JMJ

ST. DOMINIC ACADEMY

(PAASCU Accredited)

Pulilan, Bulacan

EFFECTS OF BEING LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL (LGB) YOUTH TO THE ACADEMIC

PERFOREMANCE

________________________________________

A Research presented to Saint Dominic Academy

Pulilan, Bulacan

_______________________________________

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Practical Research 2

___________________________________________

By

11- PEACE

Alcantara, Maricar

Aniceto, Maclyn

Bustamante, France

Cortez, Leshley

Gomez, Lina James

Reyes, Peter Andrei

October, 2017
 Abstract

This paper discusses the effects of being a Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) youth to the

academic performance.

The researchers will find the historical background, rationale, reviews of peer-reviewed

quantitative and qualitative studies, and implications concerning the topic. Themes emerged

from the findings of the peer-reviewed studies, which include: 1. The severity of the bullying of

LGBT youth depended on school climate, location, and race, ethnicity, gender atypicality, and

citizenship status, 2. Bullying may have caused / increased depression, suicidal, drug use, rates

of unsafe sex, alcohol use, tobacco use, and bullying may also have caused students to skip

school, withdraw from social events, and perform poorly academically, and 3. Students

suggested that a better school climate, supportive teachers and staff, and safe spaces can decrease

bullying of LGBT students. Within this paper is information that teachers, as active members of

the community, can use to become advocates of LGB youth and the the different types of

discrimination that LGB youths are faced with and the effects on these youths. The paper will

elaborate on the severe impacts on LGB youths not only caused by discrimination but also due to

lack of support and guidance. The paper will also discuss the roles of the parents and schools in

helping minimize discrimination against LGB youths. This paper will also hopefully instruct

schools and parents to accept and support gay students rather than add to the discrimination that

they already face. Doing so will reduce the high school drop out rate and most importantly the

youth suicide rate. In essence, the purpose of this research paper is to identify the different

effects on LGB youths due to discrimination and to explore various actions that can and should

be taken by schools and parents to help these youths live a normal and happy life. Therefore, my

target audience is the school system as well as the parents of LGB youths.
 Dedication

“This work is numbly dedicated to Alcantara Family for giving me the unlimited support

and patience for this study. For my friends who gave me such motivation to finish this study and

also to Mrs. Theresa A. Enriquez for giving us the opportunity to do this study and last to

Almighty God who guide us through this study.”

- Alcantara, Maricar

“First of all I humbly dedicated this research to Almighty God for giving me a

knowledge, strength and patience to accomplish this. I dedicate this research to Anicieto Family,

particularly my mother and grandparents who help me in conducting this research. For their time

giving to me, for being understandable and open-minded to accomplishing this study”.

- Anicieto, Maclyn

“This work is humbly dedicated to Bustamante family who motivate and assisting me in

doing this study. And also to my friends who believe me that I can accomplish this research.

Finally to our heavenly father who is giving me a knowledge, perseverance, and strength to

finish this work. And for guiding and helping me to face the trials I encountered while doing

this”

- Bustamante, France
 “I dedicate this research to my family, and to future researcher. I would like to thank first,

Mrs. Theresa A. Enriquez for helping us and guiding us to finish this research, importantly I

thank our Lord Jesus Christ who gave us strength, power, knowledge and wisdom to create this

research paper which may provide knowledge to everyone.”

- Cortez, Leshley

“First of all I would like to dedicate this research to those students who have a family that

working abroad and I would like to thank Mrs. Theresa A. Enriquez for helping us and for them

to help what is the really effect of parents with a son or daughter that member of a LGB Youth. I

would to thank God for guiding us in this research to be accomplished.”

- Gomez, Lian

“I humbly dedicated this research to Reyes Family, especially to my parents for giving

me an endless support and for being patience and understandable for this study. For their words

of encouragement that persuade me to finish this, despite of many obstacle I encountered. Most

of all I dedicate this to our Loving God who give me a knowledge and patience to accomplish

this”.

- Reyes, Peter Andrei

 Acknowledgement

These are number of people without them, this research might not have been written, and

to we are greatly indebted. We would like to express our deepest gratitude to our Practical

Research 2 teacher, Mrs. Ma. Theresa A. Enriquez for her dedication and guidance throughout

this educational endeavor. Her devotedness, professionalism, and invaluable advice has

encouraged and made this challenging accomplishment more obtainable.

We would like to thank also Saint Dominic Academy for giving us permission to

distribute the questionnaires to the selected Grade 12 Students. And for giving us a chance to

experience how to conduct a research paper as a preparation for our college life.

We also give thanks to Selected Students of Saint Dominic Academy S.Y. 2017-2018 to

be our informants in our survey questionnaires. Their answer serves as our pattern in gathering

and analyzing and the given data to their research.

Our gratitude also extends to the loving families of the researchers, (Bustamante Family,

Anicieto Family, Cortez Family, Alcantara Family, Gomez Family, Reyes Family ) who assisted

the financial of this research for providing our needs and for their everlasting support and

encouraging words that make our inspiration to done this study successfully.

Lastly, we would like to express our deepest and greatest gratitude to our heavenly Father for

giving us a patient, strength and knowledge to accomplish this research.

 Chapter I

The Problem and Its Background

Introduction

What determines the success of a student in higher education? The phenomenon of

retention and successful student outcomes have been studied by researchers in higher education

for decades - parsing out the minutiae impacting various campus populations, determining what

services will better prepare them, attempting to discover the proverbial key to retention. What

happens, then, when a specific campus population remains relatively invisible? What happens

when educational institutions in and of themselves have foundations in practices that oppress a

student population?

