View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

From Marginalization to Inclusion: How Alternative Education Supports Sexuality and Gender Diverse Youth

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: From Marginalization to Inclusion: How Alternative Education Supports Sexuality and Gender Diverse Youth
Language: English
Authors: Michael J. Ireland (ORCID 0000-0001-6064-3575), Ellen J. Cohn, Susan Abel, Linda Bourke, Lorelle Burton
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(11):4382-4397.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: LGBTQ People, Student Diversity, Nontraditional Education, Well Being, Inclusion, Adolescents, Interpersonal Relationship, Social Support Groups, Educational Environment, Foreign Countries, Barriers, Social Bias, Traditional Schools, Teacher Student Relationship, Access to Health Care, Peer Acceptance, Small Classes, School Policy
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1002/pits.70006
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: Despite growing awareness of sexuality and gender diverse (SGD) youth's educational challenges, limited research examines how alternative education settings support these students' wellbeing and engagement. This qualitative study investigated how Australian Flexible Learning Options (FLOs) foster inclusivity and belonging for SGD youth, comparing their experiences with mainstream schooling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 SGD students (aged 15-18) from a regional Australian FLO. Template thematic analysis, guided by Minority Stress Theory and the Socioecological Model, revealed two primary themes: (1) school relationships and social support, and (2) school climate and inclusive learning approaches. While mainstream schools were characterized by systemic barriers including discrimination, identity concealment, and limited support, the FLO environment provided affirming experiences through supportive teacher-student relationships, accessible mental health resources, and peer acceptance. Small class sizes, flexible learning approaches, and inclusive policies were identified as key factors in creating safe and supportive educational spaces. These findings demonstrate how alternative education settings can mitigate minority stress through targeted structural and relational supports, while highlighting opportunities for mainstream schools to adopt similar practices. Future research should examine how these supportive practices can be implemented across diverse educational contexts to enhance outcomes for SGD youth.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1486541
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHlc45Db2kvWacASQowZpnmAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCaSB6GS5acmaN-BowIBEICBm0rBDeEFxHIbFV8Xu08JuoqiNgFvs47XNQHbnbESXG8TZDTEzJe7Qa33TSS02cz35baeM1syn9Kmzhaec82yBQ1ME7yG0MFJ3kzq8pNp2EDrHNeT_wAfP_D0kkbjzj_6vb93MjK4tfplA8R3IAmMWX3OTXEZnoRqCCFCCu1AawAkbNZzPJZBzOkTm2_nA9WKDHme1XhSAj9fQfYN
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0188607144;pis01nov.25;2025Oct14.06:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0188607144-1">From Marginalization to Inclusion: How Alternative Education Supports Sexuality and Gender Diverse Youth </title> <p>Despite growing awareness of sexuality and gender diverse (SGD) youth's educational challenges, limited research examines how alternative education settings support these students' wellbeing and engagement. This qualitative study investigated how Australian Flexible Learning Options (FLOs) foster inclusivity and belonging for SGD youth, comparing their experiences with mainstream schooling. Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 11 SGD students (aged 15–18) from a regional Australian FLO. Template thematic analysis, guided by Minority Stress Theory and the Socioecological Model, revealed two primary themes: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) school relationships and social support, and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) school climate and inclusive learning approaches. While mainstream schools were characterized by systemic barriers including discrimination, identity concealment, and limited support, the FLO environment provided affirming experiences through supportive teacher‐student relationships, accessible mental health resources, and peer acceptance. Small class sizes, flexible learning approaches, and inclusive policies were identified as key factors in creating safe and supportive educational spaces. These findings demonstrate how alternative education settings can mitigate minority stress through targeted structural and relational supports, while highlighting opportunities for mainstream schools to adopt similar practices. Future research should examine how these supportive practices can be implemented across diverse educational contexts to enhance outcomes for SGD youth.</p> <p>Practitioner Points: Prioritize comprehensive teacher training: Training should include understanding sexuality and gender diversity, recognizing signs of distress, and fostering inclusive classroom practices. Training should focus on the active disruption of bias, using affirming language (e.g., preferred names and pronouns), and creating tailored learning plans to meet the emotional and academic needs of SGD students.Enhance mental health resources and inclusivity: Schools must ensure readily accessible and diverse mental health support, including regular check‐ins and access to professionals. Implementing inclusive policies that address names, pronouns, facilities, and Antidiscrimination will promote a safe and affirming environment.Embrace holistic support strategies: Integrate psychoeducation into the curriculum, establish peer support and mentorship programs, and partner with SGD organizations to create a comprehensive support network. Prioritizing smaller classes and flexible learning models can further enhance the wellbeing and academic success of SGD youth. While these strategies may require investment, the long‐term benefits of inclusive education are invaluable.</p> <p>Keywords: alternative education; minority stress theory; sexuality and gender diverse youth; socioecological model; student wellbeing, template thematic analysis</p> <p>Schools play a pivotal role in shaping adolescent identities, particularly for sexuality and gender diverse (SGD youth; Verhoeven et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref3">70</reflink>]; Liu and Nguyen [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref4">37</reflink>]). This environment directly affects their psychosocial functioning, educational journey, and overall life outcomes (Russell et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref5">61</reflink>]; Greytak et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref6">20</reflink>]). Research shows that SGD youth frequently endure significant educational disparities and poorer wellbeing outcomes compared to their non‐SGD peers (Abreu and Kenny [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]; Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref8">29</reflink>]; McDonald [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref9">42</reflink>]). Issues such as bullying, lack of an inclusive curriculum, and an increased risk of mental health crises—including depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts—underscore the urgency of addressing these disparities (Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; Ullman [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref11">68</reflink>]; Mustanski and Liu [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref12">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>Mainstream schools, with their often rigid structures and under‐resourced environments, can be challenging spaces for students with differences of any kind. In the Australian context, mainstream schools are typically characterized by larger class sizes, standardized curricula, and hierarchical administrative structures that prioritize academic outcomes (Te Riele [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref13">58</reflink>]). These schools often lack the flexibility needed to accommodate diverse student needs, especially those of SGD youth. While variations exist depending on geography and resources (such as urban <emph>vs.</emph> rural school settings) the overarching challenges of overcrowded classrooms and limited individual support are widely acknowledged (Carswell et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref14">11</reflink>]). For readers unfamiliar with Australian education systems, these characteristics align broadly with other Western mainstream education systems, offering a useful comparative framework (Plows et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref15">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>These systemic constraints, combined with limited teacher availability and a lack of tailored support programs, often leave schools ill‐equipped to meet the diverse needs of their students. For SGD youth, these systemic shortcomings compound identity‐based challenges, intensifying their experiences of alienation, discrimination, and victimization. While these challenges affect SGD youth distinctly, they reflect broader systemic inadequacies that marginalize students across multiple dimensions of diversity, including cultural background, learning style, and identity. This pattern demonstrates how structural barriers and non‐inclusive school climates, rather than student identities themselves, create and perpetuate educational inequities. Addressing systemic barriers is essential to creating inclusive educational environments that support all students, irrespective of their specific differences.</p> <p>These systemic barriers manifest across multiple aspects of education, with curriculum content and delivery being particularly problematic. A critical example is sexuality education, where global research documents persistent challenges in addressing SGD youth needs. International studies reveal how sexuality education programs across diverse cultural contexts—from Western democracies to developing nations—often exclude SGD perspectives and experiences. For instance, in the United States, Naser et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref16">49</reflink>]) found that middle and high school sexuality education systematically neglects SGD students' experiences, perpetuating heteronormative assumptions and limiting access to affirming information. Similar patterns emerge in other countries: European studies document inadequate coverage of gender diversity (Ketting and Ivanova [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref17">27</reflink>]), Asian research highlights the prevalence of heteronormative curricula (Ketting and Ivanova [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]). This global pattern of exclusion reflects and reinforces broader structural inequities in educational systems, requiring comprehensive re‐evaluation of sexuality education practices to ensure inclusivity and recognition of diverse identities across cultural contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-2">Mainstream and Alternative Schooling Approaches</hd> <p>Mainstream schools often struggle to provide the safe and inclusive environments essential for SGD students, highlighting a significant and persistent challenge. In response to these systemic shortcomings, alternative education models have emerged as crucial spaces for fostering inclusivity and meeting the diverse needs of marginalized students. For many SGD youth, these settings offer a more supportive and affirming environment, prompting them to seek out alternative education options. Flexible Learning Options (FLOs), as one example, prioritize inclusivity and flexibility, tailoring their approaches to address the unique needs of disenfranchised youth often overlooked in mainstream schools.</p> <p>Globally, alternative education encompasses well‐established models like Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia (Aljabreen [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]; Guerrero et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref20">21</reflink>]), which emphasize smaller class sizes, adaptable schedules, and tailored support while fostering creativity, independence, and holistic development. FLOs within the Australian context align with these principles, adapting them to provide targeted interventions for marginalized students, including SGD youth.</p> <p>Alternative education in the United States provides another illustrative example, particularly in settings serving students with emotional and behavioral challenges who have experienced difficulties in traditional educational environments. These programs, while varying in structure, consistently feature smaller classroom sizes and specially trained educational staff (Kumm et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref21">31</reflink>]). These settings have demonstrated success through their provision of integrated educational, behavioral, and mental health services, highlighting their essential role in supporting at‐risk youth (Kumm et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref22">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>These global and national models share core features—small class sizes, personalized learning, and holistic support—that exemplify alternative education's fundamental commitment to meeting diverse student needs through adaptability and inclusion (Edwards, 2002). Each established model offers distinct approaches: Reggio Emilia emphasizes child‐centered, inquiry‐based exploration through collaborative and creative activities (McNally & Slutsky [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref23">43</reflink>]); Waldorf focuses on holistic development, nurturing creativity, imagination, and emotional growth (Bransby and Rawson [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]); and Montessori education promotes self‐directed learning through hands‐on activities in carefully prepared environments that facilitate exploration and discovery (Lillard [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref25">33</reflink>]). These approaches demonstrate alternative education's potential to support diverse student needs through varied but complementary methodologies. Within the Australian educational landscape, FLOs embody these principles by providing inclusive, flexible, and tailored support for disenfranchised youth.