Social work students in school: critical reflections on interventions with LGBTQ+ young people within secondary schools

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to explore how social work students can support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) young people in schools. Drawing on the reflective practice portfolio documents of four students who worked with LGBTQ+ young people in a school as part of a social workers in school (SWIS) student placement project, the article uses thematic analysis to identify how the students were able to support young people identifying as LGBTQ+. The article subscribes to a poststructuralist theoretical framework which sees gender and sexual identities as multiple, fragmented and constructed in relation to others and within the systems of knowledge and power that exist in schools. The article demonstrates the benefit to schools of having social work students on practice placement. The students’ own reflections critically contemplate the way in which they were able to spend more prolonged periods of time with young people than the teachers could, both with individuals and LGBTQ+ groups. The students’ reflective portfolios show the value of the school placements to their own development of knowledge and skills

KEYWORDS:

• Social Work
• schools
• LGBTQ+
• practice
• placements
• reflective practice

Introduction

This paper aims to explore how social work students can effectively support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning (LGBTQ+) young people within schools, whilst demonstrating the way in which social work students have a distinctive positionality that compliments yet contrasts significantly with that of the teacher. It draws on the portfolio documents of four social work students who undertook practice placements in secondary schools in England and worked with young people identifying as LGBTQ+. Through early interventions with young people not being eligible to access support services outside school, social work students were able to make a significant contribution to the wellbeing, self-esteem and perceptions of safety of LGBTQ+ young people at school.

Social work degree courses are a combination of academic, classroom-based learning and two practice placements, the national requirements for which are set out by the regulating body, Social Work England, (SWE). Social work university degree students undertake two placements of 70 and 100 days, with each student requiring experience of two contrasting practice settings; the first in a community or voluntary setting such as schools and the second in a statutory setting (such as a local authority) where social work involves legal interventions (Beesley 2020). Practice learning is field education centred on the act of ‘doing’ social work. It requires students to engage in active and reflective learning, which is integral to their development and growth as social work practitioners (Zuchowski 2014). Within a social work degree course, practice learning takes centre stage, offering expansive and varied opportunities to develop knowledge, values and skills (Lefevre 2005). Placements are often identified as the most memorable and significant learning in the student’s journey to becoming a social worker. Across their placements, students complete a portfolio to document their learning and experiences which includes critical reflection on practice (CROP) and direct observation (DO) (Beesley 2020).

With the advent of the COVID−19 pandemic in 2020, many UK student social work placements were abruptly ended, paused or cancelled altogether (McFadden et al. 2020). For students in the UK and internationally, contingency arrangements were found in virtual, online or remote modalities (Zuchowski et al. 2021). However, within one UK post−1992 university in the East of England, the decision was made to source alternative or non-traditional placements in schools through a Social Work in Schools or SWIS project. In 2020, the SWIS project began working with 50 schools to place social work students and by the autumn of 2022 had engaged 130 partner schools across the South-East Region of England and in some London Boroughs. Within these placements, there were three main roles which supported the student social worker’s learning and development (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Main roles which supported the student social worker’s learning and development.

This paper aims to explore how social work students can effectively support LGBTQ+ young people within schools. Stonewall’s School Report (2017) showed that despite considerable advances in work by schools towards LGBTQ+ pride and inclusion, nearly half of LGBTQ+ young people are still bullied for their sexual or gender identity at school and continue to experience unacceptably high levels of poor mental health as a result of online and in-person harassment (Bradlow et al. 2017). Almost all LGBTQ+ pupils are exposed to offensive content about LGBTQ+ people online, and only one third of these students think that social media companies will do something about it if reported. Nearly two in three trans pupils report being bullied for being LGBTQ+ at school and 10% have, according to Stonewall, received death threats. While a growing number of schools are taking measures to support their trans and non-binary pupils, according to Stonewall, too many of these students believe that teachers and other adults in school are not equipped to support them effectively. In 2018, British Association of Social Work responded to Stonewall’s findings, calling for urgent action to ensure LGBTQ+ communities have somewhere to turn in a crisis.