The transition into higher education is incredibly jarring for all students; discovering what

is required of them both academically, socially, personally, and professionally can prove so

taxing that it affects an individual’s ability to function within the institution of higher education.

The age at which most college students enter into higher education is a period in an individual’s

life cycle that is commonly associated with great personal identity development, growth and

change. For sexual minority students, there is an extra layer of challenge surrounding these

typical young adult tasks. Creating a personal identity that is considered by many to be deviant,

abnormal, or nonstandard in a frequently inhospitable environment can create immense mental

strife for young students of higher education (D’Augelli, 1993). Sexual minority students, then,

must balance this personality development along with their academic endeavors.

While student service workers in higher education often find avenues in which to engage

with sexual minority students, the general campus population does not have the same regular

contact. This can leave Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) students often feeling
discriminated against, isolated, underserved or simply unseen (D’Augelli, 1993). Due to the

invisibility or outright oppression of sexual minority students, they are at much higher risk of

facing psychological health issues as well as personal and academic barriers.

Working in residential education in both a university setting and at a community college,

the researcher has both experienced and witnessed the extreme difficulty that many sexual

minority students face in higher education as they struggle to match their personal identity

development with their academic endeavors. D’Augelli (1993) suggested that LGBT students

spend a much more significant amount of time focusing on identity development than their

heterosexual peers. The literature suggests as well, that because LGBT students are spending

such significant time concentrating on identity development within an oppressive climate, they

invest less energy and find less value in their academic activities.

Due to the significant barriers and challenges that LGBT students face in institutions of

higher education, one would expect that this population faces higher levels of departure than

their heterosexual peers. In a cursory evaluation of the retention literature, the researcher found

little research or publication on the topic of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered student

success and retention. Literature on issues LGBT students face on university and college

campuses has grown dramatically in the past decade. There are volumes written about mental

health issues that sexual minority youth face as well as the attitudes of heterosexual individuals

toward LGBT individuals in higher educational institutions. Retention and academic persistence

are some of the most widely and deeply studied topics in higher education, yet the academic

needs and the retention rates of sexual minorities in higher education seem to be all but absent.

The history of Gay rights in the United States, abroad, and within institutions of higher

education is extensive. While great forward movement has occurred in gaining rights and
attitudinal change toward sexual minorities, LGBT individuals still face immense obstacles

including issues of oppression, institutionalized homophobia, discrimination in employment,

heterosexism in their daily life, as well as issues of discrimination and invisibility in institutions

of higher education (Waldo, 1998, 1999; Fone, 2000; Ellis & Riggle, 1996; Clendinen &

Nagourney, 1999).

There is often an assumption that institutions of higher education are more amenable to the

plights of LGBT individuals. Literature about sexual minorities on campuses of higher education

has increased greatly in the last several decades (Abes & Jones, 2004; Allen,

1995; Waldo, 1998; Sanlo, Rankin & Schoenberg, 2002; Brown, Clarke, Gortmaker &

Robinson-Keilig, 2004; Ellis & High, 2004), however, there still appears to be very little data

about numbers of sexual minority students (who are hard to track as they are a self-identifying

population) and even less data about academic persistence and retention with this population

(Waldo, 1998; Sanlo et al., 2002).

While research about sexual minority students is increasing, the needs of these students and

the resources to meet these needs still remain only minimally visible on many campuses and are

completely unknown on others. Even if an institution has in place resources meant to assist

sexual minority students, the system seems to continue to fail the students in many ways.

Campus climates and attitudes toward sexual minority students are often less then welcoming

and are at worst outright oppressive. In addition, LGBT students report little to no mention of

“alternative” sexualities or points of views of non-heterosexual individuals in their curriculum

(D’Augelli, 1993). They also recognized few mentor figures on campus and few if any

recognized “safe spaces” where they would not be targeted because of their sexual orientation or

identity (D’Augelli, 1993, p. 256).

 Any student entering an institution of higher education faces immense transitional and

identity development issues, however sexual minority students face unique challenges. College is

often identified as a time when youth develop their sexual and personal identities (D’Augelli,

1993). In addition to trying to mitigate their own personal identity development, they face the

extra burden of developing an alternative sexual orientation in an environment that at best does

not globally recognize their identity and at worst oppresses them for it.

Personal identity development issues, which often lead to mental health problems, along

with a less impactful educational curriculum may affect a student’s educational experience and,

in turn, affect their academic persistence and possibly their ability to be retained by the

institutions within which they are enrolled.

 Research Problem

The study aims to determine the effects of being a LGB Youth .

Research Questions:

1. What is the relation between parental involvement and adolescents’ academic performance in

terms of:

1.1 Parent-teacher conference

1.2 Parents motivation in adolescents’ education

1.3 Parents guidance to adolescents’ study habit

2. How does adolescent’s perception of parental academic support and monitoring relates to the

achievement goals in terms of:

2.1 Examination result

2.2 Submission of school requirement

2.3 Days of absences or tardiness

3. Does parental involvement contribute to adolescents’ academic success in school in terms of:

3.1 Decision- making

3.2 Community involvement

3.3 Self study

Significance of the study

 The study will be beneficial to the student, parents, teachers, administrator, and future

researchers to understand and analyze specific parenting practices that are amenable to change,

such as parent involvement and the mechanisms by which there practices influences students’

academic performance, and some programs need to developed in order to increase their academic

performances. The study would inform further research and lead them to the development of

student academic performances to become more effective intervention programs

Scope and limitation

The study is focusing on the relationship between parent involvement and student

academic performance. The present study examines two potential mechanisms; the students’

perception of cognitive competence and the quality of the student-parent and student teacher

relationship. The population of this study comprise of 20 selected Grade 12 students from Saint

Dominic Academy School year 2017-2018.

