through other avenues. For example, state policies that provide better access to restrooms and locker rooms for transgender youth reduce the risk of transgender youth experiencing sexual assault.^[xvi]

Other state policies may destigmatize LGBTQ+ individuals and thereby reduce bullying rates. For example, requiring the inclusion of LGBTQ+ stories in curriculum teaches all students that LGBTQ+ individuals are valuable members of society. In contrast, banning any discussion of LGBTQ+ issues or individuals teaches students that there is something shameful about being LGBTQ+, which may increase stigma and promote bullying.

State policies that affect school climate also have implications for school staffing, particularly teacher turnover. One national survey of teachers found that stress was the most common reason teachers cited for leaving teaching. Teachers were more likely to cite stress as the reason for leaving teaching than insufficient pay – indeed, after leaving teaching, they often took jobs that paid similarly.^[xvii] Poor school climate and student behavioral problems are additional stressors. LGBTQ+ teachers may be more stressed than the average teacher, given that they also report being subject to anti-LGBTQ+ harassment.^[xviii] Some amount of teacher turnover is expected and can even be positive, if teachers who find themselves not suited to the profession decide to find another career. However, high levels of turnover create instability at a school, which leads to lower student achievement.^[xix]

Currently, many states are moving away from initiatives that would improve school climates and reduce anti-LGBTQ+ bullying. Multiple states have passed measures to limit discussion of LGBTQ+ issues within schools, as well as to prevent schools from providing inclusive environments for transgender and gender fluid students.^[xx] Moreover, politicians at the federal level, including the current President of the United States, are actively promoting anti-LGBTQ+ directives,^[xxi] impacting the overall political climate. In fact, just recently, in their 2026 party platform, the Texas Republican Party called for banning all transgender individuals from working in schools. These policies, as well as the discussions they spark, may impact schools and worsen school climates, possibly increasing anti-LGBTQ+ harassment.

Additionally, some of these policies may lead to educators and schools to discontinue support previously provided to LGBTQ+ students. In one recent national survey, 65 percent of teachers reported limiting classroom discussions on social and political issues. About half of these teachers were required to limit discussions under state bans, but the other half were either subject to local bans or decided on their own to limit discussions.^[xxii] Teachers expressed concerns about parent and community reactions to discussing controversial issues. The authors conclude that state policies restricting school environments have trickle down effects in terms of educators’ classroom practices.

This report draws on a national survey of K-12 educators to understand how state policy environments during the 2025-2026 school year were related to school and district policies and practices, as well as school climate for LGBTQ+ youth. We find that state policy environments are related to school climates: educators in states with more anti-LGBTQ+ laws and policies reported more restrictive school and district policies as well as less access to anti-bullying training covering LGBTQ+ issues, as compared to educators in states with more laws and policies supportive of LGBTQ+ youth. These educators also reported higher levels of student and teacher harassment, as well as more concerns about intervening to prevent harassment.

Data Sources 

Survey

We designed and fielded a survey for public school educators, including teachers, principals, school counselors, and other staff, in PK-12 public schools. This variety of staff enabled us to learn about experiences from a wide variety of staff roles, and we use the term “educator” to refer to all respondents, regardless of whether they work primarily as teachers or in other roles.

The survey had approximately 55 questions and an estimated completion time of about 20 minutes. We asked educators several general questions about their schools, about their own roles and experience as PK-12 educators, and about their demographic characteristics. The bulk of the survey involved questions on educators’ perceptions of and experiences with anti-LGBTQ+ teacher and student harassment during the 2025-2026 school year.

During survey design, we tested the survey with seven educators with a variety of roles and experiences to assess whether questions were clear and easy to answer, as well as to understand whether the questions were capturing intended constructs. The final questionnaire reflected this feedback from educators, best practices in survey design, and insights from subject matter experts.

The survey was fielded between April 15th and May 21st, 2026, via Qualtrics. Invitations were sent out through multiple listservs. Educators were eligible to participate if they worked at a public school in one of the fifty states or D.C. during the 2025-2026 school year; therefore, our sample included individuals who work at a public school but were not necessarily teachers. Approximately 881 educators responded, of whom 826 educators answered all questions relevant to the current study. We therefore restricted analyses to those 826 educators.