The UK Government Equalities Office conducted a national LGBTQ+ survey in 2018, the biggest and most comprehensive survey of the UK LGBTQ+ population ever with 108,000 respondents. The results showed an urgent need to improve support for LGBTQ+ young people in schools. Only 3% of respondents stated that sexual orientation and gender identity had been discussed at school, with one third of respondents who were in education in 2016–2017 saying that they experienced a negative reaction during that time due to them being, or people perceiving them to be, LGBTQ+ (Government Equalities Office 2018).

Drawing on case experience from one post−1992 UK university, this article examines how the interventions of four social work students helped to foster safe and inclusive learning environments for LGBTQ+ students during school-based placements. It begins with a review of the literature before describing the theoretical framework underpinning the research. Next the research design and data collection methods are outlined before an analysis of the data is provided. The article concludes by making recommendations for further research in this area.

Literature review

Barriers to teachers providing support for young LGBTQ+ communities in schools

Schools have a long history of being challenging places for LGBTQ+ students and staff. Section 28 of the 1988 Local Government Act which was in effect in England and Wales between 1988 and 2003 stated that local authorities,

… shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality … [or] promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

Baker (2022) suggests that the wording of Section 28 was deliberately vague to cause confusion among teachers. Throughout the 15 years of the Section 28 era, teachers worried that if they raised or responded to pupil questions or comments about same-sex relationships, this would amount to the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality and could mean that they had broken the law. Section 28 left an entire generation of LGBTQ+ young people or those questioning their identities without any support throughout their schooling. When Section 28 was repealed in 2003, there was no great fanfare, with only The Guardian newspaper making mention of it, in a small article buried on page 5 of the paper.

Research by Lee in 2019 revealed that several years after its repeal, Section 28 was responsible for a damaging legacy that continues to affect LGBTQ+ teachers and students to this day. LGBTQ+ teachers were surveyed across the UK about their lived experience of their school workplace and Lee compared responses of teachers with experience of teaching under Section 28 with those entering teaching after Section 28 had been repealed in 2003. Results showed that 43% of the teachers entering teaching after the repeal of Section 28 were out to staff and students and able to be positive role models. She found that just 18% of the teachers who had experienced Section 28 first hand and remained in teaching felt able to be out in the school workplace and to be role models for other staff and students.

One of the reasons LGBTQ+ teachers cite for not being able to be a positive role model in the school workplace is the perception of moral panic that surrounds what is deemed appropriate and inappropriate support for students related to LGBTQ+ identities. Relationship, Sex and Health Education research has identified continuing moral panics around sexuality and education, including the notion that it is inappropriate for lesbians and gay men to be teaching children. More recent protests by parents and faith groups about LGBTQ+ inclusive RSHE showed that LGBTQ+ teachers remain vulnerable (Rudoe 2010, 26).

This troubled history in schools around sexual and gender identities points to an enduring discomfort and lack of trust in teachers as suitable people to support LGBTQ+ students. The power relationship between the teacher and pupil is complex and potentially problematic. Teachers are commonly regarded as needing to have authority over pupils, and authority is a term that is imbued with connotations of influence and control (MacLeod, Steckley, and Murray 2012). The right-wing media persist in undermining the largely centre left-leaning teaching profession, and salacious headlines frequently depict teachers as irresponsible or behaving inappropriately, and never more so than when sex, sexuality or gender diversity lies at the heart of an allegation.

Despite the complexities of the pupil-teacher dynamic, considerable responsibility is placed on teachers to promote wellbeing and good mental health in young people. At a time of mounting concerns about adolescent mental health and safeguarding, teachers are now tasked as lead professionals at a time of diminishing support (Baginsky et al. 2022).

School social work

Social work practice learning in schools is not new and was the subject of considerable attention between the late 1990s and 2012. The introduction of the social work degree in 2004 and a subsequent lifting of the UK Government’s initial cap on student numbers, presented considerable challenges for universities in finding high quality social work placements (Narey 2014), prompting a wave of practice expansion initiatives including school-based placements.

Six sources document student projects and pilots within the UK (Parker, Hillison, and Wilson 2003; Wilson and Hillison 2005; Hafford-Letchfield and Spatcher 2007; Collins et al. 2010; Gregson and Fielding 2008). Much of this research focusses on evaluating the success of school-based models, with particular attention on student experience, learning opportunities and the benefits of school-based placements for students. Although the authors cited focus on the opportunities to reclaim direct work and relationship-based practice (Hafford-Letchfield and Spatcher 2007), there is an absence of literature pertaining to the impact of direct work with children and young people. Equally, although the literature gives some attention to working with marginalised and disadvantaged children and families within school, there is no mention of work with LGBTQ+ young people specifically.