Chapter II
Literature Review

Parent Involvement and Its Relations to Adolescents Academic Performance

 There has been substantial research on attitudes towards Lesbian Gay Bisexual

Transgender (LGBT) students on campuses of higher education. The campus climate and general

feelings about LGBT students have begun to be documented with more regularity. Sexual

minority students face specific challenges of identity development that the researcher believes

impacts their educational experiences and possibilities of academic success. While much of the

research thus far has focused on attitudes and experiences of heterosexual individuals toward

sexual minority college students, very little focuses on LGBT students’ personal and academic

experiences in higher education (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997; Herek, 1984; Kurdek,

1988; Clift, 1988; Brown et al., 2004). There is even less data and review of LGBT students’

resiliency and academic persistence. This literature review elaborates on a number of these

issues. First, the history of the Gay rights movement as well as the history of LGBT students in

higher education is explored. Secondly, attitudes towards LGBT individuals in the United States

are addressed. Then more specifically attitudes towards sexual minorities and homosexuality in

higher education are investigated along with the effects of homophobia on sexual minority

students. Finally, current retention strategies being utilized in the field of higher education are

examined as well as the lack of information about academic persistence among sexual minority

populations at institutions of higher education.

The Gay Rights Movement

Issues of discrimination against homosexuals were brought forward in society over one

hundred years go by Magnus Hirschfeld (Fone, 2000). Hirschfield, considered the father of

the Gay rights movement abroad, established The Scientific Humanitarian Committee in 1897,

whose main purpose was advocating for the rights of LGBT individuals. The organization

successfully supported and campaigned for the rights of LGBT persons for over three decades
until it was forced to end its advocacy activities as a result of Nazi Germany’s policies against

homosexuals and those who supported them. Harry Hay is recognized as the father of the

contemporary Gay rights movement in the United States (Abcarian, 1990; Fone, 2000). At the

beginning of the 1950s, Hay and his fellow advocates began a discussion about homosexuality

and the need for a community that LGBT individuals could claim as their own. Hay and friends

subsequently founded the Mattachine Society in 1951. The Mattachine’s mission statement

illustrated the need for community as well as the desire to educate the greater society about the

needs of homosexuals. The mission statement elaborated this need:

“To Unify” homosexuals “isolated from their own kind and unable to adjust to the

dominant culture…”; “To Educate” and improve the “woefully meager and inconclusive”

information about homosexuality…; and “To Lead”…the whole mass of social deviates” to

achieve the missions of unification and education. (Timmons, 1990, p. 154)

While Hay and his friends worked tirelessly to create the group, and consequently, a sense

of community, the threat of legal persecution was high and the society’s meetings were forced to

be held in secret. Persecution of LGBT individuals was not uncommon during the 1950s and into

the 1960s. Homosexuals were targeted by law enforcement officials for a litany of acts that were

considered illegal during this time period. An article published in the LA Times, The Consenting

Adult Homosexual and the Law: An Empirical Study of Enforcement and Administration in Los

Angeles County (1966), provided comprehensive descriptions of illegal practices that an

individual could be cited and/or arrested for at that time. Timmons (1990) suggested that laws, as

well as social customs, were highly anti-homosexual during this time – most states held any

sexual act except the missionary position between a heterosexual couple as a crime punishable

with a prison sentence of up to twenty years.

 Despite the continual fear of persecution, Hay and his society members refused to

assimilate into dominate culture. The Mattachine society members, including Hay, carried the

modern Gay rights movement forward, allowing it to gain momentum through future decades.

The Mattachine Society, however, supported one of the first victories of the Gay rights

movement. When a member of the society was involved in a legal suit over entrapment, the

Mattachine Society stood behind the individual, Gale Jennings, and raised funds to support him

as he challenged his arrests in court. Although the jury eventually deadlocked and in the end the

case was dropped, this event was recorded as a victory for Jennings as well as the Gay rights

movement as a whole (Abcarian, 1990; Fone, 2000). This legal case, which intended to persecute

an individual for sexual orientation, although not won, provided a stepping stone for future legal

battles involving homosexual individuals and a stepping stone for future advances in Gay rights

in general.

Friends Frank Kameny and Jack Nichols also founded the Washington, DC Chapter of the

Mattachine Society (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998; Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999). Kameny,

Nichols and fellow society members in DC vehemently and publicly opposed the American

Psychological Association’s (APA) stance on homosexuality (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998;

Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999). The two spearheaded a campaign against the medical model that

labeled homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998; Clendinen &

Nagourney, 1999). The group of activists’ main goal was to enlighten the APA about the non-

pathological nature of homosexuality. It would take almost a decade, and the efforts of both

members of the Mattachine Society, and members of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF), as well as

a sympathetic psychiatrist by the name of Kent Robinson, for homosexuality to be officially

removed as a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

(DSM) in 1973 (McGarry & Wasserman, 1998; Clendinen & Nagourney, 1999).

Meanwhile, a younger, more radical, group of Gay rights advocates was forming.  The Gay

Liberation Front (GLF) was formed in July of 1969 – a group of passionate, more aggressive

individuals facing a conservative nation (McGarry & Wasserman 1998). The GLF was

established during a time when civil rights injustices were being fought on several fronts in the

United States. The GLF modeled its activities after many of these other civil rights movements.

The GLF operated similarly to movements such as the New Left, the anti-Vietnam War

movement, the counterculture, the Black Panthers, and other liberation movements. They utilized

their energy and followings aggressively, organizing rallies, protests and engaging in fights in

the political arenas as well – including the American Psychological Association’s annual

conventions from 1970-1973 (McGarry & Wasserman 1998).