Sample Description

As shown in Table 1, most respondents (93.6%) were employed at traditional public schools during the 2025-2026 school year, with a small percentage at charter schools. A slight majority of respondents (60.5%) worked at Title I schools, or schools that receive federal financial assistance because they serve high percentages of children from low-income households. Our sample was distributed across school level: 39% worked at elementary schools, 21% at middle schools, and 33% at high schools (with 6.5% working at a different type of school).

As stated, not all of the respondents were teachers. About 63 percent of respondents reported that they were teachers. Another 5 percent were administrators, and 15 percent had counseling positions. Finally, 17 percent reported having another type of support role at their school (e.g., reading specialist).

Our respondents were relatively similar to the general K-12 teaching population in terms of experience, with our respondents reporting slightly more experience. Over one-third reported that they had worked as educators for over twenty years. Another third reported working as educators for 11 to 20 years. In contrast, under ten percent of respondents had been employed in education one to three years. These percentages are relatively similar to the distribution of experience of overall K-12: in 2020-2021, seven percent of teachers had been teaching less than three years, 29 percent had been teaching three to nine years, 37 percent had been teaching 10 to 20 years, and 26 percent had been teaching over 20 years.^[i]

Although a disproportionate group of our sample are from Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, as shown in Figure 1, educators responded from a total of 42 states and D.C. The majority of respondents (53%) reported that their school was in an urban setting, with another 37 percent reporting that their school was in a suburban setting and about 10 percent reporting that their school was in a rural setting. A slight majority of respondents reported that their school was in either a somewhat liberal (25%) or mostly liberal (28%) area. Another quarter of respondents (24%) reported that their area was equally conservative and liberal, and the remaining quarter were split between somewhat (11%) and mostly (13%) conservative areas.

Most of our sample (87%) identified as White, with another five percent identifying as Black and about six percent identifying as two or more races. Although the majority of the national K-12 teaching workforce is White, our sample appeared slightly more homogenous than the general educator workforce. Similarly, like national rates, about three quarters of our sample identified as women.^[ii]

Our sample was much more likely to identify with the LGBTQ+ community than the general educator workforce. About 10 percent of respondents identified as bisexual; 21 percent identified as gay or lesbian; and another six percent identified with another sexual orientation (other than straight or heterosexual). About four percent of our sample identified as transgender. Overall, about 39 percent of the sample identified as LGBTQ+.^[!] Although precise estimates of the percentages of K-12 educators who identify as LGBTQ+ do not exist, one report suggests that about 6 to 9 percent of K-12 teachers identify as LGBTQ+.^[i]

Movement Advancement Project (MAP) Ratings

To classify state policy environments, we drew on Movement Advancement Project (MAP) scores for state laws and policies, linking them to our sample using educators’ reported state. MAP gives states an overall score, as well as a score for each of seven policy areas related to LGBTQ+-related laws.[2] Each policy area has separate sexual orientation and gender identity ratings, as well as a composite total. Similarly, MAP gives each state separate sexual orientation and gender identity scores and ratings, along with the overall score and rating. States are scored for positive laws (e.g., anti-bullying laws and policies covering LGBTQ+ students), a lack of laws or policies, and negative laws (e.g., ‘Don’t Say LGBTQ’ laws explicitly restricting educators from discussing LGBTQ+ people or issues in schools).

Given our focus on how state policy environments relate to school environments, we used MAP scores from the LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies category.^[1] When we checked our results using the overall ratings instead, the findings were the same. This is likely because states with weak LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies generally have weak ratings in other areas, too. We aggregated states into two categories: Negative, which included states scored at or below zero on LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies, and Positive, which included states scored above zero on LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies. States could have a negative overall score for LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies if they had more negative laws and policies than positive laws and policies. Figure 2 indicates which states were classified as Negative versus Positive.