More recently England has witnessed a recent resurgence of interest in school social work. The most recent initiative by the Department of Education (DfE) involves investment in a SWIS (Social Work in Schools) project as part of their ‘What Works for Children’s Social Care’ guidance, with the DfE’s interim report further noting that SWIS is an under-researched area of practice (Westlake, Stabler, and McDonnell 2020). Recently, Tedam (2022) addressed the research gap in SWIS internationally in a study entitled ‘Re-Imagining School Social Work’. This was a two-year funded research project examining the role and purpose of school social work in the United Arab Emirates, England and Ghana but there has been no equivalent research across the UK.

Internationally, much has been written about the potential benefits of school-based practice across multiple levels with salience for the potential UK benefits (a detailed summary of which can be found in Rafter 2022). In New Zealand, SWIS has enjoyed the backing of central Government through successive funding and expansion (Liston-Lloyd and Gray 2020). In countries such as Sweden, SWIS is now mandated by law and social workers are established members of school multi-disciplinary teams, with a focus on remedial and preventive work (Kjellgren, Lilliehorn, and Markström 2022). However, the majority of literature comes from the USA, with a newly established International Journal of School Social Work. In the USA, SWIS has a long pedigree and is described as a well-defined role, distinguishable from mainstream social work practice. The School Social Work Association of America has a renewed focus on social justice, although the focus tends to be in relation to anti-racism. Yet internationally, the issue of support for young LGBTQ+ communities within schools remains peripheral.

This paper aims to address this gap in knowledge and galvanise the recent renewed interest in SWIS in England, shedding light on some of the less considered benefits of bringing support to school settings.

The challenges facing young LBGTQ+ communities and corresponding lack of support

According to Bradlow et al. (2017), nearly half of LGBTQ+ young people experience bullying in school because of their sexuality or gender identity. Research by Wright and Wegner (2012) found a correlation between the frequency of LGBTQ+ individuals experiencing discrimination in school and having lower levels of self-esteem and negative feelings about their sexual and gender identity. More recent research by Jadva et al. (2021) with 3713 LGBTQ+ adolescents, aged 11–19 years, tested the association between risk and protective factors on self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. A high proportion of the sample reported self-harm (65%), suicidal ideation (74%) and attempted suicide (26%), whilst a positive school experience was associated with a reduced risk for each outcome.

Howansky et al. (2021)’s research considers the impact on trans and non-binary young people of experiencing mis categorisation (absence of pronouns) or misgendering (misclassification of gender pronouns) and suggests that identity denial can stem from negative biases. The frequency of these occurrences was found by McLemore (2018) to cause individuals to feel stigmatised and led to significant psychological distress. Bradlow et al’s Stonewall School Report (Bradlow et al. 2017) support the assertions made by Howansky et al. (2021). It found that 80% of young trans people have self-harmed and 40% of trans young people have attempted to take their own life.

For many young LGBTQ+ young people, home is not the sanctuary they need when there are problems at school. Some parents react negatively when their child comes out as LGBTQ+ and a few reject their children all together (Marzetti, McDaid, and O’Connor 2022). By not having access to an inclusive or stable environment at home or at school, LGBTQ+ young people’s mental health can negatively affect their ability to engage in education (Bradlow et al. 2020). There is no doubt then, that LGBTQ+ young people would benefit from support and that while schools are ideal sites for pastoral or therapeutic interventions, many lack the funds to be able to offer this.

Across the UK, austerity has reduced the availability of support services for young people (O’Hara 2014), with geographical variations affecting the waiting time and availability of treatments from children and young people’s mental health services. Crenna-Jennings and Hutchinson (2020) found that in 2018–19, approximately one quarter of children and young people referred to specialist mental health services were not accepted into treatment. Their report concluded that support, when eventually offered, often arrives too late when issues are already acute and entrenched; advocating for provision to be made in schools for early intervention and broader preventative work. With growing mental health difficulties amongst children and young people in the UK and a backdrop of rising thresholds for support and ever longer waiting lists, The Children’s Society ‘Waiting in Line’ report in 2020 found that after family and friends, children and young people stated they would approach an adult at school for support. Thus, for Lowry et al. (2018) the answer to the mental wellbeing of young people lies in bringing support services to school, providing the support available where children spend most of their time.