As various Mattachine Societies were forming around the country, similar movements were

taking place on campuses of higher education throughout the United States. The first Gay rights

organization on a campus of higher education was the brain child of Stephen Donaldson (ne

Robert Martin) (Beemyn, 2003). Donaldson, an openly Bisexual student previously involved in

the New York chapter of the Mattachine Society, found after his first year at Columbia that he

had not met any other Gay students and was later forced to move out of the residence halls when

one of his suitemates lodged a complaint about having to live with an individual who identified

as Bisexual (Beemyn, 2003). Following this experience, and after having finally met

other Gay students on campus, Donaldson suggested beginning a “Mattachine-like organization”

on the Columbia campus (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). Donaldson and friends faced tremendous

challenges in establishing the Student Homophile League (SHL), an organization whose roots
were in creating a community for LGBT students on Columbia’s campus (Beemyn, 2003).

Students, fearing for their safety both on and off campus, wanted to remain anonymous within

the organization, yet administration at that time at Columbia would not grant recognition to any

student group without a membership list. Eventually, Donaldson was able to recruit student

campus leaders to become “proforma” members of the organization – submitting prominent

student leaders’ names on the roster, allowing other student members to remain anonymous

within the group (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). Successfully satisfying the administration, while still

maintaining the safety and anonymity of the group members, “Columbia officially chartered the

country’s first student Gay rights group on April 19, 1967” (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207).

Unfortunately, receiving University recognition did not create a smooth transition for the

first student-run Gay rights group. Following their official charter, the New York Times ran an

article detailing the groups inception which caused a “national controversy and nearly cost the

students involved in the SHL their careers at Columbia” (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). The University

received intense scrutiny leading campus administration to question the merit of the existence of

the SHL, including the dean of the college who called the SHL “quite unnecessary” and the

director of counseling services who suggested that the SHL would “promote deviant behavior

amongst the students” (Beemyn, 2003, p. 207). The media attraction, however, had one positive

effect for the SHL; it lead to great student interest in the group and assisted immensely with

student recruitment. The media coverage also led students at other institutions to contact

Donaldson about starting their own chapters of SHL at their respective campuses. Cornell was

the next major institution to begin the process of creating a student homophile league chapter.

While the students at Cornell faced similar challenges to those the student organizers faced at

Columbia, the Cornell SHL chapter was eventually realized on May 14, 1968 (Beemyn, 2003).
 The Cornell SHL chapter faced a variety of challenges but also served as an active ally for

LGBT students not only within the confines of the academic institution but also within the

greater community. The students in the Cornell SHL attempted to create publicly Gay spaces by

mobilizing LGBT students as well as sponsoring campus events and movements. In an attempt to

become a more legitimately recognized group and to create greater social change the students of

the Cornell, SHL eventually aligned themselves with another liberal student group, Students for

a Democratic Society (SDS) (Beemyn, 2003). SDS was one of the largest and most well-

recognized student organizations on the Cornell campus at the time. By aligning themselves with

the SDS the members of the Cornell, SHL gained access “to a local leftist printing company for

its newsletter and flyers,” as well as procuring greater student support (Beemyn, 2003, p 218). 

Through various activities and events, including inviting a banned radical leader to the

league’s first meeting of the year and staging a public protest campaign, the Cornell SHL

eventually became more radical and changed its name to the Gay Liberation Front (GLF)

(Beemyn, 2003). While the GLF still served the needs and rights of LGBT students on campus,

the group took on a much greater militant presence in hopes of attracting more students and

greater social mobilization. Participating in a few influential activities greatly increased the

groups’ visibility and made an impact on the national arena of the Gay rights movement. The

first visible protest activity was inviting a banned radical leader to a campus event as a guest

speaker. The second, and most widely recognized occurrence, was a public protest demonstration

at a local bar that had been previously known as a popular “Gay hangout” which had began

discriminating against homosexual patrons. Beemyn (2008) illustrated the profundity of this

single act, stating “as perhaps the first Gay student sit-in, the demonstration at Morrie’s [Bar]
received widespread attention in the nation’s Gay news media and was cited as one of the

important early Gay liberation events” (p. 221).

Needless to say, the GLF had a great effect not only on the Gay rights movement at

institutions of higher education but also on the nation’s Gay rights movement as a whole. The

nationally-recognized Gay student sit-in greatly strengthened the GLF’s power on campuses. The

GLF also created an arena where sexual identity could be aligned with other political

movements, convincing non-Gay activists to support Gayrights which helped to develop a

“progressive coalition” which continues today (Beemyn, 2003).

Arguably most importantly, however, the development of Student Homophile Leagues and

the Gay Liberation Front, created a space for LGBT individuals to be more open within and

outside of the context of higher education to be more open.  In the beginning of the movement in

the 1950s and 1960s, most LGBT groups were extremely discreet due to the members’ fears of

being revealed as Gay and persecuted socially and legally. The dropping of pseudonyms in

progressing student groups, openly held meetings and dances, and publicly speaking out about

their pride in being Gay created an arena for many more Gay individuals to become more self

accepting and come out throughout the nation. It also allowed LGBT individuals to discuss their

lives in front of various populations which greatly helped counter deeply entrenched stereotypes

and create an even greater sense of security for LGBT students and outside community members

to accept themselves and find pride in their identities (Beemyn, 2003). 