</p> <p>A systematic recent review by Guerrero et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref26">21</reflink>]) reveals several key features and outcomes associated with alternative educational models across various national educational contexts. First, these models emphasize personalized learning, with curricula designed to align with individual interests and abilities. Studies in Switzerland and the United States have shown Montessori students outperforming their peers in academic and creative tasks, such as mathematics and divergent thinking, particularly in early education (Denervaud et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]; Mix et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref28">46</reflink>]). Similarly, Waldorf schools in the United Kingdom emphasize creative expression, with students demonstrating superior representational and expressive drawing skills compared to conventional school peers (Rose and Jolley [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref29">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Alternative models also prioritize supportive environments through strong teacher‐student relationships and nurturing school climates. Research on Waldorf schools in Israel found that teacher perceptions of students' abilities are a stronger predictor of science self‐efficacy than explicit feedback, highlighting the impact of relational support (Dorfman and Fortus [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref30">15</reflink>]). Furthermore, these models implement flexible structures through adaptable schedules and teaching methodologies. Montessori schools in the United States, for instance, utilize hands‐on materials to foster independence and mastery orientation, encouraging persistence in challenging tasks (Lillard et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Holistic development, particularly emotional wellbeing, is another key focus. Montessori students in Switzerland report higher school satisfaction and wellbeing compared to peers in conventional schools, particularly in early education stages (Denervaud et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref32">14</reflink>]). Waldorf schools in France foster environments that integrate emotional development, enhancing sensitivity to social cues and motivation (Besançon et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref33">5</reflink>]). Additionally, these alternative approaches yield diverse outcomes, often enhancing cognitive and socioemotional development while addressing systemic inequities. For example, Freinet school graduates in Belgium are more likely to pursue artistic educational tracks, showcasing the model's alignment with diverse student aspirations (Ramos and Vandecandelaere [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref34">57</reflink>]).</p> <p>These features demonstrate the potential of alternative schools to provide inclusive, flexible, and supportive environments. However, the extent to which these models align with their foundational philosophies varies, as fidelity to educational standards and teacher training significantly influence outcomes (Denervaud et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref35">13</reflink>]). By integrating evidence from diverse educational contexts, this discussion underscores the global relevance of alternative educational models and their potential to support marginalized groups, such as SGD youth.</p> <p>Building on these insights, Flexible Learning Options (FLOs) stand out as a practical application of these principles within the Australian educational context. Characterized by smaller classes, individualized support, and flexible schedules, FLOs are uniquely positioned to address the systemic inequities faced by marginalized students. Evidence consistently underscores the benefits of smaller class sizes, particularly for economically disadvantaged and minority students, demonstrating their effectiveness in improving academic performance, classroom climate, and long‐term outcomes (Mathis [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref36">39</reflink>]). More recent research underscores that smaller class sizes enhance student engagement, reduce disruptive behavior, and foster better teacher‐student interactions, particularly for students with special needs or those from disadvantaged backgrounds, where individualized support is critical (Blatchford and Russell [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref37">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>To address variability, Australian FLOs are guided by national and state‐level policies that aim to standardize operations and align them with inclusivity and re‐engagement goals. Policies such as the National Partnership on Youth Attainment and Transitions, alongside state‐specific frameworks, ensure that FLOs share key characteristics, including small class sizes, individualized support, and flexible curriculum delivery. This regulatory environment reduces variability across FLOs and ensures consistent implementation of inclusive practices (Te Riele [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref38">58</reflink>]; The Victorian Institute of Teaching, 2021). These features can potentially mitigate barriers faced by SGD students, such as discrimination and a lack of an inclusive curricula (Carswell et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref39">11</reflink>]; Foley and Pang [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>]; Phillippi et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref41">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>With over 70,000 Australian students in alternative settings (Plows et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref42">53</reflink>]), these environments are crucial for addressing the challenges faced by students with diverse needs, including SGD youth. Many of these challenges, such as alienation, discrimination, and lack of tailored support, are not unique to SGD students but reflect broader systemic inadequacies in mainstream schools that marginalize students due to cultural background, learning style, or identity. Despite the increasing prevalence of FLOs, research exploring their specific impact on students with diverse needs, particularly SGD youth, remains scarce. This gap limits our understanding of their role as a meaningful intervention in addressing the unique and intersecting challenges faced by marginalized students in mainstream schools. While these settings are popular and show promise, the lack of focused research restricts the ability to fully assess their effectiveness and scalability for diverse student populations (Phillippi et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref43">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-3">Victimization, Language, and the Need for Affirming Education Environments</hd> <p>Researchers emphasize the need to differentiate among subgroups within the SGD population to understand their unique challenges (Parodi et al. [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref44">51</reflink>]). Notably, transgender youth often face higher risks of victimization than their cisgender SGD peers (Myers et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref45">48</reflink>]). This highlights the inadequacy of broad‐brush approaches to addressing systemic issues within schools. Schools often fail to distinguish between gender and sexuality, leading to a lack of support for transgender and gender‐diverse students (Feijo et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref46">17</reflink>]). Misuse of language, such as 'deadnaming'—referring to a transgender person by their former name after they have adopted a name aligned with their gender identity—and misgendering, exacerbates negative school climates and affects student wellbeing (Ullman [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref47">68</reflink>]; Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref48">25</reflink>]). Conversely, affirming language practices, like the correct use of preferred names and pronouns, can enhance the school experience for SGD youth (Evans and Rawlings [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]; Jones et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref50">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Reducing homophobia and transphobia is critical for improving school climates and SGD youth's psychological wellbeing, directly impacting their educational outcomes (Russell et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref51">60</reflink>]). This underscores the urgent need for supportive, affirming educational spaces as well as the need for further research into how educational contexts uniquely affect SGD student experiences.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-4">Protective Factors, Supports, and Inclusive Policies</hd> <p>While existing research focuses primarily on negative school experiences, recent literature highlights the importance of positive support systems and inclusive policies (Abreu et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>]). Since SGD youth may experience varying levels of family support, schools can play a vital role in providing a safe and affirming environment (Snapp, McGuire, et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref53">66</reflink>]). For example, supportive teachers, principals, and counsellors offer essential resources, with studies demonstrating that even a single supportive adult can significantly improve wellbeing and academic performance for SGD youth (Evans and Rawlings [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref54">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Effective prevention and intervention practices include protective policies, school staff training, and LGBTQIA+ ‐informed curriculum (Abreu et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>]). Students aware of harassment policies addressing sexual orientation report higher safety levels (Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref56">30</reflink>]). Additionally, tailored anti‐bullying policies are associated with lower rates of suicidal behaviour among SGD youth (Hatzenbuehler and Keyes [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref57">24</reflink>]). Accordingly, formal and informal learning environments that acknowledge, include, and affirm SGD identities are essential (Snapp, Burdge, et al. [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref58">65</reflink>]). However, research specifically examining how the components of inclusive policies are experienced and navigated by SGD youth remains limited (Poteat and Russell [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref59">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-5">Theoretical Frameworks</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607144-6">Minority Stress Theory</hd> <p>Minority Stress Theory (MST; Meyer [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref60">45</reflink>]) proposes that the disproportionate mental health burden experienced by SGD youth, relative to their non‐SGD peers, arises from chronic and highly prevalent social stressors such as stigma, discrimination, and prejudice (Liu & Mustanski [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref61">36</reflink>]; McDonald [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref62">42</reflink>]; Wilson and Cariola [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref63">71</reflink>]).</p> <p>MST delineates two primary categories of minority stress experienced by individuals with stigmatized identities. The first, Internalized Stress, encompasses the psychological toll of anticipating rejection, internalizing negative messages, and concealing one's identity to avoid harm. This includes, for instance, the fear of harassment in restrooms experienced by transgender students, as well as the negative self‐perception that arises from internalizing societal negativity. In contrast, Distal Stress refers to external events that perpetuate minority stress, such as homophobic and transphobic bullying, lack of acknowledgment of sexual and gender diverse (SGD) identities by teachers, and discriminatory school policies. Proximal stressors, like the constant expectation of rejection due to one's SGD identity, arise from the experience of distal stressors and fuel internalized stress. The interplay between these stressors is crucial, contributing to the complex and multifaceted experience of minority stress.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-7">The Socioecological Model</hd> <p>While MST offers a powerful framework for understanding the impact of social stressors on SGD youth, a broader perspective is needed to fully capture the interconnected layers of their school experiences. The Socioecological Model (SEM; Bronfenbrenner [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref64">9</reflink>]) offers a valuable framework for understanding the complex interplay of factors that shape the experiences of same‐sex attracted and gender diverse (SGD) students. It recognizes that these students are influenced by multiple, interconnected systems, from their individual characteristics to broader societal norms. Table 1 provides further detail on each level of the SEM and offers examples relevant to SGD students.