Theoretical framework

This article adopts a post-structuralist stance which sees gender and sexual identities as multiple and fragmented, and constructed in relation to others within the systems of knowledge and power that exist in institutions such as schools (Foucault 1982). In large institutions, normalising judgements create norms of behaviour designed to correct transgressions and minimise deviations. Schools are recognised as heteronormative and cisnormative spaces which through their binary delineation of boys and girls perpetuate strict gender norms of behaviour for young people which begin in the home corner in reception year and continue right through to the end of schooling and the school leavers’ prom (Thompson-Lee 2017).

Binary gender categories of male and female become interwoven with sexuality because they are understood in relation to whom a person desires but are the ‘performative effect of reiterative acts’ (Butler 1990, 33). Behaviours associated with gender and sexuality are repeated and ‘congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being’ (Butler 1990, 33). In other words, rather than being expressions of an innate identity, gestures of gender and sexuality are learned and are repeated over time to create the illusion of a stable identity core. Gender and sexual identity have then, according to Butler, ‘no ontological status apart from the acts which together form [their] reality’ (Butler 1990, 136).

Norms and expectations of gender and sexuality are key to creating the climate in contemporary school communities. This article recognises that schools privilege biologically predetermined, hierarchically dichotomised and power-ridden categories of gender and sexuality, leaving LGBTQ+ young people who transgress heteronormative and cisnormative expectations stigmatised and isolated from their peers.

Research design

This article describes one aspect of a university’s SWIS project to spotlight the potential for LGBTQ+ groupwork within secondary schools. When launching the SWIS project, the lead author maintained the role of placement tutor to remain in touch with aspects and experiences within schools. Part of the placement role involves attending and chairing placement meetings and reading portfolio documents. Across these meetings, a total of three detailed Critical Reflections on Practice (CROPs) and one Direct Observation (DO) were gathered which specifically pertained to interventions social work students made with LGBTQ+ young people in different schools. When such examples came to light in the documentation, the student was approached to consent to inclusion of these documents in the study.

A CROP is where the student identifies a specific issue or incident which has resonated within their school placement – they will often draw on a reflective model to look back at the stages of learning and development, for example, using the ‘what, so what, now what’ model (Borton 1970). A DO is where the student plans a particular intervention in placement (with consent), such as direct work with young people, a parent/carer, a meeting or a presentation. It outlines the purpose of this work and its theoretical/legislative underpinnings, the resources required, and how this piece of work will meet their professional standards.

Research for this project was undertaken across three campuses of a university in Eastern England with a commitment to inclusivity and widening participation. Traditionally, non-statutory initial placements for students take place across a wide range of small, Private, Voluntary and Independent (PVI) sector organisations but, as a result of the COVID−19 pandemic, at the time of the study there was a shortage of face-to-face PVI placements for social work students.

Data collection and analysis

Thematic analysis was used to identify what was salient, important or interesting in relation to a particular issue linked to an intervention with an LGBTQ+ young person (Maguire and Delahunt 2017). The approached advocated by Labra et al. (2019) was utilised in which repeated reading identified key issues and themes from the CROPs and the DO. Once the researchers had become fully familiar with the content of each reflection, they began grouping the information contained within the students’ written portfolio submissions.

We drew on Braun and Clarke’s updated guide to thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2022) as a tool for thoughtful and reflexive analysis, which now recognises the situated, aware and questioning nature of analysis. Students’ reflections were analysed thematically by working systematically through each of Braun and Clarke’s (2022) five phases:

1. Familiarisation – working together to make meaning

2. Coding – working together to look for relevance

3. Generating initial themes – working together to cluster patterns

4. Developing and reviewing themes – working together through the recursive process

5. Refining, defining and naming themes

Analysis was assisted by the perspectives shared by each of the researchers and discussion amongst the four authors served to promote self-awareness and reflexivity. We agreed to hold conclusions lightly and to ‘be aware of the propensity to jump to conclusions’ (McNiff 2017, 171) but inevitably personal subjectivities became part of the sense making that took place.