Contemporary Gay rights advocates continue to try to gain equality for LGBT individuals

in the United States in all social and political arenas as well as for LGBT students at all levels of

education. While it appears that there have been improvements in some arenas for LGBT

individuals, research shows that there continue to be new legal and social issues
concerning Gay rights in the United States (Cuomo, 2007). “Although there are approximately

30 or so state laws and around 300 municipal and county ordinances that ban discrimination

based on sexual orientation in the United States, there are still many legal and social barriers

facing sexual minorities in the United States”(Cuomo, 2007, p. 76).

While Gay rights advocates continue to work toward gaining equal rights in many

professional and institutional environments much of the recent focus of the movement has been

in personal arenas. The struggle concerning Gay marriage has been a hot topic in the Gay rights

movement in the past decade (Green, 2006). Marriage continues to be regarded as a paramount

achievement in American culture, yet same sex couples are still unable to enter into legally

binding, formally recognized relationships with their partners in many states and same sex

partnerships remain unrecognized by any federal institution (Green, 2006; Kurdek, 2004). In

addition to providing homosexual couples with the social recognition of their relationships that

they crave, sexual minority couples are arguing that they are entitled to the privileges associated

with having a legally recognized relationship, including but not limited to Social Security

spousal benefits, hospital visitation rights and the ability to make medical decisions concerning

their partners, and access to veteran’s life insurance and health programs (Kurdek, 2004, p. 880).

Along with the fight to create equal legal and institutional opportunities for sexual minority

individuals, Gay rights advocates still endeavor to fight homophobia and violence in everyday

society including in schools. Gay students are still the subject of violent verbal and physical

attacks (Smith, 1998). Unfortunately, many educational institutions and instructors continue to

ignore ostracized Gay students and the verbal and physical abuse of sexual minorities (Smith,

1998). Violence against LGBT individuals due to their sexual identity continues to be pervasive

in the United States (Swigonski et al., 2001). Hate crimes, by their very nature, are based
primarily on the victim’s membership to a specific group, which is often negatively stereotyped;

in this case the group is a perceived sexual identity (Craig & Waldo, 1996). In 2001, only

twenty-one states had laws covering crimes based on sexual orientation yet hate crimes based on

sexual orientation are the third highest category reported annually to the FBI (Swigonskiet al.,

2001). Crimes committed against sexual minorities because of perceived sexual identity are

characterized as the “most violent bias crimes” (Swigonski et al., 2001, p. 2). One of the most

brutal anti-LGBT crimes in the past several years was the case of Matthew Shepard. In 1998, a

young man named Matthew Shepard, who identified as homosexual, left a bar in Laramie,

Wyoming with two other young men (Swigonski et al., 2001). Shepard was kidnapped, brutally

beaten, and left tied to a fence in a remote rural area. He was found more than twelve hours later

and admitted to the hospital where he was later pronounced dead due to his extensive injuries

(Swigonski et al., 2001). Despite the greater sense of freedom and comfort that sexual minorities

may enjoy today (Cuomo, 2007), violence and homophobia continue to be grave issues for many

LGBT individuals, including youth and students in their academic environments.

Attitudes toward LGBT Individuals in the United States

Oppression of LGBT individuals has a long history and prevalence in North America. The

oppression of LGBT individuals in the colonial period in North America is well documented –

choking, drowning, burning and execution were only a few of the ways in which colonial

societies dealt with homosexual individuals (Katz, 1976). With the progression of the Gay rights

movement, the LGBT population in the United States today enjoys many rights that were

previously unheard of. While great strides have been made to restore rights to this
disenfranchised population, there are still immense barriers that hinder civil rights of LGBT

individuals.

Institutionalized homophobia is one of the largest barriers still facing LGBT individuals in

today’s society. As a historically Judeo-Christian nation, many obstacles stem from entrenched

religiosity in government and educational institutions in the United States. Religious institutions

alone however play a critical role in the forward movement of LGBT individuals gaining civil

rights. In her book, Virtual Equality, Urvashi Vaid (1995) illuminated the effect of the

conservative Christian anti-Gay movement stating, “The CR [Christian Right] mobilized

grassroots opposition to homosexuality, and Gayrights were dealt setbacks locally and

nationally. Local Gay rights ordinances were repealed, and in some cases banned permanently”

(Vaid, 1995, p. 5). Vaid clearly illustrated how the Christian Right has created anti-Gay themes

that are central to their political and social activity.

Heteronormativity and homophobia are also entrenched in employment practices in the

contemporary United States. Discrimination of LGBT employees has been an issue in the United

States for years. The United States government removed many LGBT individuals and

innumerable suspected homosexuals from government positions assuming they were involved in

communist activity (Fone, 2000). It was not until 1970 that a group of Gay activists in New York

City drafted the first bill challenging discrimination against LGBT employees (Fone, 2000).

Unfortunately, LGBT individuals are still affected in today’s places of business. LGBT

employees can become the targets of colleagues as well as homophobic and/or heteronormative

working conditions. Badgett (1996) explained “Gay and Bisexual people have no explicit

protection from employment discrimination at the federal level in the private sector” (p. 32),

placing LGBT employees in inherently vulnerable positions at their places of work should they
chose to disclose their sexual orientation. This lack of protection also creates an intrinsically

heteronormative environment where sexual minorities do not feel safe at their places of

employment. Employers, with a lack of federal legal implications or a collective bargaining

agreement, are essentially able to hire or fire employees on a whim (Badgett, 1996). While the

practice has come under attack recently in various court settings the results have been mixed,

leaving LGBT employees continually at risk (Badgett, 1996).