</p> <p>1 Table The SEM and its influence on same‐sex attracted and gender diverse (SGD) students.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Level</th><th>Description</th><th>Examples</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Individual</td><td>SGD student's personal characteristics, experiences, and behaviours, including their identity, self‐expression, and resilience.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– A student's sense of self as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, or asexual.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Their comfort level with expressing their identity at school.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Their coping mechanisms for dealing with discrimination.</p></list-item></list><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– A student's mental health and wellbeing.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Interpersonal</td><td>Relationships with peers, teachers, and family, addressing social support, bullying, and harassment.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– Positive relationships with accepting friends and family.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Supportive teachers who create safe spaces.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Experiencing bullying or exclusion from peers due to sexual orientation or gender identity.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Family rejection or lack of support.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Organizational</td><td>School policies, practices, and the overall climate regarding their impact on the inclusion or marginalization of SGD youth.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– Presence of a Gay‐Straight Alliance (GSA) or other student support groups.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Antidiscrimination policies that explicitly protect SGD students.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Inclusive curriculum that reflects diverse identities and experiences.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Staff training on LGBTQIA+ issues and creating safe spaces.</p></list-item></list><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– Restrictive bathroom or dress code policies that target transgender or gender non‐conforming students.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Community</td><td>Broader social context, including prevailing attitudes, resources, and services available, and their influence on SGD youth in schools.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– Availability of LGBTQIA+ community centers or support organizations.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Access to mental health services with expertise in LGBTQIA+ issues.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Local media representation of LGBTQIA+ people.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Community attitudes towards LGBTQIA+ individuals.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Societal</td><td>Macro‐level structures like laws, policies, and social norms that perpetuate heteronormativity and cisnormativity, influencing the experiences of SGD students.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– Laws regarding marriage equality and adoption rights for same‐sex couples.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– National antidiscrimination laws.</p></list-item><list-item><p>– Media portrayals of LGBTQIA+ people.</p></list-item></list><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>– Cultural norms and expectations around gender and sexuality.</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Additionally, the SEM complements MST by demonstrating how internalized and distal stresses are created, reinforced, and possibly mitigated across multiple levels of influence. For example, negative societal attitudes (Societal Level) can influence a school's climate (Organizational Level), making SGD students more likely to feel the need to conceal their identity (Internalized Stress) or face discriminatory bullying (Distal Stress).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-8">The Current Study</hd> <p>The current study builds on this study by applying SEM to examine how the FLO setting might reduce minority stressors and offer increased opportunities for support, potentially enhancing SGD students' wellbeing and educational outcomes.</p> <p>Guided by existing research and relevant theoretical frameworks, the current study asks the following research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do SGD youth experience senior school within a FLO setting?</item> <p></p> <item> How do the experiences of SGD youth in FLOs differ from their prior experiences in mainstream schools?</item> <p></p> <item> How does the FLO environment support, protect, and affirm SGD students in terms of staff, peers, and overall school community?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188607144-9">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607144-10">Design</hd> <p>We utilized a critical realist approach, asserting that although research is influenced by researchers' perspectives and individuals' experiences of reality are culture‐bound, a reality still exists that can be identified and described (Sims‐Schouten et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref65">63</reflink>]; Braun and Clarke [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref66">8</reflink>]). We engaged in ongoing reflexivity to acknowledge our interpretive role. This allowed us to analyze participants' accounts and develop a rich description of students' school experiences (Creswell and Creswell [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref67">12</reflink>]). Given the limited research on the school experiences of SGD youth, a descriptive qualitative approach was ideal. It allowed us to capture their unique perspectives and complex experiences of their school environment, focusing on the potential impacts of minority stress (Meyer [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref68">45</reflink>]; Nowell et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref69">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-11">Participants</hd> <p>We recruited participants from a regional Australian FLO campus, chosen because of a long‐standing research partnership between the school and our university that has cultivated trust and facilitated sensitive research. This FLO, operating under the Department of Education's policies for inclusivity and re‐engagement, provided an ideal setting to explore the experiences of marginalized youth, including SGD students. Following an announcement at a school assembly, a large number of students volunteered to participate. We then purposively sampled from these volunteers to create a study sample of SGD students aged 15 and older that aligned with our research aims.</p> <p>To safeguard student privacy, students were informed about the research through a school assembly where they were invited to contact the FLO's Head of Campus to participate if they were interested. Those who expressed interest were given the principal researcher's contact details and information outlining the study's aims, risks, benefits, and their right to withdraw at any time. No incentives were offered.</p> <p>We interviewed all 11 students who expressed interest. All participants had prior mainstream school experience, providing a basis for comparison. This smaller sample size is well‐suited for in‐depth qualitative studies where there is little prior research on the topic (Sandelowski [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref70">62</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-12">Data Collection</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607144-13">Procedure</hd> <p>Data were collected using semi‐structured interviews informed by the relevant research and theories discussed previously (Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref71">25</reflink>]; Meyer [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref72">45</reflink>]; Smith et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref73">64</reflink>]; Ullman [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref74">68</reflink>]). We developed the protocol in consultation with the FLO staff, school guidance officers, and the University of Southern Queensland's ethics committee and piloted it to check clarity and sensitivity. Sample questions include: "At Flexi School, do you believe there is awareness and understanding of LGBTQIA+ and gender diversity from peers, teachers, and staff?". Interviews lasted between 30 and 60 min and were conducted via Zoom (with optional video) for participants' safety and ease of accessibility. We ensured additional support resources, including a school wellbeing officer, were on hand. The full protocol is available upon request.</p> <p>We used an enterprise version of Panopto AI to transcribe the audio recordings, followed by manual review and correction to ensure accuracy, particularly for technical terms, participant‐specific phrasing, and speech nuances the AI misinterpreted. This two‐step process preserved data integrity accurately reflected the participants' perspectives. Participants were invited to review the transcripts for accuracy, with no changes required. The final data set totaled 7 h, 8 min, and 32 s of data.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-14">Ethics</hd> <p>This study received approval from University of Southern Queensland's human research ethics committee. Acknowledging the capacity of those aged 15 years and above to provide informed consent and to ensure participant deidentification, the ethics committee waived the requirement for parental consent, aligning with best practices for research with potentially vulnerable populations (Spriggs [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref75">67</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-15">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The current study employed template thematic analysis (TA) to interpret participants' narratives (Brooks et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref76">10</reflink>]). MST informed consideration of patterns of social stressors, internalized stigma, and discrimination within participants' accounts. Additionally, SEM guided our identification of themes related to how factors at multiple levels—including interpersonal relationships, school‐wide policies, and broader societal influences—shaped SGD students' experiences. Data were coded and managed using NVivo, allowing iterative refinement and systematic tracking of emerging themes. TA involved six steps:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. Familiarization with the data through manual correction of the automated transcriptions (EC) and a reading of all transcripts (EC),</item> <p></p> <item> 2. preliminary coding attuned to MST, SEM, and the research questions (EC under guidance from MI and LB),</item> <p></p> <item> 3. organization of codes into meaningful clusters (EC),</item> <p></p> <item> 4. development of a coding template to answer research questions (EC, MI, LB),</item> <p></p> <item> 5. iterative refinement of the initial coding template to align with participant narratives and the research questions. This process involved revisiting and adjusting the template multiple times to reflect new or modified themes emerging from the data. Discrepancies between researchers were discussed collaboratively, leading to adjustments in the organization and labeling of codes. This iterative process resulted in a comprehensive, hierarchically structured template that accurately captured participants' experiences (EC under guidance from MI and LB), and</item> <p></p> <item> 6. applying the template to the entire data set (EC).</item> </ulist> <p>To ensure reliability and trustworthiness in the analysis, we employed several strategies: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>) Triangulation within the research team involved ongoing dialogue to cross‐check coding and interpretations across researchers with varied expertise in qualitative analysis and SGD youth, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref78">2</reflink>) participants were invited to review their transcripts for accuracy—no changes were requested, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref79">3</reflink>) audit trails documented the coding and theme development process, ensuring transparency and rigor, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref80">4</reflink>) collaborative discussions among the research team were conducted to cross‐check interpretations, address researcher positionality as SGD youth allies, and mitigate potential bias (Hagens et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref81">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>The final themes were collaboratively determined through team discussions of the coded transcripts, ensuring credibility, dependability, and confirmability in line with qualitative research standards (Nowell et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-16">Reflexivity Statement</hd> <p>The authors, Australian psychological researchers and LGBTQIA+ allies, approached this study with a focus on equity and inclusivity. Several authors also bring specific experience in LGBTQIA+ affirming practice. To foster a safe and supportive interview environment, the interviewer shared their allyship with participants. Recognizing the influence of researcher positionality, we engaged in ongoing reflexive discussions and maintained an audit trail to document interpretive decisions (Nowell et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref83">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-17">Findings</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607144-18">Participants</hd> <p>Participant demographics, including diverse sexualities and gender identities, are shown in Table 2. Pseudonyms were chosen by participants.