Some localities do not align with their state’s broader political climate. For instance, an educator in a progressive city like Austin, Texas, might report a more progressive local climate even though Texas has negative ratings for LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies and a negative overall score. When examining the differences between educators’ responses by state policy environment, we accounted for local political climate, so that we could detect when state policies may influence school environments above and beyond the influence of local political climate. We point out when state policies seemed to influence outcomes beyond what we’d expect based on local political climate alone, and we note when we cannot tell which of the two is driving the differences.

Constructs Measured

In the survey, we asked educators about policies, training experiences, multiple types of anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, and harassment specifically related to sexual orientation versus gender identity and expression. In most cases, we combined multiple items to examine educators’ overall perceptions and observations of anti-LGBTQ+ harassment. In the following section, we describe the main measures discussed in this report. The full survey with all questions is available as an appendix.

School and District Policies

We asked educators about their experiences with restrictions on their classroom practices during the past twelfth months. In the results section, we list responses for each question separately. We also combined educators’ responses into a single policy index, which we used as the outcome when examining whether Negative states were significantly different from Positive states. We scored a response of “no formal policy, and this has not been limited or discouraged at my school or district” as a 0; we scored a response of “no formal policy, but this has been discouraged by my school or district” as a 1; and we scored a response of “yes, a formal state, district, or school policy limited or discouraged this” as a 2. Any “not sure” responses were treated as missing. Therefore, educators could have scores ranging from 0 to 12. We also constructed an alternative index that scores any “yes” answer as 1 and a “no” answer as 0.

Training Experiences

We asked respondents whether they had received any training from their school or district on how to respond to student bullying or harassment in the past two years. For those respondents who had received any training, we asked whether that training covered bullying or harassment based on the following student characteristics or identities: race, ethnicity, or national origin; religion; disability; socioeconomic status; physical appearance; sexual orientation; gender identity or being transgender; or gender expression. We report these separately.



Perceptions of anti-LGBTQ+ Student Harassment

We asked educators about multiple types of anti-LGBTQ+ harassment. For each question, educators could respond that the type of harassment was: not a problem, a minor problem, a moderate problem, a serious problem, or not sure. We first aggregated these responses into two categories: not a problem or a minor problem and a moderate or serious problem. “Not sure” was treated as missing data.

Second, we asked educators about student harassment based on sexual orientation, using the same response categories as for student harassment based on gender identity or expression.

We then further aggregated these measures into a composite measure of whether an educator reported that any anti-LGBTQ+ bullying was a moderate or serious problem (approximately half of all educators in our sample).

Perceptions of anti-LGBTQ+ Teacher Harassment 

We also asked respondents about their perceptions of anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment. As shown in Figure 5, about 13 percent of educators reported that any anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment was a moderate or serious problem.

Observations of anti-LGBTQ+ Student Harassment 

In addition to understanding educators’ perceptions, we wanted to know whether educators had personally observed anti-LGBTQ+ bullying during the 2025-2026 school year. We examined results from these two questions separately but also combined them into a single measure to see whether, during the 2025-2026 school year, educators had observed any student being harassed or bullied because they are transgender, gay, lesbian, or bisexual or for their gender expression. 

Concerns Related to Interventions 

To understand how state policy environments are related to educators’ concerns about interventions, we asked educators about whether they were concerned about disciplinary action, complaints from parents or community members, or online harassment when considering intervening in anti-LGBTQ+ bullying. First, we summed concerns into an index: a score of “0” represented no concerns, whereas a score of 18 represented the highest level of concern.

Trends in anti-LGBTQ+ Harassment

We also asked educators about their perceptions around trends in LGBTQ+ student and teacher harassment. We coded an indicator for whether respondents replied that they were “very worried” to each of these questions and then an overall indicator for whether respondents replied that they were “very worried” about trends in any of these forms of harassment.

Overall Reports of Bullying

As previously described, we asked educators to rate whether different types of anti-LGBTQ+ student harassment were a moderate or serious problem; for comparison, we also asked educators to rate whether harassment based on other student characteristics was a moderate or serious problem.