Homosexual individuals in the workplace are often negatively affected psychologically by

heterosexism and should an LGBT individual disclose his/her sexual orientation at the workplace

s/he is more likely to be targeted by homophobic attitudes and heterosexist actions (Waldo,

1999). Even more damaging is the fact that LGBT individuals who are victims of workplace

discrimination have very few legal options with which to defend themselves. Badgett (1996) also

found there to be a connection between individuals who chose to disclose their sexual orientation

and issues such as monetary rewards, advancement, and discomfort within the workplace social

climate; so not only do LGBT individuals face discrimination and homophobia from their

colleagues it also affects their ability to be equally compensated in their professional positions.

Attitudes toward Sexual Minorities and Homosexuality in Higher Education

In addition to work place discomfort and often outright discrimination, LGBT persons face

heterosexist/homophobic attitudes and issues of oppression in their daily lives. Homophobia and

heterosexist attitudes create a social climate that is often detrimental to sexual minorities. Many

LGBT individuals’ psychological health suffers due to the significant amount of stress they feel

because of heterosexist/homophobic attitudes and environmental climates. Living with great

stress often causes LGBT individuals to experience “greater vulnerability to depressive distress

and anxiety” (Mays & Cochran, 2001, p. 1870).

Adolescents and young adults are possibly the most vulnerable to homophobia and

heterosexism and are generally regarded at high risk for psychological health problems (Garofalo

& Wolf, 1998; Hershberger & Pilkington, 1997; Morrison & L’Heureux, 2001). Many LGBT

individuals find themselves surrounded by and exposed to homophobic/heterosexist remarks

and/or derogatory statements and actions throughout the course of their education. Sadly, many

of these remarks and discriminatory acts are ignored by educational administrators and

educators. Without direct counter to these oppressive acts and damaging remarks, LGBT

individuals find themselves isolated and feeling at risk with no safe space or support system to

turn to should they become the target of anti-Gay activity (Morrison & L’ Heureux, 2001).

Regrettably, as youth advance in age and move into institutions of higher education,

circumstances often do not improve. Clift (1988) stated, “The educational establishment, in

general, has conspicuously ignored the position of Lesbian and Gaypeople in education” (p. 32).

Many institutions of higher education not only ignore sexual minorities, they also do not provide

the safe environment that young LGBT individuals are searching for and sadly many institutions

perpetuate the oppression and disenfranchisement of sexual minority populations. Sexual

minority students are still found to “suffer the consequences of intolerance” (Sanlo, 2004, p. 97)

and Rankin (2003) found that out of over 1000 LGBT college students interviewed, one-third

had experienced some form of harassment on campus. Brown et al. (2004) found that different

populations at institutions of higher education reported differing perceptions of the campus

climate toward LGBT individuals and that “personal characteristics (such as sex, academic class

for students, and academic discipline for faculty members) were related to the respondents’
perceptions of the campus climate and their attitudes, experiences, and behaviors [towards LGBT

individuals]” (p. 20). LGBT students perceived the campus climate more negatively than other

students, faculty and student affairs members and also reported being more interested and

participatory in LGBT events and topics than their heterosexual peers, faculty and administrators

(Brown et al., 2004). Previous research has found lower educational levels to also be correlated

with increased negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Herek, 1984; Kurdek, 1988). While

young LGBT individuals may assume institutions of higher education to provide a safer

environment due to the presence of more highly educated individuals, Kurdek  (1988) found that

even within a sample of college students those with “poor academic performance tend to endorse

negative attitudes toward homosexuals” (p. 736). Higher levels of negative attitudes toward

homosexuals also tend to be found in males, younger students, and those with less personal

experiences with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender individuals (Clift, 1988; Kurdek,

1988; Brown et al., 2004).

Sexual minority students will not necessarily find a support system from faculty, staff or an

institution of higher education as a whole either. Sanlo (2004) noted that “fewer than 10% of the

nation’s 3500 colleges and universities have sexual orientation in their nondiscrimination

policies, and only about 40 institutions have professionally staffed centers that provide services

to, for, and about sexual minority students, faculty and staff” (p. 98). In Eliason’s (1996) survey

of 1,287 permanent university employees at one institution, 25 percent of the sample held

homophobic attitudes. Faculty and staff are also often unwilling or seemingly unable to include

sexual minority points of view and/or inclusive language within their teaching, however some

disciplines appear to be more sensitive to sexual minority students than others. Brown et

al. (2004) also found that sexual minority students could find a greater support base amongst
student affairs staff members rather than faculty and that amongst faculty, those in the “soft

sciences” appeared to be more willing to serve as allies to LGBT students and staff. Brown et

al. (2004) discovered that faculty members in the “soft sciences” “reported more positive

Attitudes toward GLBT [Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender] issues than those in hard sciences

and also reported greater interest in GLBT workshops and relevance of GLBT topics than did

faculty in the hard sciences” (p. 19).

In addition to finding campus climates, peers, faculty and administrative staff less than

supportive, LGBT students also often find their higher educational experience to be less fulfilling

than their heterosexual peers. Besides being distracted from their academic endeavors due to

worry about unsupportive environments and harassment (Sanlo, 2004), sexual minority students

suffer from a lack of representation amongst faculty and staff as well as within the curriculum

they engage with. In her 1995 article, Opening the Classroom Closet: Sexual Orientation and

Self-Disclosure, Katherine Allen, an associate professor noted the great enrichment that both

sexual minorities and heterosexual individuals garner when individuals in positions of power in

academics disclose their sexual orientations. She also suggested that incorporating a more

holistic view of sexual minorities within academic topics will create a more well-rounded

educational experience for all students (Allen, 1995). LGBT individuals often find that sexual

minority issues, histories, and points of view are barely mentioned or are missing entirely from

the curriculums they engage with. A study of the discussions of homosexuality in secondary

education in Britain found that “the discussion of homosexuality (in terms of ‘mentions’) had

significantly increased since 1984 and the number who regarded this as helpful had also

significantly increased” (Ellis & High, 2004, p. 223). Despite this increase, many of the young

people in the study noted that the way in which homosexuality was addressed was still generally
unhelpful (Ellis & High, 2004). Researchers understand the need to incorporate homosexual

points of views, histories and issues into the curriculum in an attempt to create contexts where

students can establish more meaningful identities and educational experiences. Abes and Jones

(2004) suggested, “in the classroom, course material should be included that presets diversity

within and among sexual orientations, and teaching strategies ought to allow students to reflect

on their own life experiences and identities in relationship to the course content” (p. 628).