</p> <p>2 Table Summary of participant characteristics (self‐identified).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Name (pseudonym)</th><th>Age</th><th>Birth year</th><th>Year level<ext-link /><sup>a</sup></th><th>Duration at FLO</th><th>Gender identity <italic>(Self‐report)</italic></th><th>Sexual orientation</th><th>Pronouns <italic>(Self‐report)</italic><ext-link /><sup>b</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Kitty</td><td>16</td><td>2005</td><td>10</td><td>On/off for 9 months</td><td>Female</td><td>Bisexual</td><td>She/her, they/them</td></tr><tr><td>Finley</td><td>16</td><td>2006</td><td>10</td><td>6 months</td><td>Gender fluid</td><td>Bisexual</td><td>Fluctuating she/her</td></tr><tr><td>Felix</td><td>16</td><td>2005</td><td>11</td><td>24 months</td><td>Transgender male</td><td>Gay</td><td>He/him</td></tr><tr><td>Charlotte</td><td>16</td><td>2006</td><td>10</td><td>6 months</td><td>Nonbinary</td><td>Pansexual</td><td>They/them</td></tr><tr><td>Greenie</td><td>17</td><td>2005</td><td>12</td><td>24 months</td><td>Transgender male</td><td>Pansexual</td><td>He/him</td></tr><tr><td>Phoebe</td><td>17</td><td>2004</td><td>12</td><td>36 months</td><td>Female</td><td>Pansexual</td><td>They/them</td></tr><tr><td>Clover</td><td>17</td><td>2005</td><td>12</td><td>36 months</td><td>Nonbinary</td><td>Pansexual</td><td>They/them</td></tr><tr><td>Azriel</td><td>17</td><td>2004</td><td>12</td><td>6 months</td><td>Nonbinary</td><td>Bisexual</td><td>They/them</td></tr><tr><td>Elliot</td><td>16</td><td>2006</td><td>11</td><td>24 months</td><td>Transgender male</td><td>Gay/unlabelled</td><td>He/him</td></tr><tr><td>Azure</td><td>17</td><td>2005</td><td>11</td><td>6 months</td><td>Transgender female</td><td>Interested in females</td><td>She/her</td></tr><tr><td>Toby</td><td>16</td><td>2006</td><td>11</td><td>3 weeks</td><td>Transgender masculine/male</td><td>Straight according to gender identity</td><td>He/him</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> Participant age and duration of time enrolled in a FLO correct as at time of interview.</p> <ulist> <item>2 a According to the Australian education system's structure, Years 10, 11, and 12 correspond to the final three years of secondary school.</item> <item>3 b Preferred pronoun at time of interview.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0188607144-19">Themes</hd> <p>Two primary themes were identified using template analysis: 'School Relationships and Social Support' and 'School Climates and Inclusive SGD Approaches' (see Table 3). The themes and subordinate themes summarize participants' experiences of MST and the influence of the school environment (SEM). Notably, a stark contrast emerged between participants' negative experiences in mainstream schools and affirming experiences within the FLO setting, which may reflect broader differences in the educational approaches and support systems provided by these environments.</p> <p>3 Table Summary of findings.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Top‐level themes</th><th>Subordinate themes</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>School relationships and social support</td><td>1.1 Supportive student‐teacher relationships fostering engagement 1.1.1 Mainstream school experiences1.1.2 FLO experiences1.2 Student‐mental health support relationships1.3 Peer‐to‐peer relationships 1.3.1 Mainstream schools: hostility and isolation 1.3.2 FLO: support, acceptance, and family1.4 Individual support</td></tr><tr><td>School climate and inclusive learning approaches</td><td>2.1 Discrimination2.1.1 Verbal harassment & misgendering2.1.2 Homophobia & biphobia2.1.3 Teacher discrimination2.1.4 Lack of knowledge & inclusive policies: 2.2 Victimisation 2.3 Concealment of identity and expectations of rejection 2.4 FLOs as sources of affirmation, acceptance, and belonging 2.4.1 Individual acceptance and support 2.4.2 School‐wide inclusivity initiatives 2.4.3 Visual representation and celebration 2.5 Inclusive SGD school initiatives</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0188607144-20">Theme 1: School Relationships and Social Support</hd> <p>This theme highlights the importance of supportive relationships within the FLO setting, including those with teachers, mental health staff, peers, and the broader SGD community. Students emphasized that the FLO environment fosters strong connections, prioritizes individual needs, and provides a sense of belonging and security, creating a family‐like atmosphere.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-21">Supportive Student–Teacher Relationships Fostering Engagement</hd> <p>This theme reveals a stark contrast between students' negative experiences with teachers in mainstream schools and the supportive relationships they find within the FLO.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-22">Mainstream School Experiences</hd> <p>Students described feeling ignored, uncared for, and lacking individual attention in mainstream schools. This neglect extended to their emotional wellbeing, with bullying and mental health concerns often unnoticed or dismissed. While challenges such as the lack of teacher attention and feeling 'lost in a crowd' are common in large school environments, for SGD students, these systemic issues are intensified by identity‐specific challenges including discrimination and the absence of affirmation for their sexuality or gender identity. Felix reflected on this experience, "[I] kind of just went unnoticed and even if I was feeling a bit sad that day or if I didn't...feel like doing any work, they would just brush it off and just not care...it made me feel like my problems weren't as serious as another person." This lack of emotional and practical support highlights the potential for negative impacts on students' self‐concept and wellbeing, particularly for those with SGD identities. The structural limitations of larger schools further compounded these experiences. Toby explained, "there was one or two...teachers you could talk to, but they were like always busy and too many students, so there wasn't really much...time that you could talk to them." These systemic barriers—limited teacher availability and insufficient emotional support—left students feeling unseen and unheard, exacerbating the challenges faced by SGD youth in mainstream school environments.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-23">FLO Experiences</hd> <p>In contrast to mainstream schools, students emphasized the genuine care, active support, and wellbeing focus of FLO teachers. Teachers were described as offering both academic assistance and emotional support, while valuing students as individuals beyond their academic performance. Finley shared:</p> <p>They [teachers] show that they care, they act, and they help...overall (they) make learning way better...if I'm sad about some things that are happening in my personal life or even just at school...they just really make me feel wanted and cared for...they support me a great amount, way more than anyone else.</p> <p>FLO teachers were also noted for being observant of students' moods and proactive in offering support. This acceptance—regardless of SGD identity—and the prioritization of mental health created a nurturing, family‐like environment. As Clover stated, "not everything is about the academic side... if they realise, you're not in a good mental state, you're not going to do well in your subjects, so they try to figure out your mental health before anything else." The emphasis on emotional wellbeing and individual care within FLOs contributed to an environment where students felt seen, supported, and valued.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-24">Student‐Mental Health Support Relationships</hd> <p>Students highlighted the contrast between the limited access to mental health support staff in mainstream schools with the readily available and diverse support network at their FLO. This network included mental health workers, guidance counsellors, and wellbeing officers, fostering a sense of safety and connection while mitigating feelings of loneliness. As Kitty explained, "we have regular check‐ins with wellbeing officers...just the fact that we always have support here, like we [students] are never really alone."</p> <p>Importantly, mental health support staff were noted as playing a crucial role in supporting SGD students' identity exploration. Azure shared, "Seeing the support worker is how I started to be recognized as gender diverse." Additionally, students highlighted the value of psychoeducation and tools provided by staff to improve their mental wellbeing underscoring the holistic approach to support within the FLO environment.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-25">Peer‐to‐Peer Relationships</hd> <p>This theme highlights the stark contrast between students' peer experiences in mainstream schools and the supportive relationships they build within the FLO.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-26">Mainstream Schools: Hostility and Isolation</hd> <p>Participants described peer interactions in mainstream schools as fostering feelings of hostility and isolation. While marginalization can affect any student who feels different, SGD students often faced additional hostility tied directly to their sexuality or gender identities. These intersecting challenges underline the unique vulnerabilities of SGD youth in mainstream settings. "The kids were violent," recalled Azure, a sentiment echoed by Clover who feared being "sworn at...insulted...[or] get a punch thrown at them."</p> <p>Many participants described lacking close friendships in mainstream settings, a challenge not unique to SGD students but one that intersected with their specific experiences. "I just felt I didn't have that one person that I could just talk to...I felt so alone," shared Clover.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-27">FLO: Support, Acceptance, and Family</hd> <p>In contrast, FLO students emphasized the supportive and open‐minded peer environment at their FLO. "In general, [they] are more open," noted Phoebe, while Kitty praised peers for being "really awesome when it comes to everything."</p> <p>A key finding was the perception of FLO as a family extending beyond the school itself. This sense of belonging is profound: Finley explained "I'm not really accepted much at home...it just makes me feel better to be at Flexi, I feel safer, I can trust people here". Kitty echoed this sentiment: "We're just one giant family...we forgive, we forget, and we love each other here." Staff members also played nurturing roles. Elliot described the wellbeing officer as a "school mother" who offered unwavering support even without being asked.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-28">Individual Support</hd> <p>Students consistently attributed their improved academic performance, sense of safety, feelings of inclusion, and overall wellbeing to the FLO's smaller environment and flexible structure. Phoebe highlighted the benefits of the setting, saying, "The work is a lot calmer, you can talk to the teachers...and there are less students, which is always good". This focus on personalized attention stands in stark contrast to mainstream experiences, which students commonly described as overcrowded and stressful environments that lacked individual support.</p> <p>The smaller setting fostered both academic success and emotional connection. "I feel more included and listened to because of the small classes," said Felix, who likened the FLO to a second home. This sense of belonging was reinforced through personalized learning approaches, as Toby explained: "They recently brought out a music program...because that helps a lot of people to focus...and they cater to each individual student". Such attentiveness exemplifies the FLO's commitment to meeting diverse needs and supporting students holistically.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-29">Theme 2: School Climate and Inclusive Learning Approaches</hd> <p>This theme centers on the school environment's role in affirming and accepting students' sexuality and gender identities. Students consistently reported a stark contrast between their former experiences in mainstream schools and the FLO. Mainstream settings were often described as discriminatory, prompting concealment of identity and expectations of rejection. In contrast, the FLO is seen as a site of affirmation, acceptance, and support. Students also shared recommendations for further enhancing SGD inclusivity with school initiatives.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-30">Discrimination</hd> <p>When discussing their experiences in mainstream schools, SGD students described a pervasive lack of acceptance, awareness, and inclusivity. This discrimination manifested in several ways.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-31">Verbal Harassment and Misgendering</hd> <p>Within their mainstream school environments, students faced constant deadnaming, misgendering, and transphobic remarks. Reflecting on his experiences in mainstream schools, Felix explained, "A lot of people weren't really okay with the whole trans thing... a lot of people didn't accept it very much". Toby shared, "If people knew that I was trans, they would purposely use the wrong pronouns just for the fun of it."</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-32">Homophobia and Biphobia</hd> <p>Students experienced homophobic slurs and pressure to conform. Kitty explained, "They expected others would be homophobic and 'say stupid stuff'...they push us (LGBTQIA+) down to be normal."