David+Benford+Annotated+Bibliographies

Annotated Bibliographies

Garcia, M. (2013, June 5). Education Policy Overhaul Aims to Protect Gay Students. Retrieved November 12, 2014, from []

In this article, short as it may be, Garcia describes the numerous policies drafted recently that are aimed at protecting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender students in school. Garcia mainly discusses the Strengthening America’s Schools act of 2013, a sweeping bill proposed that will modernize educational policies. The act’s main goal is to improve the school as a whole, while also looking to renew the “No Child Left Behind," or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Garcia emphasizes that the Strengthening America’s Schools act includes language from the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act, both bills with the main goal of ending discrimination of and protecting the rights of LGBT students in school. Garcia even includes a quote from the creator of the SNDA, Minnesota Senator Al Franken, saying that the bill extends the nation’s civil rights laws past race, sex, and religion, among other things, to sexual orientation, ensuring the protections civil rights laws provide reach LGBT students.

Although this is a short article, I think that Garcia does a sufficient job describing the Strengthening America’s Schools Act. I do think that Garcia could have done a better job going into depth about the different acts that make up the new Act, but she did go into enough depth describing the Student Non-Discrimination Act. I am excited that the federal government is finally beginning to give more rights to LGBT students around the country. No student deserves to go to school scared or feeling alone, and I think it is about time that the federal government ensures certain protections for these students, something that they are finally starting to do with the Student Non-Discrimination Act.

Student Non-Discrimination Act. (2014, March 24). Retrieved November 12, 2014, from []

In this article, the Human Rights Campaign provides a current and detailed explanation of the Student Non-Discrimination Act with the purpose of getting the general public to understand the proposed bill. The HRC provides a unique depth to the conversation regarding the SNDA, starting with the fact that public schools are prohibited from discriminating against any student on the basis of their sexual orientation, and continuing on to discuss that public schools are also prohibited to discriminate against any student just because of the sexual orientation of someone the student has or had associated with. The article also shares a third aspect of the act that makes it unlawful to retaliate at someone because they filed a complaint of discrimination. This article also talks about the immense range of support that the proposed bill has amongst many organizations, including the American Association of University Women, the American Federation of Teachers, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, the NAACP, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of Secondary School Principals, the National Council of La Raza, the National Education Association and the National Women’s Law Center. The article is concluded with the current status of the proposed bill, which is that it is still under review by the senate, but language from the SNDA was used in the Strengthening America’s Schools Act which was approved by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on June 12, 2013.

The length, depth, and comprehensiveness of this article made it truly enjoyable to read for me. I specifically enjoyed that the article was geared toward people quite like myself, that have little to no knowledge of the steps being taken to protect LGBT students in school. This made the article clear and to the point, which made it that much easier to fully appreciate the main ideas behind the writing. Besides the writing, I also truly enjoyed the main ideas brought up in the article. I think that the SNDA is a great first step towards protecting LGBT students in schools, and I genuinely hope that congress can see that as well and votes to pass the bill. The ideas of the proposed bill are all high quality ideas that will go a long way in protecting LGBT students in schools all across the country.

Patterson, C. (2013). Schooling, Sexual Orientation, Law, and Policy: Making Schools Safe for All Students. Theory Into Practice, 52(3), 190-195. Retrieved November 13, 2014, from EBSCOhost.

In this volume of //Theory Into Practice//, Charlotte J. Patterson examines whether or not LGBT students are truly safe in school, and what precautions can be taken to ensure that they are genuinely safe. Patterson describes the many statistics found on high school LGBT students and their safety, and she determines that they are not as safe as they could and should be. In the section of the journal entitled “How Can Schools Be Made Safer for LGBT Youth?”, Patterson explores the numerous options available, including legislation, to make schools a safer environment for LGBT students. Patterson finds that while federal safe schools laws have been proposed, none have been passed by congress, leaving it up to individual states to make their own safe schools laws. At the time of the writing, 17 jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, have laws that deem it unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. These states laws include specific language prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and some, such New York’s Dignity for All Students Act, even include training for teachers, administrators, and other school employees on how to discourage harassment. There are also many other states that have anti-discrimination laws that just do not specifically include LGBT issues. Patterson shows just how effective these anti-discrimination laws are, with states that have safe schools laws reporting less harassment, less students feeling endangered, and when harassment does happen, there is an even a higher likelihood of teachers intervening. Patterson shows how much safer a school can be by simply implementing safe schools laws that prevent discrimination of LGBT students.