Educators who were concerned about anti-LGBTQ+ bullying were likely also to be concerned about bullying based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. However, educators who reported higher levels of bullying did not necessarily report poor school climate overall, as measured by reports of student mental health, fighting, substance abuse, academic performance, or absenteeism.

Educators at middle schools were most likely to report that any type of bullying was a moderate or serious problem, including anti-LGBTQ+ bullying. However, educators at all levels reported that bullying was a problem.

Comparing Educators by State Policy Climates

We next examined educators by state policy climates. As previously described, we divided states into two categories: Negative, which included states scored at or below 0 on MAP’s LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies, and Positive, which included states scored above 0 on MAP’s LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies. Throughout, we found that the average educator in a Negative state experienced a different school environment than the average educator in a Positive state.

School and District Policies 

Educators in Negative states were much more likely to report that their school or district had formal or informal policies restricting their instruction and engagement around LGBTQ+ issues. As shown in Figure 8, for each policy we asked about, most educators in Positive states reported no restrictions on their activities at either the state or local level. In contrast, most educators in Negative states reported that they were either restricted or discouraged from these activities.

In Negative states, nearly half of educators reported that formal policies restricted them from providing access to LGBTQ+ books, library materials, or outside resources. In Positive states, only seven percent of educators reported that formal policies restricted them. In Positive states, two-thirds of educators reported that they were not restricted or discouraged from including LGBTQ+ topics in the curriculum, lessons, or instruction. This was only true of 20 percent of educators in Negative states. In Negative states, over half of educators reported that they were either restricted or discouraged from displaying items supportive of LGBTQ+ topics or people (such as a rainbow flag). In contrast, 75 percent of educators in Positive states reported no such restriction or discouragement.

This presents very different pictures of the typical classroom of an educator in a Negative state versus an educator in a Positive state: in a Positive state, a teacher might have a rainbow flag up to signal support for LGBTQ+ students. That same teacher might include a few books with LGBTQ+ characters in their classroom library, as well as make sure to cover Harvey Milk when discussing 20th century social movements. In a Negative state, the average teacher would not hang up the rainbow flag; would not include such books in their lending library; and would not discuss Harvey Milk.

Educators in Negative states were particularly likely to report policies restricting their support of transgender students. In Negative states, 59 percent of educators reported that formal policies restricted them from using transgender students’ chosen names and pronouns and also restricted them from supporting transgender students’ access to restrooms or locker rooms. In Positive states, six to eight percent of educators reported such restrictions. 

After adjusting for local political climate, educators in Negative states still reported more restrictive policies than those in similar local areas in Positive states. This tells us that these differences were not just driven by local political climate but also by differences in state policies.

Anti-Bullying Training 

Educators in Positive states were a bit more likely to say they had received anti‑harassment training in the past two years. But among educators who had training, those in Negative states were no more likely to say it covered harassment based on race, ethnicity or national origin, socioeconomic status, religion, disability, or physical appearance.

Unadjusted results are depicted in Figure 9; these results did not change, even when adjusting for school, teacher, and sample characteristics, as well as for local political climate. 

We saw no relationship between educators receiving training and reporting different levels of bullying. However, it is unclear whether we should expect training to be associated with higher or lower levels of student harassment. Although training may help educators address and reduce bullying, it may also help educators identify student harassment.

We did find that educators who received training on student harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression were slightly more likely to report that they felt comfortable intervening when observing anti-LGB or anti-transgender student harassment.

Anti-LGBTQ+ Harassment

Educators in Positive states reported lower levels of anti-LGBTQ+ student harassment, as well as lower levels of anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment, when compared to educators in Negative states. In Positive states, educators were less likely to report that student bullying or harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression was a moderate or serious problem (61% versus 49%), although we cannot disentangle whether this result is due to state policies or local political climate. We noted larger differences in perceptions of harassment based on sexual orientation than in perceptions of harassment based on gender identity or gender expression (Figure 10).