Unfortunately, despite the research suggesting that incorporating issues of homosexuality into

educational curriculum will create a more hospitable environment for sexual minority students,

little has been done to put these theories into practice. LGBT students continue to find

themselves, the history of the sexual minority population, and LGBT points of views missing

from their higher educational experience.

Effects of Homophobia on Sexual Minority Students

There is a clear relationship between students’ ability to feel connected to their educational

experience and their ability to succeed academically (Tinto, 1975, 1982, 1988). The literature

also suggested that there is a connection between students’ relationships with their teachers and

their academic success (Cornelius-White, 2007; McCombs, 2004). It could be argued that sexual

minority students have a greater need to feel engaged with and recognized by academic faculty

as there are few places on university campuses where they feel connected and safe. Studies have

shown that personal development and feelings of safety and involvement in an academic setting

are imperative to a student’s ability to succeed (Maslow, 1943; Cornelius-White, 2007). If a

sexual minority student is fearful of self-disclosing in an academic environment or to a faculty or

staff member because of possible adverse consequences then there is little chance of that
individual feeling connected to or engaged in their academic experiences or specifically with

their instructors.

In addition to feeling connected to their academic experience as a whole students need to

have productive, nurturing, or at the very least respectful, relationships with their instructors and

other academic staff (Cornelius-White, 2007; McCombs, 2004; McCombs& Whisler, 2007).

McCombs (2004) illustrated the need for not only a comfortable academic environment but also

for supportive relationships with instructors stating, “Learning is enhanced in contexts where

learners have supportive relationships, have a sense of ownership and control over the learning

process, and can learn with and from each other in safe and trusting learning environments” (p.

7). In an environment where a student feels that they have less than optimal relationships with

their instructors or feel that they are not in a safe learning environment, what are their chances of

academic success? Cornelius-White (2007) echoed this need for positive relationships with

instructors stating “Secure and reciprocal attachments are important for students to engage in

their relationships with teachers, peers, and subject matter and develop healthy self concepts and

senses of well-being” (p. 115). Sexual minority students who may feel uncomfortable in the

campus climate need to find some way to engage in their academic experience, one way may be

through relationships with their instructors. While LGBT students may be able to succeed

academically without this feeling of engagement or connection, most likely not at the level they

could if they were able to achieve feelings of integration and attachment with their instructors,

their campus community, and their academic experiences as a whole.

 
 With a multitude of barriers affecting their educational and personal identity development

experiences, LGBT students at institutions of higher education are at a much higher risk for

psychological health issues. Sexual minority students, facing often heterosexist/homophobic

campus climates, institutionalized homophobia, less impactful educational experiences, and a

lack of support from fellow students, faculty and staff, face great obstacles in academic

persistence and success. Yet, retention and academic persistence are some of the most highly

researched topics in higher education. Various minority populations have been identified and

studied at the level of higher education including racial/ethnic minorities, students facing

socioeconomic challenges, populations of non-typical age groups, gender minorities and so on

(Tinto, 2006). However, after an exhaustive review, literature pertaining to the retention of

LGBT students specifically is scarce, if at all existent. Concrete quantitative data about the

retention levels of sexual minority students is even more difficult to come by (Waldo, 1998).

Literature abounds on the topic of retention of various other student populations.  Tinto’s

(1975, 1982, 1988) continuous famous work on student retention has been applied to multitudes

of student populations, including various student minority populations. Tinto’s (1975) theory of

social integration, essentially suggesting that students who are more involved and engaged in all

aspects of their educational experience are more likely to be retained, seems to apply to all

students regardless of minority status. The literature suggests that students who become engaged

in their educational experience, both academically and socially, early in their academic careers

persist to graduation at higher rates (Tinto, 1975). It seems that the best place in which to begin

the process of student integration is early in a student’s academic career. Warren (1997)

suggested that the best place for engagement and integration to begin are at student orientation
sessions. The research thus far suggests that the more quickly and more thoroughly an individual

is engaged with the educational institution that they are attending the higher their chances of

being retained to graduation.

Students entering higher education face extensive personal and academic transition issues.

The more quickly and extensively an individual student is able to connect with the campus

within various spheres, academically and socially etc., the higher the chance that that student will

persist until graduation. Students in higher education who are able to connect not only with their

peers, but also with the material they engage with, and also with the faculty and staff that they

interact with on a regular basis are more likely to feel that they belong to the educational

community. A failure to connect to others “may lead to the absence of integration and its

associated sense of isolation. These in turn may lead to departure from the institution [of higher

education]” (Tinto, 1988). An inability to create a sense of community has been found to lead

directly to an inability of students to persist to graduation. A sense of belonging and safety are

amongst the basic needs that individuals require in order to move toward any kind of personal,

academic, or professional success (Maslow, 1943). All students must move through their own

personal identity development, separation, and integration states in order to feel included and

engaged; unfortunately sexual minority students face greater challenges in these areas than their

heterosexual peers.