</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-33">Teacher Discrimination</hd> <p>Participants reported instances where teachers in their mainstream schools perpetuated the discriminatory environment. As Finley described, "I had teachers purposely embarrass me in front of the class for being bisexual..."</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-34">Lack of Knowledge and Inclusive Policies</hd> <p>According to participants, mainstream schools demonstrated limited understanding of SGD identities and lacked trans‐inclusive policies. "I wasn't able to use the boys' bathroom...and wasn't able to participate in...sports events," recalled Felix. Efforts to raise awareness, such as 'Wear it Purple Day,' were often met with resistance or mockery, reflecting broader challenges in fostering inclusivity in some mainstream schools.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-35">Victimization</hd> <p>Participants described numerous instances of victimization within mainstream schools, often linked to their SGD identities. Toby recalled, "Mainly verbal, but there were a few physical incidents...[being] thrown into things". Others faced homophobic and transphobic slurs and threats: "People threaten to rape me because of my gender identity and sexuality...purposefully calling me a fag and whatnot," Finley shared. Azriel endured similar verbal assaults, being called "every name under the sun," culminating in an assault that led them to drop out. This relentless victimization had a range of severe mental health consequences, making attendance at mainstream school unbearable for many SGD students.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-36">Concealment of Identity and Expectations of Rejection</hd> <p>The students' former mainstream schools, with their rigid structures and lack of tailored support, were described as environments where fitting in was paramount. To cope with this pressure, SGD students often concealed their identities as a safety mechanism. "I felt unsafe... I tried figuring out who I was, but then I stopped because I realised that it's just safer to fit in," explained Clover. Greenie echoed this sentiment: "I felt safe in knowing not everyone knew everything about me. If I was out, I feel like I would not be able to go to school."</p> <p>Participants anticipated rejection if they revealed their true selves. While fear of rejection can be experienced by any student who feels marginalized or different, for SGD students, this fear was often tied specifically to their sexuality or gender identity, adding an extra layer of stress and compounding their sense of vulnerability in mainstream settings. "At my old school, we actually had to keep our pride...quiet unless you were straight because it was not very inclusive," said Kitty. This lack of open support made it difficult for students to know who they could trust, as Phoebe noted: "No one knew I was part of the community; it's very hard to know if other people are too." Students feared that being 'outed' would lead to negative treatment, further motivating concealment and hindering their ability to thrive in the mainstream environment.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-37">FLOs as a Site of Affirmation and Acceptance</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0188607144-38">Individual Acceptance and Support</hd> <p>Students overwhelmingly described the FLO as a place where they could be their authentic selves without fear of judgment. "Flexi lets you be who you are," Kitty affirmed, while Azure found comfort in being "recognized as who I am." This acceptance fostered a sense of belonging: "Everyone can act themselves and not have to put on that mask," Azriel explained.</p> <p>The use of preferred names and pronouns served as a significant source of affirmation for participants. Despite external challenges, such as a lack of recognition in other settings, Finley highlighted the supportive environment within the FLO community: "Using my preferred name by my peers and my pronouns and sometimes teachers just silently supporting me..."</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-39">School‐Wide Inclusivity Initiatives</hd> <p>Students emphasized the FLO's proactive efforts to foster a safe and welcoming environment. Weekly assemblies recognized and celebrated diversity, as Azure explained: "On Tuesday's schoolwide assembly, the school recognizes all of that [diversity] and supports it." While these practices reflect a general commitment to inclusivity for all students, participants noted a lack of tailored initiatives specifically designed to address the needs of SGD students. Inclusive policies, such as those surrounding name changes, were seen as tangible signs of support, but students also highlighted areas where more targeted resources or programs could be implemented.</p> <p>Open discussions about homophobia, transphobia, and LGBTQIA+ experiences further reinforced the school's commitment to inclusivity. Greenie recounted being welcomed from the start: "I was introduced as Greenie, with he/him pronouns, even before I had changed my name legally, which was very much appreciated."</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-40">Visual Representation and Celebration</hd> <p>The FLO's physical space reflected its values, creating a sense of pride and belonging for SGD students. "We just felt pride is not just a month here, it's an everyday thing," Kitty emphasized. Pride flags, posters, and the welcoming rainbow building were powerful symbols of acceptance. As Finley noted, these visual displays made them "feel a bit more wanted."</p> <p>Overall, students felt the FLO actively embraced and celebrated their identities, providing a contrast to the broader challenges they experienced in mainstream settings, including feeling unsupported or unrecognized.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-41">Inclusive SGD School Initiatives</hd> <p>Students emphasized the need for greater SGD awareness, education, and support systems, particularly within mainstream schools. They believed that staff training on LGBTQIA+ issues would benefit the entire school environment. "Having a nurse in mainstream school that specializes in that kind of stuff...would help people in the community talk about it to someone who actually understands," suggested Phoebe.</p> <p>Increased education was seen as key to reducing prejudice and promoting understanding. "More education to people would fix 80% of the problems," Toby asserted. This included implementing gender‐neutral toilets, using preferred pronouns and names, allowing flexibility in uniform choices, and celebrating SGD identities through visual displays and events.</p> <p>While advocating for change in mainstream schools, students were mindful of potential risks. Some expressed concern that increased visibility, regardless of identity, could lead to backlash in certain environments. Elliot cautioned, "I probably wouldn't change anything purely for the safety of the kids." Others, like Clover, supported a gradual approach: "Instead of shoving it down your throat...bring it in gradually."</p> <p>Despite the FLO's generally supportive environment, students identified areas where FLOs could further enhance their support, specifically for SGD students. They expressed a desire for a dedicated professional, such as a nurse or therapist, with expertise in LGBTQIA+ issues to provide specialized support beyond what teachers could offer. "We have to talk about our issues to the teachers, and they aren't trained in that sort of stuff," Clover noted. This suggestion highlights that even within a supportive setting like an FLO, there is a need for targeted resources to address the unique needs of SGD students.</p> <p>Students also advocated for more inclusive sex education within FLOs that specifically addresses the needs of SGD youth. Highlighting the importance of respecting gender identity, gender‐diverse students desired greater autonomy over their names and pronouns, a right often hindered by external paperwork or parental consent requirements. As Felix explained, "Even if it's just at school, they get that name change, so at least it's kind of a safe space." These suggestions underscore the ongoing need for FLOs to critically examine their practices and implement initiatives that specifically cater to the unique experiences and challenges faced by SGD students.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-42">Discussion</hd> <p>Given the multiple disadvantages faced by SGD youth (Abreu et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>]; Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref85">29</reflink>]; McDonald [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref86">42</reflink>]) and the limited research on their experiences in FLOs, this study conducted an in‐depth examination of how SGD students perceive FLO settings as influencing their school outcomes, contrasting these experiences with their prior mainstream education.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-43">Theme 1: Relationship and Support</hd> <p>This study's findings align with broader evidence showing that alternative education settings, such as FLOs, address systemic shortcomings by fostering strong teacher‐student relationships and personalized support. Key features of FLOs, including smaller class sizes, flexible learning structures, and individualized attention, create inclusive and nurturing environments that mitigate feelings of alienation and discrimination for SGD youth (Blatchford and Russell [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref87">6</reflink>]; Mathis [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref88">39</reflink>]; Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref89">29</reflink>]; Ullman [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref90">68</reflink>]). These benefits extend to other marginalized student groups, such as those from diverse cultural backgrounds, socioeconomic disadvantage, or with differing learning styles, underscoring the inadequacies of mainstream education systems.</p> <p>Globally, alternative education models such as Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia share principles of inclusivity, flexibility, and tailored support (Guerrero et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref91">21</reflink>]). Similar to these models, FLOs relational approaches and small class sizes promote personalization and belonging, countering the impersonal nature and rigid hierarchies often found in mainstream schools (Carswell et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref92">11</reflink>]). Participants described FLOs as fostering proactive teacher engagement, close peer connections, and a family‐like atmosphere, which contrasts sharply with the isolation and neglect experienced in mainstream settings.</p> <p>In mainstream schools, large class sizes and limited mental health resources often leave students feeling overlooked, isolated, and emotionally unsupported. While such challenges affect many students, SGD youth face additional burdens from discrimination and a lack of identity affirmation, which can severely impact their wellbeing (Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref93">30</reflink>]; Ullman [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref94">69</reflink>]). Prior research highlights the critical role of supportive relationships in addressing these challenges. For example, Ullman ([<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref95">69</reflink>]) demonstrated that teacher positivity towards gender diversity enhances school connectedness for transgender and gender‐diverse students. Similarly, Leung et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref96">32</reflink>]) emphasized the benefits of school‐based social supports—such as positive teacher‐student relationships, inclusive policies, and programs like Gay‐Straight Alliances (GSAs)—in fostering belonging and reducing victimization for LGBTQ youth.</p> <p>From the perspective of educators, Afacan and Wilkerson ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref97">3</reflink>]) identified relationships as a cornerstone of alternative education, benefiting both SGD youth and other marginalized students. This study builds on that evidence, demonstrating how FLOs' relational and structural supports create nurturing environments that directly contrast with the isolating experiences of mainstream schools.</p> <p>Consistent with existing research, participants in our study emphasized the profound emotional impact of mainstream school characteristics on the wellbeing of SGD youth, including negative school climates (Poteat et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref98">55</reflink>]), limited teacher support (Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref99">30</reflink>]), barriers to mental health care (McNeil et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]), and experiences of school‐based discrimination (Ullman [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref101">68</reflink>]). In stark contrast to the isolating experiences in mainstream schools, participants described the FLO environment as nurturing and highlighted the importance of tailored support. FLO teachers and support staff provided academic and emotional care, flexible learning plans, and strong, family‐like. Peer relationships were similarly characterized by acceptance and belonging, contributing to a supportive community atmosphere. These findings shed new light on the positive effects of individualized attention (Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref102">29</reflink>]), flexible learning approaches (Quirke [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref103">56</reflink>]), and strong relationships (Kimmins and Winters [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref104">28</reflink>]) on student wellbeing.