Similarly, we found that educators in Negative states witnessed more anti-LGBTQ+ bullying than educators in Positive states: 36 percent of educators in Negative states reported witnessing any anti-LGBTQ+ student bullying during the 2025-2026 school year, as opposed to 27 percent of educators in Positive states (Figure 11). Again, we were unable to discern how much of this result is due to local political climate versus state policy environment. However, it does appear that educators in Negative states witnessed more bullying based on gender identity and expression.

In comparison, nearly one quarter of educators in Negative states reported that anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment was a moderate or serious problem.

When we examined results for teachers only, differences were even larger – about 21 percentage points. In Negative states, 32 percent of teachers reported that anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment was a moderate or serious problem. For both educators overall and for teachers only, we found that, even after adjusting for local political climate, anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment was more likely to be perceived as a problem by educators in Negative states than educators in Positive states. Again, this suggests that educators in similarly progressive school districts had different experiences based on state policies.

Barriers to Intervention

Educators in Negative states were more likely than educators in Positive states to have at least one concern related to such an intervention.

When we asked educators who observed any anti-LGBTQ+ student harassment in the past school year whether or not they had intervened in that instance, they overwhelmingly (over 95%) reported intervening.

However, we also examined the relationship between higher levels of concerns related to intervening and educators’ reports of how comfortable they felt when thinking about intervening to prevent harassment. We found that educators who reported any concern related to intervening were also less likely to report that they felt “very comfortable” intervening. Although it is comforting that educators by and large reported intervening when they witnessed anti-LGBTQ+ bullying, educators’ comfort levels around intervening may impact their day-to-day decision-making.

Perceptions of Trends

Educators in Negative states were more likely to report that they were worried about the direction in which in anti-LGBTQ+ bullying and harassment is moving. In Positive states, about 15 percent of educators reported that they were very worried about trends in anti-LGBTQ+ student or teacher harassment (Figure 12). In Negative states, nearly twice as many educators (29%) reported that they were very worried. Although the magnitude of this result was not as large when adjusting for local political climate, there remained a ten percentage point difference between educators in Negative versus Positive states. This suggests that educators in similar local political climates but different types of states (e.g., Austin, Texas versus Portland, Oregon) have different levels of worry about LGBTQ+ bullying based on state policies.

When compared to educators in states with positive MAP policy ratings, educators in states with negative or zero ratings on MAP’s LGBTQ+ Youth Laws and Policies were more likely to be subject to restrictive policies in their schools; were less likely to receive anti-harassment training covering gender expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation; were more likely to perceive anti-LGBTQ+ student and teacher harassment as a problem; reported more concerns about intervening to prevent anti-LGBTQ+ student harassment; and were more worried about trends in anti-LGBTQ+ student and teacher harassment.

We saw particularly large differences in educators’ reports of the restrictions they were subject to and educators’ likelihood of receiving anti-harassment training related to sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. We also noted large differences in concerns about anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment.

Overall, we found that differences in state policy environments mean that LGBTQ+ students in some states experience more hostile school climates than those in others. This may be partially, but not fully, mitigated if schools and school districts have more pro-LGBTQ+ policies. Indeed, we found that some differences by state policy environment were no longer statistically significant when we compared only educators in similar local political climates. In more liberal school districts located in conservative states, school and district administrators may promote more LGBTQ+ inclusive policies that counter the anti-LGBTQ+ state policies. Conversely, in more conservative districts located in liberal states, school and district administrators may discourage staff from inclusive practices. However, for many outcomes, we continued to note differences in educators’ reports by state policy environment even when accounting for local political climate.[1]

Anti-LGBTQ+ bullying and especially anti-LGBTQ+ slurs are on the rise, creating environments that are more hostile to LGBTQ+ students and teachers. <,strong> Moreover, fewer staff are receiving training on anti-LGBTQ+ harassment in those states in which anti-LGBTQ+ harassment is a larger problem.

