Apart from the passage of policies that explicitly target transgender youth, a significant challenge in education is the difficulty researchers face in collecting reliable educational data about transgender students’ school experiences. This challenge is due in part to bureaucratic hurdles and societal pressures that make it challenging to document these students’ stories through interviews, focus groups, or surveys.

While exhaustive research indicates that transgender youth are at larger risk for serious emotional and mental health problems than their cisgender peers, “comparatively little evaluation literature examines these difficult-to-research populations. The lack of evaluation literature may be due to difficulties such evaluations present.” ¹

On the one hand, our community is difficult to evaluate: transgender students are often hard to identify within the school system for educational studies and are a highly-protected group by Internal Review Boards (IRBs).

Transgender students in need of help may be impossible to identify, as our defining characteristics are not wholly recognizable without self-identification.

Even self-identification poses significant challenges, though, as some youth are still in the questioning stage, and others may remain closeted due to the pressures of conforming to our heterosexual society–or due to a lack of social support. Because we are often forced to remain hidden, then, we are either not evaluated–or evaluated with the general population.

On the other hand, even when we are brave enough to self-identify despite the social implications, we are typically not studied in the school setting–due to state- or district-imposed limitations–although the obvious and necessary setting for a survey about the school experiences of trans youth would be the schools. Particularly in today’s climate, with the continual passage of anti-trans/LGBTQ policies–especially those like “Don’t say gay”–a trans climate survey is likely not going to be approved for distribution in the traditional public school setting.

Even if a district were to approve such a survey, IRB restraints, such as a parent’s need to agree to having their child involved in a research study, make it impossible to include some students in the data because these students are not “out” to their parents. Thus, closeted youth would not be inclined to participate, as they would not be in a position to ask their parents’ consent–further limiting the educational available.

Unfortunately, closeted students in particular are often in need of some of the most support and tracking efforts.

On a broader scale, educational data collection on transgender students remains underdeveloped. Even outside the school setting, little research is being done on this population. Until recently, Add Health was the only public data set to address a youth’s sexual orientation. And with the passage of anti-trans legislation, some of the surveys that had included such questions have since removed them.

Of course, national surveys yield important data about transgender youth; however, it is important to note that researchers regard “national comparison samples [as] much less useful than local ones,” ² as national surveys may not address the nuances of local cultures or settings reflected in differing attitudes towards gender identity in rural versus urban communities. However, these differences are crucial for understanding transgender students’ educational experiences in specific schools or regions and for designing effective interventions.

In a national survey, data might show overall trends about acceptance or rejection of transgender youth, but would likely miss the subtleties of local cultural factors.

And while states like California should be celebrated for making room for gender orientation in their school-related surveys regarding educational outcomes (school connectedness, victimization, and school climate)³, it is concerning that they continue to employ a survey drafted in 1998 despite major shifts in climate, bureaucratic procedures, and political policy with respect to gender identity by the time this survey was administered in 2021.

Given the fast-changing shifts in public attitudes and policy, this lag in survey updates has broader implications. Outdated data tools may fail to capture the current realities faced by transgender and nonbinary students, leading to interventions that are out of touch with present-day needs. Moreover, political policies, such as newly enacted legislation on transgender rights or restrictions, often dictate the type of support services and protections schools are mandated to offer. If surveys don’t reflect these evolving dynamics, data-driven interventions risk being ineffective or irrelevant. Therefore, ensuring that surveys are regularly updated to capture these shifting landscapes is crucial for effective policy-making and support for transgender youth.

I could not find a statewide education survey specifically focused on gender nonconforming students in my own state (Virginia).

Instead, I found reports from national organizations like GLSEN and groups such as the ACLU of Virginia that noted the discrimination and negative mental health outcomes transgender students are suffering in light of the hostile policies recently implemented by the state.

Of all 50 United States, only 7 include questions about transgender students’ experiences in their education surveys–such as the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) or other state-specific surveys–statewide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2023).

These states collect data on school climate, bullying, mental health, and safety related to transgender students as indicated:

1. California’s Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) includes the largest-known sample of transgender youth. This survey focuses on various school experiences, including school connectedness, victimization, and perceptions of school climate. ⁴ Findings from the survey show that transgender youth in California are more likely to face truancy, bias-based bullying, and negative perceptions of school compared to their cisgender peers. ⁵
2. Washington State participates in the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which includes measures of sexual orientation and gender identity. This survey helps gather data on transgender students’ experiences, including challenges like bullying and discrimination in school settings. ⁶
3. Hawaii also incorporates questions about gender identity and sexual orientation in its school surveys, aiming to address the experiences and needs of transgender students in their educational environments. ⁷
4. Colorado incorporates questions about sexual orientation and gender identity in its Healthy Kids Colorado Survey. This survey addresses health behaviors and school climate among students, including transgender youth. ⁸
5. The Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey (MYRBS) collects data on sexual orientation and gender identity, tracking experiences such as bullying, mental health, and school climate for transgender students. ⁹
6. The Oregon Healthy Teens Survey includes questions on gender identity and aims to understand the school experiences and well-being of LGBTQ+ students, addressing issues like bullying and school climate for transgender students. ¹⁰
7. The Minnesota Student Survey gathers data on the experiences of transgender and nonbinary students, including issues related to school safety and mental health. ¹¹
   
   And of all 50 United States, an additional 2 states include questions about transgender students’ experiences in their educational surveys–such as the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) or other state-specific surveys–in select districts (as opposed to statewide):
   
8. New York (Urban districts through YRBS): Some urban school districts in New York participate in the YRBS, collecting data on transgender students’ experiences.
9. Illinois (Selected districts through YRBS): Through its implementation of the YRBS, Illinois collects data on the school climate and safety of transgender students in participating districts.

In the remaining 41 states, transgender students remain largely invisible in educational data.

While conducting my own literature review, it was common to see fellow researchers publish such disclaimers as, “because of our small sample size, we urge caution in placing too much weight on these results; further generalizability is certainly limited because of our specific, local sample.” ¹²

Such a lack of educational data has a domino effect: school programs designed to support transgender students often lack the evidence needed to secure funding, as investments typically require clear data to demonstrate the success of interventions. ¹³

For schools and researchers, the challenge is clear: more accurate and current educational data is necessary to provide transgender students with adequate supports. To this end, school surveys must be updated in all 50 states to reflect the evolving landscape of transgender rights and experiences in schools. Without this data, researchers and policymakers risk developing ineffective or irrelevant interventions.

A continued failure to capture the experiences of transgender youth in school settings will further exacerbate disparities in school safety, mental health, and academic achievement.