Ethics

Ethical approval was gained from Anglia Ruskin University and followed BERA (2018) guidelines. The social work students who had worked with LGBTQ+ young people during their placements were invited to submit their placement portfolios, which consisted of CROPs and DOs for consideration by the researchers. All identifiable details were removed from the portfolios and pseudonyms were used to anonymise the social work students and the schools. A participant information sheet included the option to decline or withdraw involvement in the study. It is important to acknowledge the embeddedness of the authors in the university’s school of social work and the project itself. Within the faculty, we all held roles which relate to student experience and had some involvement in their assessment. We also came from a position of advocating for support within schools and championing LGBTQ+ support.

Findings

The CROPs and the DO focused on in this study were as described in Table 1.

Table 1. Critical reflections on practice and direct observation analysed in this study.

Document	Summary
CROP 1	Catholic Secondary school (A) – student reflected on their role in establishing a LGBTQ+ group within the school, beyond 1:1 work.
CROP 2	A private/grammar all girls secondary school (B) – the student reflected on her work with a young person with a history of family abuse, who was known to social care. The reflection involved consideration of race, sexuality and the significance of preferred pronouns.
CROP 3	Secular Secondary School (C) – this reflection involved a 1:1 session with a young person who was struggling with their gender identity and the importance of preferred pronouns. The student social worker reflected on the emotions and feelings this evoked in their own personal/professional life.
DO1	Secular Secondary school (C, as above) – the student completed a short presentation to pupils about the availability of support in schools for young LGBTQ+ communities.

Informed by Braun and Clarke’s (2022) five phases of analysis, five themes were developed.

Lack of LGBTQ+ support within schools

Reflections in both CROP 1 and DO1 supported the existing literature in identifying a lack of LGBTQ+ support for young people in schools. In CROP 1, the student noted how young people were urging professionals in schools to address this gap: ‘a lot of students had expressed that there was a lack of support for students who are a part of this community within the school’.

Our literature review highlighted the impact of this gap on young LGBTQ+ people, resulting in a lasting sense of stigmatisation, poor mental health, and social isolation not only at school but over the life course. In one Catholic school (CROP1), a teacher was the driving force for change, actively encouraging the student social worker to set up an LGBTQ+ and ally peer support group to address this gap in the school’s provision. The student noted the value of this support in school for: ‘students who are a part of the community but not openly “out” or are unsure of their sexuality, are able to join the group without feeling exposed or labelled’

The student saw the LGBTQ+ and ally group giving students the ‘chance to feel equal and to have a space where they could be heard’. Reflections by the social work student drew attention to how internalised homophobia (Meyer 2003 dissipated through the peer support in the group due to there being ‘a space where students were able to have conversations and learn from one another’.

In a different secular school (DO1) which provided a good example of a student-led, empowering approach, young people were allowed the space to discuss the school culture and environment and, via the student social worker, let school staff know what changes in school would help them to feel more included. Group work is an effective way of bringing young people together to provide reciprocal support, whilst meeting individual and group needs (Lindsay and Orton 2014). Further encouraging the development of relationships through social interaction can increase individual feelings of positive well-being (Gleibs et al. 2013). The student social worker reflected on how the number of attendees demonstrated the need to: ‘show support or talk to other peers who may be going through similar experiences’. This bringing together of LGBTQ+ young people encouraged the sharing of personal narratives and experiences of adversity, leading to deeper connections between the students, which in turn encouraged them to be bolder and work together to support one another and improve the school environment for LGBTQ+ young people (Steinberg 2014; Crawford, Price, and Price 2015).

Intersectionality

In CROP1, the student social worker reflected on being placed in a Catholic secondary school and establishing an LGBTQ+ and ally group. It was pleasing to see that the creation of this group had been proposed by a teacher within the school, signalling a departure from the climate of fear and faith-based moral panic present in many faith schools (Carlile 2020). However, the student social worker reflected on her own upbringing as a Catholic and described her ‘fear’ as to how the school might react to such an initiative due to the ‘Catholic churches attitude towards homosexuality’, adding her relief that ‘despite my concerns, the group was approved by the school’. This need for approval suggests that permission for the group was something which needed to be sanctioned by the headteacher. Arguably, this need for security is a remnant of the earlier ban on the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality under Section 28 and encourages one to wonder whether such approval would have been needed for the creation of a group consisting of young people sharing another protected characteristic.