Although LGBTQ+ students are particularly vulnerable to anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, many students who are not LGBTQ+ also experience anti-LGBTQ harassment, whether because they are perceived as LGBTQ+, express their gender in nontraditional ways, or are connected to other LGBTQ+ individuals. Therefore, anti-LGBTQ+ harassment is an issue that affects not only LGBTQ+ students but the entire student population.

As previously outlined, a large body of research shows that students who are bullied are more likely to miss school and to suffer from poor mental health – students who are bullied are also more likely to attempt suicide. Students who bully and students who witness bullying also report poorer mental health. Policies that increase anti-LGBTQ+ harassment do not only impact students’ educational opportunities – they literally lead to more young people ending their own lives.

Anti-LGBTQ+ teacher harassment discourages LGBTQ+ individuals from becoming or continuing as teachers.^[i] Already, LGBTQ+ individuals may be underrepresented in teaching, with transgender individuals particularly unlikely to be K-12 teachers.[ii] Higher rates of attrition for LGBTQ+ teachers contributes to reported K-12 educator shortages; in addition, it removes potential sources of support for LGBTQ+ students.

Recommendations

We found that the presence of anti-LGBTQ+ youth laws and policies was associated with higher levels of anti-LGBTQ+ student and teacher harassment.

We found that some differences by state policy environment were either no longer statistically significant or not as large once we accounted for educators’ local political climate. Local political climate could affect the prevalence of anti-LGBTQ+ harassment through multiple channels, many of which (such as the attitudes of the surrounding community) are not within the control of schools, school districts, and local governments.

However, these entities may be able to mitigate the impacts of state policy environments through their own policies and directives. For example, even if local schools are prevented from passing LGBTQ+-inclusive anti-bullying policies, schools could communicate that anti-bullying policies include bullying on all dimensions and opt for trainings (unless restricted) that cover harassment based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

Some educators reported that they did not know what their state policies allow. Consequently, it is likely that these educators default to a more conservative approach. Additionally, some educators reported that they are concerned about disciplinary action when thinking about intervening to prevent anti-LGBTQ+ harassment. Schools need to clarify that educators should intervene to prevent this type of harassment, that schools will not take disciplinary action against educators who intervene, and that schools will support educators if they are later harassed online.

We found stark differences by state policy environment in the percentages of educators whose anti-bullying training covered harassment due to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. It may be that schools were unable to cover these characteristics due to restrictive state policies. However, educators may be able to find these trainings outside of their schools. Given that educators may have to attend these trainings on their own time, it might be beneficial to partner with unions or membership organizations to ensure that trainings are easily accessible and associated with no additional costs for educators.

Although federal surveys had recently begun adding questions on sexual orientation and gender identity, since January 2025, 360 federal data collections have removed at least one sexual orientation and gender identity measure. This limits our ability to answer basic questions about how LGBTQ+ students and staff are faring in schools. Given the federal government’s current abdication of this responsibility, other organizations, including state and local governments, may need to conduct research on school climate around LGBTQ+ issues and on the well-being of LGBTQ+ students and educators. 

Limitations

We were unable to survey a nationally representative sample of educators. Therefore, educators who responded may be more motivated to care about anti-LGBTQ+ bullying and harassment than their peers, which could result in our baseline rates of anti-LGBTQ+ bullying and harassment being overstated. Our sample was also much more likely to identify as LGBTQ+, which may mean that our sample was more likely to pay attention to policy restrictions and to worry about anti-LGBTQ+ harassment than the general population.

When comparing between states, we have confidence that the differences we note represent true differences in school environments between states. However, if educators in Negative states who responded to our survey were systematically different than educators in Positive states, we might over or understate differences by state policy environment.

Additionally, given that we were only able to examine educators’ responses at one timepoint, we are unable to state that state policy environments cause any of the differences we note. However, we did find that some of the differences between Negative and Positive states were in addition to differences due to local political climate.

Finally, we surveyed educators, not students. Educators may not be aware of all bullying incidents experienced by students. Additionally, educators were asked to retroactively report on their experiences with bullying throughout the year. Therefore, their responses were likely more influenced by their recent rather than more distant experiences.