</p> <p>By directly comparing participants' experiences in mainstream and FLO environments, this study deepens understanding of how relational and structural supports can transform school climates, fostering inclusivity, safety, and connection for SGD youth and other marginalized students.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-44">Theme 2: Inclusive School Climate and Learning Approaches</hd> <p>This theme underscores the damaging experiences SGD students face in mainstream schools including pervasive discrimination, verbal harassment, misgendering, and inadequate supportive policies. While these systemic issues can affect many students, they often force SGD students to conceal their identities undermining their sense of safety and belonging. Participants echoed findings from prior research which reported high rates of harassment (Kosciw et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref105">29</reflink>]) and a lack of visibility and support structures for SGD youth (Snapp, McGuire, et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref106">66</reflink>]). The resulting victimization and rejection significantly impact mental health and sense of safety, consistent with Poteat et al. ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref107">55</reflink>]). The outcomes emphasize the need for mainstream schools to adopt inclusive practices, such as those observed in FLOs, to reduce victimization and promote acceptance.</p> <p>In contrast, FLOs were described as nurturing spaces where students could express their true selves without fear. Participants described strategies such as visible pride symbols, preferred name and pronoun usage, and school‐wide diversity initiatives, which actively promoted inclusivity. These findings align with prior research showing that such practices foster belonging, encourage open discussions about LGBTQIA+ experiences, and enhance SGD students' wellbeing and educational outcomes (Little et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref108">35</reflink>]; Mann et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref109">38</reflink>]; Russell et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref110">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>Participants' descriptions also reflect global evidence on alternative education models, such as Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia, which emphasize smaller class sizes, adaptable structures, and relational support to foster inclusivity and wellbeing (Guerrero et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref111">21</reflink>]). FLOs' flexible structures and relational supports were noted to further personalize learning and build strong peer and teacher connections.</p> <p>However, despite these strengths, participants identified critical gaps in resources specifically targeted toward SGD youth within FLOs. These included a lack of LGBTQIA+ ‐specific mental health support, inclusive curricula that reflect diverse identities and experiences, and comprehensive teacher training on LGBTQIA+ issues. This aligns with Leung et al. ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref112">32</reflink>]), who emphasized the importance of comprehensive, interconnected school‐based supports—such as GSAs, inclusive policies, and teacher training—in creating truly affirming environments that address individual, peer, and institutional needs.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-45">Thematic Integration and Interpretation</hd> <p>The themes identified in this study reveal interconnections between environment, stress, and wellbeing for SGD students, as interpreted through MST and the SEM. The current analysis identifies multiple chronic stressors faced by SGD youth within mainstream educational environments. While many of these stressors, such as lack of teacher support, peer hostility, and overcrowded classrooms, are systemic and affect a broad range of students, the impact on SGD youth is uniquely compounded by identity‐based discrimination. For example, the lack of teacher attention and limited mental health support, challenges commonly reported by disenfranchised students, intersect with SGD‐specific issues such as misgendering, deadnaming, or a lack of policies affirming their identities. This intersection creates a distinct and heightened experience of marginalization that cannot be reduced solely to systemic inadequacies. The analysis also highlights how FLOs mitigate these layered stressors by addressing systemic barriers and providing a generally inclusive environment. This underscores the potential for mainstream schools to adopt similar strategies to alleviate systemic stressors and promote positive outcomes for SGD students. However, while FLOs reduce many identity‐specific barriers through affirming practices, the lack of targeted programs or resources specifically for SGD students limits the extent to which these barriers are addressed. Participants' recommendations for more tailored initiatives underscore the potential for further enhancing the support provided to SGD youth.</p> <p>This study underscores how the inclusive features of FLOs—smaller class sizes, relational supports, and flexible approaches—align with global principles of alternative education, such as those seen in Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia models. These principles provide a blueprint for addressing the structural inadequacies of mainstream schools that marginalize SGD youth and other disenfranchised groups (Guerrero et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref113">21</reflink>]; Carswell et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref114">11</reflink>]). By addressing both individual and systemic stressors through supportive and affirming practices, FLOs demonstrate the potential to inform systemic changes across educational settings globally.</p> <p>SGD students in mainstream settings frequently experience distal stressors such as verbal harassment and misgendering. These experiences reinforce their vulnerability and marginalization. This discrimination leads to proximal stressors, manifesting as a constant expectation of rejection that fuels anxiety and fear of social interaction. To cope with these stressors, many students resort to internalized stressors, such as concealing their identities. This demonstrates internalized stigma and contributes to psychological distress, further diminishing their wellbeing. This aligns with MST's emphasis on the cyclical nature of stressors, where distal experiences like harassment reinforce proximal fears and ultimately contribute to damaging internalized responses (Hatzenbuehler [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref115">23</reflink>]).</p> <p>In contrast, FLOs reduce the stressors described by MST through supportive relationships and affirming practices. The SEM further illuminates how these environmental changes impact SGD students at multiple levels. Through the lens of the SEM, this study demonstrates how FLOs directly address individual and interpersonal stressors by providing tailored academic and emotional support. For instance, participants described how smaller class sizes, personalized attention from teachers, and proactive mental health resources fostered strong relationships and a sense of security. These relationships allowed students to express their identities with confidence and reduced the psychological distress often experienced in mainstream environments.</p> <p>On an organizational level, the inclusive policies and flexible learning approaches within the FLO setting explicitly prioritized safety, acceptance, and visibility. For example, participants emphasized the value of school‐wide assemblies celebrating diversity and the use of preferred names and pronouns. These initiatives created a supportive school climate that actively countered the systemic challenges faced in mainstream schools, such as misgendering or bullying.</p> <p>While this study focused on the school context, the findings align with Leung et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref116">33</reflink>]) review, which emphasized the importance of interconnected support systems at individual, peer, and institutional levels for SGD youth. The inclusive practices identified in FLOs reflect broader ecological strategies that are central to safe and affirming environments. Participants' calls for further enhancements, such as LGBTQIA+ ‐specific training for staff and dedicated resources, highlight areas where FLOs could strengthen their support at both organizational and broader community levels. These findings illustrate how FLOs act as a microcosm of inclusive practices that could inform systemic changes in educational settings more broadly.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-46">Limitations</hd> <p>This study focused on interviews with students from a single regional school. While the intention was not to generalize to the broader population of SGD students, the findings are deeply rooted in the specific geographic and cultural context of regional Australia. Australian FLOs operate under national and state‐level policies that standardize key features such as inclusivity, small class sizes, and individualized support. However, individual schools often adapt these policies to meet local needs, which means the findings may reflect the specific implementation of these features at the selected school. Resource limitations, including the study's focus on qualitative interviews within a single FLO, constrained our ability to systematically examine broader factors such as potential trade‐offs in academic achievement or the diversity of peer networks. The study ventured beyond SGD‐specific issues only where participants organically raised them. These constraints underline the need for further research to explore how alternative education settings balance these critical dimensions while fostering an inclusive environment.</p> <p>Nevertheless, the shared regulatory frameworks across FLOs suggest that the core practices observed—such as fostering inclusivity, emphasizing individualized support, and maintaining small class sizes—are broadly relevant to understanding SGD students' experiences in alternative education settings across Australia. This discussion incorporates a "learning from success" perspective by highlighting effective practices identified within this FLO, offering valuable insights that could inform other institutions in better supporting SGD youth.</p> <p>Additionally, the use of purposive sampling to select participants from a supportive FLO environment mean that students with poorer experiences may be underrepresented in our sample. This approach potentially skews the results toward more favourable experiences due to participants' pre‐existing positive perceptions of their FLO educational setting. Furthermore, the study's reliance on self‐report may also introduce bias; participants might present themselves in a more favourable light or omit negative experiences due to social desirability or inaccurate recall. Finally, acknowledging the researcher's interpretive role highlights the potential for personal biases to influence data analysis. Despite efforts to maintain reflexivity, it's possible that the researcher's background and beliefs could subtly affect which themes were deemed significant and how they were interpreted.</p> <p>Despite these potential limitations, these qualitative findings about the experiences of SGD students in FLOs are insightful. They could be enhanced by future studies that sample across both urban and regional as well as various sociodemographic contexts.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-47">Educational and Practical Implications</hd> <p>Overall, these findings highlight the urgent need for schools to act as affirming spaces for all students, particularly those marginalized by systemic barriers such as overcrowded classrooms or inadequate teacher support. While this study focuses on a single FLO, the insights derived highlight practices that can be considered exemplary within alternative education. This "learning from success" approach allows for a focus on beneficial practices—such as strong relational connections, inclusive policies, and tailored academic and emotional support—that could inform broader implementation across other Australian FLOs. Mainstream schools could adapt these practices, such as fostering strong relational connections and inclusive policies, to better support SGD youth.</p> <p>Measures such as staff training on LGBTQIA+ issues, dedicated mental health support, and educational programs that affirm sexual and gender diversity are crucial to addressing identity‐based challenges. Importantly, the benefits of well‐trained and supportive educators extend beyond SGD youth, fostering a more inclusive, engaging, and equitable environment for all students. Research indicates that qualified staff equipped with skills to recognize diverse needs, provide emotional support, and address systemic barriers positively influence the academic and psychosocial outcomes of a wide range of students, including those marginalized by socioeconomic, cultural, or learning differences.</p> <p>Participants in this study expressed strong confidence in education and teacher preparation as solutions to address discrimination. However, evidence suggests that educational interventions alone may not sufficiently change behaviours. Research by Forscher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref117">19</reflink>]) indicates that human behaviour, particularly biases, often resists long‐term change through education alone. Instead, habit‐breaking interventions that treat bias as a learned behaviour requiring active disruption have shown promise in promoting enduring changes. These interventions combine education with strategies that heighten awareness, motivation, and accountability, fostering sustained behavioural shifts. Incorporating habit‐breaking methodologies into teacher training programs could address this gap by equipping educators with tools to recognize and challenge their biases actively, rather than relying solely on awareness‐raising. This more comprehensive approach aligns with participants' aspirations for inclusive school environments while addressing the limitations highlighted in existing research.