I find Patterson’s research and findings to be quite interesting. I am not surprised with the beginning of the journal that shows how unsafe schools can be for LGBT students, as I have always had an understanding of the type of ridicule these students go through. I was, however, quite surprised with the findings behind the safe schools laws. I found it surprising that the schools that do have anti-discrimination policies implemented see such a remarkable improvement with not only students behavior, but the actions of the teachers as well. It is remarkable to me how effective these laws can be with regard to protecting LGBT students, and it is even more remarkable to me that only 17 states (including D.C.) have these types of laws in action. I think that all 50 states should start to create systems similar to New York’s, prohibiting discrimination and training faculty to stop harassment when they see it. If systems like the Dignity for All Students Act were put into action in all 50 states, or through the federal government for that matter, schools would be a much safer, welcoming environment for LGBT students, something I personally think our country drastically needs.

T. Russell, S., Horn, S., Kosciw, J., & Saewyc, E. (2010). Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students. Social Policy Report, 24(4), 2-17. Retrieved November 13, 2014, from []

In this journal entry, co-authored by four different professors, the main focus is finding different ways to create a safer school environment for LGBT students. Of the different ways to help create a safer learning environment, one of the most effective is the inclusive, enumerated policies that are discussed. The authors focus on the states of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts, the first two of which do have enumerated policies in place, with the latter having an anti-bullying policy that is not specific to different groups of people. The article says that although the Safe Schools Improvement Act and the Student Non-Discrimination Act are not yet in place for the federal government, 48 states and Washington D.C. all have put anti-bullying laws into place that are not specific to any group of people. Two of the 17 states that do enumerate their anti-discrimination laws, Illinois and New York, both include language that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, among other things such as gender, religion, or race. The states that do include specificity in their anti-bullying laws are laying an outstanding groundwork for similar laws to be put into action. The article explains that even when compared to states that do have anti-bullying laws that are not specific, the states with enumerated laws see significantly less anti-gay behavior amongst their respective student populations. To even further show how effective protecting specific groups is, the states that do include protections for specific groups of people show a compelling difference in the amount of teachers that will intervene in bullying or harassment. The authors of the article say that is most likely because specifically describing which groups of people it is unlawful to discriminate against makes it significantly easier for school employees to know what kind of bullying to stop. While states that do not provide clear protection for specific groups are not doing anything wrong, the journal says that the only policies laying effective groundwork for federal safe schools laws are the states that do enumerate their policies.

I found this journal entry to be intriguing, mainly because of the differences between states and their respective safe schools laws. I found it odd that there are so many states (33) that do not protect specific groups of people from discrimination, if anything because of the confusion that probably causes in legal cases. I do understand where the states are coming from because of the controversy that LGBT students bring to the table, but at the same time I think that they could include other groups of people in the law that are not as controversial. I strongly agree with the authors opinion that the states that do have inclusive laws are setting a great foundation for future laws, both federal and state, to be put into place to further protect the rights of LGBT students.

Vaught, S. (21). GLSEN's State Of The States: How One Seattle Educator Gets An “A” In A Failing State. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues In Education, 3(1), 117-121. Retrieved November 13, 2014, from ERIC.

This report, written by Sabina Elena Vaught, focuses on the Seattle Public School District and what they are doing to make progress in LGBT student protections. The Seattle School District appears to be one of the most progressive districts in Washington State, but the state as a whole had just received a failing grade on the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network’s “State of the States” report, a report that includes a detailed analysis of policies regarding LGBT students and safer schools for all 50 states and Washington D.C. The results of the report show a scary, but unsurprising statistic; that of the over 47 million in the United States of America, two thirds of them are unprotected by any form of state law or local policy. 42 of the 50 states received failing grades on the report, and only two states, New Jersey and Minnesota, earned As. The results, troubling as they may be, can be fixed. Lisa Love, a health specialist heading the front on changing the protection policies, works tirelessly to try and change the way schools work, starting with the Seattle School District, one of the few districts in the state of Washington that would receive a passing grade on the GLSEN’s report. Love says that a truly safe school will be created through a process of “policy, procedure, practice”, something that she hopes to see through training of principals and superintendents to identify and properly handle discrimination. Although the state of Washington failed the GLSEN report, that does not show specific districts such as Seattle’s, that have people like Love working day and night to try to improve protection of LGBT students. With the hard work and determination that Love puts into her work, the whole country could earn As on this report and have nation wide safety for LGBT students.

I think that while it is very hard to properly grade every state on their protection laws, the statistics found in this article are bone-chilling. I personally find that two-thirds of America’s K-12 students do not have protection from any kind of law or policy is just unacceptable. While it is encouraging that there are people out there like Lisa Love that work day in and day out to try to make schools safer, I think that everybody involved with education policy making and law making should be working just as hard as Love. It is very hard for one person to change the nation’s schools for the better. I do not think it is impossible to make the majority of schools a safer place for LGBT students, but I think it will take a lot more work than the amount that is currently being put into it. I would be very interested to see what the most recent results of the GLSEN’s report are, and to see if they got better or worse.