While experts in higher education now recognize the great need to integrate and engage

with students early on in their educational careers and especially via the classroom, putting the

theory of social and academic integration into practice has proven a greater challenge (Braxton,

Milem & Sullivan, 2000; Tinto, 2006). While many institutions of higher education have made it

a priority to try to increase retention numbers for various populations “substantial gains in
student retention have been hard to come by” (Tinto, 2006, p. 2). Academic persistence amongst

all student populations has been slow to increase, despite a multitude of research about the topic

area. Tinto (2006) states in his contemporary work that the idea of social and academic

integration still stands yet putting the theory into practice has proven challenging for institutions

of higher education on a whole. Tinto (2006) stressed the importance of involving individuals

early in their academic career, stating “involvement, or what is increasingly being referred to as

engagement, matters and it matters most during the critical first year of college” (p. 4). What

appears to be paramount to student success is the student’s ability to engage with the institution

of higher education that they are a part of early on in their academic career.

Unfortunately, sexual minority students often have a difficult time finding their niche

within the higher educational setting; they often lack a visible community of peers, supportive

faculty and staff, and an accepting educational and community climate. For sexual minorities, the

task of integrating within the higher educational context provides even larger challenges than

their heterosexual peers face. Waldo (1998) found that “LBG [Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay]

students indicated that they feel less accepted and respected on campus than their heterosexual

counterparts” (p. 767) and suggested therefore “that encountering hostility on campus may lead

to decrements in academic satisfaction” (p. 767). One would assume, therefore, that LGBT

students in higher education would face lower rates of academic persistence. There is great

difficulty in obtaining data about sexual minority populations and retention due to a myriad of

factors including, but not limited to, the fact that the population is self identified and therefore

incredibly difficult to track. The lack of visibility of the sexual minority population at many

institutions of higher education in combination with the outright prejudice that sexual minorities

face within the larger community has left many LGBT students anonymous and lacking in proper
 academic and personal services. Sadly, this leaves many sexual minorities with a less than

fulfilling educational experience, and potentially a failure to be academically retained.

Conceptual Framework

Parent’s relation with LGB LGB student’s Academic LGB student’s relation with
youth Performance other students

Effects of being a LGB

youth to the academic
performance

Conceptual framework shows the importance of recognizing how social issues are

interrelated when it comes to bullying, prejudice and intergroup relations among diverse student

populations. They asserted that understanding nuanced connections and interrelations could

contribute to more comprehensive and effective programs that may promote safe and welcoming

schools for all students and the studies explore how location, multiple minority statuses and new

comer status, and prejudice influence potential bullies and victims. In this section advocates for

LGB youth will find peer-reviewed studies that measure the effects of bullying on the well-being

of LGB youth. Bullying can take many forms: sexual, verbal, and physical. The effects can range
from mild stress to attempted suicide and worse. Much of these bullying takes place in middle

and high schools.

Specific Hypothesis

Is there any significant relation between the effects of being a LGB Youth and the
Student’s academic performance

Null hypothesis

There is no significant relation between the Effects of being a LGB Youth and the
Student’s academic performance

Alternative hypothesis

There is a significant relation between the effects of being a LGB youth and
Student’s Academic Performance

Statistical treatment

n= Total of respondents

x= Parents participation, Academic performance, Communication and Decision making

y= Performance

r =n ¿ ¿

r =2.25

N −2
t= √
√ 1−r 2
 t=2.306 (t computed) t=2.86 (t tabulated)

1. 3.2- somewhat average B. 2.3- satisfied

3. 3.4- some C. 2.0- satisfied

8. A. 2.3- satisfied

x Y xy x2 y2

1 3 246 246 9 6724

2 0 86 86 0 7396

3 1 93 93 1 8649

4 0 80 80 1 6400

5 1 87 87 1 7569

6 1 85 85 1 7225

7 1 82 82 1 6726

8 1 92 92 1 8464

9 3 84 252 9 7056

10 1 83 83 1 6889

Ʃ= 12 854 7786 24 73126

2.86> 2. 306

Therefor reject null hypothesis, there is an effect of being Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
 Chapter III

Methodology

Methodological and Research Design

The researchers used correlational method in order to determine the level of relationship
between two quantifiable variables regarding the topic entitled “Effects of being a lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual (LGB) Youth to the academic performance”. The design is considered suitable of the
study as it includes gathering data from members of the population in order to determine its
current status in regard to one or more variables (Kosciw, 1999).

In this study, survey questionnaire serves as research instrument composed of following

purposes.’ To obtain information that describe the existing phenomena towards the parent
involvement and its’ relation to adolescents academic performance by answering the given
questions. Only the selected Grade 12 Students of Saint Dominic Academy Pulilan, Bulacan will
answer the following questions.

Assessment of content and constant validity was advised by use of statistical approaches
which helped in achieving validity to determine adjusting areas of strength and weakness in
relation to topic.

Population and sampling

The population of this study will include 12 students coming from the selected Gstudents
of Saint Dominic Academy during 2nd Quarter of school year 2017-2018 regarding the effects of
being a LGB Youth to the academic performance.

The sample of this study present to the entire of students who’s serves as information to
the study in order to determine the effects of being a LGB Youth to the academic performance.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers request permission to the Director principal of Saint Dominic Academy
to allow the researchers to assert the questionnaire in the selected students. After the validation
and some study made by researchers. The questionnaire of distributed to selected students
coming from Saint Dominic Academy. After this the researchers focuses on the answers of the
participants in order to determine the relationship between the effects of being a LGB Youth and
student’s academic performances.