</p> <p>These additional efforts would help to combat discrimination, promote identity affirmation, and ensure that SGD students can thrive alongside their peers. Teacher training must prioritize developing an understanding of the unique experiences of SGD students while ensuring staff are prepared to support diverse student populations effectively. This includes fostering nurturing relationships, recognizing signs of distress, and providing personalized support. Furthermore, schools should prioritize accessible mental health services, with wellbeing officers and regular mental health check‐ins to enhance student wellbeing and safety.</p> <p>Curricula should integrate psychoeducational content tailored to the specific needs of SGD youth, supporting their identity development and mental wellbeing. Furthermore, schools must implement explicit, inclusive policies for preferred names/pronouns, gender‐neutral facilities, and review antidiscrimination policies with input from SGD students or community organizations to ensure inclusivity. Schools that visibly affirm diversity with symbols of inclusivity and safe space indicators further foster a welcoming environment. Peer support and mentorship programs are also crucial for reducing isolation and creating a supportive, affirming space for SGD students.</p> <p>Partnerships with SGD organizations broaden support networks and strengthen community ties. Additionally, by adopting flexible learning models, prioritizing smaller class sizes, and integrating mental health support, schools can create a comprehensive and supportive educational framework that benefits a wide range of students, including those who face structural challenges and identity‐based marginalization. While some recommendations may have associated costs (e.g., staff training, hiring mental health professionals), the long‐term benefits of creating inclusive and affirming school environments far outweigh the cost of inaction.</p> <p>Building on these practical recommendations, the findings illustrate how FLOs act as a microcosm of inclusive practices that could inform systemic changes in educational settings more broadly. While this study highlights the transformative potential of FLOs in supporting SGD youth, the scope of the research did not allow for a comprehensive evaluation of possible trade‐offs, such as balancing emotional safety and academic rigor, or the social diversity of peer networks. These areas warrant further exploration to better understand how alternative schools can optimize both safety and educational outcomes for diverse student populations.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-48">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We thank the supporting FLO staff and the participating students who contributed to this study. Open access publishing facilitated by University of Southern Queensland, as part of the Wiley ‐ University of Southern Queensland agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-49">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0188607144-50">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0188607144-51"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abreu, R. L., L. Audette, Y. Mitchell, et al. 2021. " LGBTQ Student Experiences in Schools From 2009–2019: A Systematic Review of Study Characteristics and Recommendations for Prevention and Intervention in School Psychology Journals." Psychology in the Schools 59, no. 1 : 115 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Abreu, R. L., and M. C. Kenny. 2018. " Cyberbullying and LGBTQ Youth: A Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for Prevention and Intervention." Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 11, no. 1 : 81 – 97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-017-0175-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref79" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Afacan, K., and K. L. Wilkerson. 2024. " Educator Perspectives on Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Schools." International Journal of Educational Reform 33, no. 2 : 152 – 175. https://doi.org/10.1177/10567879241230016.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Aljabreen, H. 2020. " Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia: A Comparative Analysis of Alternative Models of Early Childhood Education." International Journal of Early Childhood 52, no. 3 : 337 – 353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13158-020-00277-1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref33" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Besançon, M., F. Fenouillet, and R. Shankland. 2015. " Influence of School Environment on Adolescents' Creative Potential, Motivation, and Wellbeing." Learning and Individual Differences 43 : 178 – 184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.08.029.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref37" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blatchford, P., and A. Russell. 2020. Rethinking Class Size: The Complex Story of Impact on Teaching and Learning. UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787358799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bransby, K., and M. Rawson. 2020. Waldorf Education for the Future: A Framework for Curriculum Practice. Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship. https://waldorfeducation.uk/.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref66" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2013. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. 1st ed. SAGE Publications Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref64" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brooks, J. M., S. McCluskey, E. Turley, and N. King. 2015. " The Utility of Template Analysis in Qualitative Psychology Research." Qualitative Research in Psychology 12, no. 2 : 202 – 222. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.955224.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carswell, S. B., T. E. Hanlon, A. M. Watts, and K. E. O'Grady. 2014. " Prevention‐Related Research Targeting African American Alternative Education Program Students." Education and Urban Society 46, no. 4 : 434 – 449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124512458119.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell, J. W., and D. J. Creswell. 2018. Research Design. 5th ed. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denervaud, S., E. Fornari, X. F. Yang, P. Hagmann, M. H. Immordino‐Yang, and D. Sander. 2020. " An fMRI Study of Error Monitoring in Montessori and Traditionally‐Schooled Children." NPJ Science of Learning 5, no. 1 : 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-020-0069-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denervaud, S., J. F. Knebel, P. Hagmann, and E. Gentaz. 2019. " Beyond Executive Functions, Creativity Skills Benefit Academic Outcomes: Insights From Montessori Education." PLoS One 14, no. 11 : e0225319. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225319.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorfman, B. S., and D. Fortus. 2019. " Students' Self‐Efficacy for Science in Different School Systems." Journal of Research in Science Teaching 56, no. 8 : 1037 – 1059. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21542.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, I., and V. Rawlings. 2019. " It Was Just One Less Thing That I had to Worry About: Positive Experiences of Schooling for Gender Diverse and Transgender Students." Journal of Homosexuality 68, no. 9 : 1489 – 1508. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2019.1698918.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feijo, M., A. M. V. Fontanari, L. S. Boeira, G. Wendt, T. Bloniewski, and A. B. Costa. 2022. " Improving School Outcomes for Transgender and Gender‐Diverse Youth: A Rapid Review." Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 9, no. 1 : 27 – 34. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211068021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foley, R. M., and L. S. Pang. 2006. " Alternative Education Programs: Program and Student Characteristics." High School Journal 89, no. 3 : 10 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2006.0003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forscher, P. S., C. Mitamura, E. L. Dix, W. T. L. Cox, and P. G. Devine. 2017. " Breaking the Prejudice Habit: Mechanisms, Timecourse, and Longevity." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 72 : 133 – 146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.04.009.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Greytak, E. A., J. G. Kosciw, and M. J. Boesen. 2016. " Putting the 'T' in Resource: The Benefits of Supportive School Environments for Transgender Youth." Journal of LGBT Youth 13, no. 1–2 : 189 – 201.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guerrero, S., J. Valenciano‐Valcárcel, and A. Rodríguez. 2024. " Unveiling Alternative Schools: A Systematic Review of Cognitive and Social‐Emotional Development in Different Educational Approaches." Children and Youth Services Review 158 : 107480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107480.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagens, V., M. J. Dobrow, and R. Chafe. 2009. " Interviewee Transcript Review: Assessing the Impact on Qualitative Research." BMC Medical Research Methodology 9 : 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatzenbuehler, M. L. 2009. " How Does Sexual Minority Stigma 'Get Under the Skin'? A Psychological Mediation Framework." Psychological Bulletin 135, no. 5 : 707 – 730. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatzenbuehler, M. L., and K. M. Keyes. 2013. " Inclusive Anti‐Bullying Policies and Reduced Risk of Suicide Attempts in Lesbian and Gay Youth." Journal of Adolescent Health 53, no. 1 : S21 – S26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.08.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, A. O., A. Lyons, J. Jones, et al. 2021. " Writing Themselves in 4: The Health and Wellbeing of LGBTQA+ Young People in Australia." In National Report, Monograph Series Number 124, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, T., E. Smith, R. Ward, J. Dixon, L. Hillier, and A. Mitchell. 2015. " School Experiences of Transgender and Gender Diverse Students in Australia." Sex Education 16, no. 2 : 156 – 171. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2015.1080678.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ketting, E., and O. Ivanova. 2018. Sexuality Education in Europe and Central Asia: State of the Art and Recent Developments. Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) and International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network (IPPF EN).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimmins, D. L., and J. J. Winters. 2015. " Caution: Venn Diagrams Ahead." Teaching Children Mathematics 21, no. 8 : 484 – 493.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kosciw, J. G., C. M. Clark, N. L. Truong, and A. D. Zongrone. 2020. The 2019 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Youth in our Nation's Schools. GLSEN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kosciw, J. G., E. Greytak, and A. Zongrone. 2018. The 2017 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer Youth in our Nation's Schools. GLSEN.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kumm, S., S. Wilkinson, and S. McDaniel. 2020. " Alternative Education Settings in the United States." Intervention in School and Clinic 56, no. 1 : 3 – 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220914895.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leung, E., G. Kassel‐Gomez, S. Sullivan, F. Murahara, and T. Flanagan. 2022. " Social Support in Schools and Related Outcomes for LGBTQ Youth: A Scoping Review." Discover Education 1, no. 1, Article: 18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-022-00016-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lillard, A. S. 2017. Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lillard, A. S., M. J. Heise, E. M. Richey, X. Tong, A. Hart, and P. M. Bray. 2017. " Montessori Preschool Elevates and Equalizes Child Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study." Frontiers in Psychology 8 : 1783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, L., R. Garofalo, R. M. Lerner, and D. P. Welsh. 2022. " 'It Shows We'Re Not Alone': Gay–Straight Alliances, School Safety, and Student Wellbeing Across the United States." School Psychology Review 51, no. 1 : 70 – 82.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, R. T., and B. Mustanski. 2012. " Suicidal Ideation and Self‐Harm in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth." American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42, no. 3 : 221 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.023.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, S., and N. Nguyen. 2011. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth, Briefing Paper 25: Successful Youth Transitions. National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mann, T., E. Burns, P. Van Bergen, and T. Jones. 2025. " Which LGBTQ+ Inclusive School Strategies Support LGBTQ+ Student, Staff and Parent Perceptions of School Climate? A Latent Class Analysis." Journal of Homosexuality 72 : 1580 – 1606. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2024.2384933.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathis, W. J. 2016. Research‐Based Options for Education Policymaking: The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction. National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado Boulder.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathis, W. J. 2017. " The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction." Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management 5, no. 1 : 176 – 183. https://doi.org/10.22381/pihrm5120176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCracken, K. A., and G. Mattson. 2016. " Best Practices in Educational Programming at an Alternative High School for LGBTQ Youth." Journal of School Counseling 14, no. 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McDonald, K. 2018. " Social Support and Mental Health in LGBTQ Adolescents: A Review of the Literature." Issues in Mental Health Nursing 39, no. 1 : 16 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01612840.2017.1398283.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNally, S. A., and R. Slutsky. 2017. " Key Elements of the Reggio Emilia Approach and How They Are Interconnected to Create the Highly Regarded System of Early Childhood Education." Early Child Development and Care 187, no. 12 : 1925 – 1937. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1197920.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McNeil, J., Z. Bailey, S. Ellis, J. Morton, and M. Regan. 2016. Trans Mental Health Study 2012. Scottish Transgender Alliance.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, I. H. 2003. " Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence." Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 5 : 674 – 697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mix, K. S., L. B. Smith, J. D. Stockton, Y. L. Cheng, and J. A. Barterian. 2017. " Grounding the Symbols for Place Value: Evidence From Training and Long‐Term Exposure to Base‐10 Models." Journal of Cognition and Development 18, no. 1 : 129 – 151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2016.1180296.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mustanski, B., and R. T. Liu. 2012. " A Longitudinal Study of Predictors of Suicide Attempts Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth." Archives of Sexual Behavior 42, no. 3 : 437 – 448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-0013-9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Myers, W., J. J. Turanovic, K. M. Lloyd, and T. C. Pratt. 2020. " The Victimization of LGBTQ Students at School: A Meta‐Analysis." Journal of School Violence 19, no. 4 : 421 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1725530.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naser, S. C., K. A. Fuller, K. Clonan‐Roy, et al. 2022. " The Silencing of Sexual and Gender Diverse Identities in Middle and High School Sexuality Education." Contemporary School Psychology 27, no. 3 : 557 – 570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00419-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nowell, L. S., J. M. Norris, D. E. White, and N. J. Moules. 2017. " Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria." International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16, no. 1 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parodi, K. B., M. K. Holt, J. G. Green, et al. 2022. " Associations Between School‐Related Factors and Mental Health Among Transgender and Gender Diverse Youth." Journal of School Psychology 90 : 135 – 149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.11.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillippi, S., C. L. Thomas, M. Gastanaduy, A. Hammack, and M. Sawyer. 2020. " Inclusive Policy Development in a Community‐Based Alternative Education Program Serving LGBT Youth." Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth 65, no. 2 : 155 – 162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988x.2020.1858740.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Plows, V., D. Bottrell, and K. Te Riele. 2016. " Valued Outcomes in the Counter‐Spaces of Alternative Education Programs: Success but on Whose Scale? " Geographical Research 55, no. 1 : 29 – 37. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poteat, V. P., and S. T. Russell. 2013. " Understanding Homophobic Behavior and Its Implications for Policy and Practice." Theory Into Practice 52, no. 4 : 264 – 271. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.829729.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poteat, V. P., J. R. Scheer, R. Marx, J. P. Calzo, and H. Yoshikawa. 2020. " School Climate, Peer Victimization, and Depressive Symptoms Among Sexual Minority Adolescents." Journal of LGBT Youth 17, no. 3 : 232 – 249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quirke, L. 2010. " 'Keeping Them in My Heart': Successful Engagement of Marginalized Young People Within Alternative Educational Provision." Journal of Educational Change 11, no. 3 : 269 – 285.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramos, A., and M. Vandecandelaere. 2018. " The Secondary School Careers of Freinet‐Educated Students in Flanders." Pedagogische Studien 95, no. 2 : 101 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Te Riele, K. 2014. Putting the Jigsaw Together: Flexible Learning Programs in Australia. The Victoria Institute for Education, Diversity, and Lifelong Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, S. E., and R. P. Jolley. 2016. " Drawing Development in Mainstream and Waldorf Steiner Schools Revisited." Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 10, no. 4 : 447 – 457. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, S. T., M. D. Bishop, V. C. Saba, I. James, and S. Ioverno. 2021. " Promoting School Safety for LGBTQ and All Students." Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8, no. 2 : 160 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1177/23727322211031938.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell, S. T., A. M. Pollitt, G. Li, and A. H. Grossman. 2018. " Geospatial Correlates of School Support for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Youth." Journal of Research on Adolescence 28, no. 2 : 419 – 432. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12338.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sandelowski, M. 1995. " Sample Size in Qualitative Research." Research in Nursing & Health 18, no. 2 : 179 – 183. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sims‐Schouten, W., S. C. Riley, and C. Willig. 2007. " Critical Realism in Discourse Analysis: A Presentation of a Systematic Method of Analysis Using Women's Talk of Motherhood, Childcare and Female Employment as an Example." Theory & Psychology 17, no. 1 : 101 – 124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354307073153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, E., T. Jones, J. Dixon, A. Mitchell, and L. Hillier. 2014. From Blues to Rainbows: Mental Health and Wellbeing of Gender Diverse and Transgender Young People in Australia. The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. La Trobe University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snapp, S. D., H. Burdge, A. C. Licona, R. L. Moody, and S. T. Russell. 2015. " Students' Perspectives on LGBTQ‐Inclusive Curriculum." Equity & Excellence in Education 48, no. 2 : 249 – 265. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2015.1025614.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snapp, S. D., J. K. McGuire, K. O. Sinclair, K. Gabrion, and S. T. Russell. 2015. " LGBTQ‐Inclusive Curricula: Why Supportive Curricula Matter." Sex Education 15, no. 5 : 580 – 596.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spriggs, M. 2010. Understanding Consent in Research Involving Children: The Ethical Issues. A Handbook for Human Research Ethics Committees and Researchers. Children's Bioethics Centre. <ulink href="http://www.mcri.edu.au/projects/ConsentInResearch/">http://www.mcri.edu.au/projects/ConsentInResearch/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ullman, J. 2015. Free to Be?: Exploring the Schooling Experiences of Australia's Sexuality and Gender Diverse Secondary School Students. Penrith : Centre for Educational Research, School of Education, Western Sydney University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ullman, J. 2017. " Teacher Positivity Towards Gender Diversity: Exploring Relationships and School Outcomes for Transgender and Gender‐Diverse Students." Sex Education 17, no. 3 : 276 – 289. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681811.2016.1273104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Verhoeven, M., A. M. G. Poorthuis, and M. Volman. 2018. " The Role of School in Adolescents' Identity Development. A Literature Review." Educational Psychology Review 31, no. 1 : 35 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9457-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, C., and L. A. Cariola. 2019. " LGBTQI+ Youth and Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research." Adolescent Research Review 5, no. 2 : 187 – 211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40894-019-00118-w.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Michael J. Ireland; Ellen J. Cohn; Susan Abel; Linda Bourke and Lorelle Burton</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref117"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1486541
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: From Marginalization to Inclusion: How Alternative Education Supports Sexuality and Gender Diverse Youth
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+J%2E+Ireland%22">Michael J. Ireland</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6064-3575">0000-0001-6064-3575</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ellen+J%2E+Cohn%22">Ellen J. Cohn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+Abel%22">Susan Abel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Linda+Bourke%22">Linda Bourke</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lorelle+Burton%22">Lorelle Burton</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(11):4382-4397.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22LGBTQ+People%22">LGBTQ People</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nontraditional+Education%22">Nontraditional Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Support+Groups%22">Social Support Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Environment%22">Educational Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Barriers%22">Barriers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Bias%22">Social Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Traditional+Schools%22">Traditional Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Access+to+Health+Care%22">Access to Health Care</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Acceptance%22">Peer Acceptance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Small+Classes%22">Small Classes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Policy%22">School Policy</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.70006
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Despite growing awareness of sexuality and gender diverse (SGD) youth's educational challenges, limited research examines how alternative education settings support these students' wellbeing and engagement. This qualitative study investigated how Australian Flexible Learning Options (FLOs) foster inclusivity and belonging for SGD youth, comparing their experiences with mainstream schooling. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 SGD students (aged 15-18) from a regional Australian FLO. Template thematic analysis, guided by Minority Stress Theory and the Socioecological Model, revealed two primary themes: (1) school relationships and social support, and (2) school climate and inclusive learning approaches. While mainstream schools were characterized by systemic barriers including discrimination, identity concealment, and limited support, the FLO environment provided affirming experiences through supportive teacher-student relationships, accessible mental health resources, and peer acceptance. Small class sizes, flexible learning approaches, and inclusive policies were identified as key factors in creating safe and supportive educational spaces. These findings demonstrate how alternative education settings can mitigate minority stress through targeted structural and relational supports, while highlighting opportunities for mainstream schools to adopt similar practices. Future research should examine how these supportive practices can be implemented across diverse educational contexts to enhance outcomes for SGD youth.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1486541
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1486541
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.70006
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 4382
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: LGBTQ People
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nontraditional Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Support Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Barriers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Traditional Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Access to Health Care
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Acceptance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Small Classes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: From Marginalization to Inclusion: How Alternative Education Supports Sexuality and Gender Diverse Youth
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael J. Ireland
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ellen J. Cohn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Susan Abel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Linda Bourke
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lorelle Burton
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 11
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1