CROP 2 related to a private, all girls secondary school, and sexuality was not the prominent presenting issue. Instead, the social work student worked with a young person described as Bangladeshi and bisexual, whose mother and sibling ‘were not accepting of her sexuality and believed it brought shame on the family’. The young person’s mental health was adversely affected because of this lack of acceptance by their family, with the social work student considering whether this could constitute a safeguarding concern due to the negative impact on the young person of their families’ cultural beliefs. The situation was further compounded by the lack of access to mental health support outside or within school. Timetabled teaching commitments meant that the teachers did not have sustained periods of time to work with the young person, whereas the social work student was better positioned to provide this support. The student grappled with the severity of the situation and the uphill battle to ensure the ‘child’s voice was heard’. She wrote,

‘The young person has been known to social services for around four years, and in this time, they have had four social workers. [The] young person has felt social services have let her down by not validating her feelings or taking into consideration their wants and wishes … . The young person had lost faith in social services and felt as though as much as they asked for help, they were not receiving it’.

Safe spaces

The need for ‘safe space’ permeated each of the students’ reflection documents. In CROP 3, the student social worker reflected on meeting a young person for the first time and asking about their preferred pronouns. The young person began to cry, stating that no adult had ever asked them that question before. In their reflection, the student social worker states: ‘I sat for a moment whilst they cried … enabled me to create a space for this expression of emotion’ and reflected on the ‘power of silence … given them space to let those feelings out’.

Here is a powerful example of an LGBTQ+ young person who previously lacked a trusted adult to talk to at school. The incident supports the notion that teachers may not always be the most appropriate adults to provide this type of support, due to the power relations within the school and/or lack of training or awareness.

Other examples of mutual aid and self-help can be found in the case material. CROP 1 described the LGBTQ+ and ally group open to years 8 to 10 (age 12/13 to 14/15 years) young people in the Catholic secondary school. The group served to provide peer mentorship that transcended the age groups, with the student social worker reflecting on how members ‘let their guard down and felt safe’ with younger members having older LGBTQ+ and ally role models to ‘learn from one another’. Reflecting on these events, the student social worker’s wondered whether the group would last beyond the end of her placement: ‘I do hope that the group continues into future years’, she wrote.

In DO1, the student social worker who also set up a peer support group for LGBTQ+ young people reflected on the same issue and on the legacy of learning she hoped to leave with the school when her placement ended. She helped set up a student ambassador scheme, to: ‘not only create another avenue of support in the school after I have left, but empower students to take an active role in the growth of an inclusive school environment’. The student noted how she used empowerment theory (Zimmerman 2000) to create an environment in which LGBTQ+ young people shared ideas on how to change the school culture.

However, it should be recognised that establishing LGBTQ+ support and safe spaces within schools is not without its challenges for student social workers. CROP 1 reflects on how, despite the initial appetite amongst students for an LGBTQ+ and ally group, within weeks attendance had plummeted:

‘ … students had been overhearing negative comments and bullying towards the group. It was also stated that a group of boys had been heard saying that they intended on crashing the group and causing havoc and discomfort’.

Fortunately,

‘This was dealt with immediately, and during the next following weeks the group flourished and we ended up with roughly 15–20 members’.

The school in which the social work student worked advocated a zero-tolerance approach to homophobic oppression, and a timely response by teachers meant that the LGBTQ+ young people were able to re-establish the group in a safe space and by so doing, encouraged more students to come forward and benefit from the security of the group.

Language

Across the four reflection documents there was a lack of consistency in the language used to describe LGBTQ+ identities in the schools. Like CROP 2, where issues of sexuality, race and preferred pronouns were discussed, CROP 3 reflected on how the student,

… facilitated a meeting with a service user who had been struggling with their gender identity. I began by asking them what name and pronouns they would like me to use. The SU began crying, thanking me for being the first professional they’ve met that asked this

Here, the social work student noted the power of language and the need to be ‘careful in my wording’, avoid colloquialisms and proceed with sensitivity in relation to the chosen names of LGBTQ+ young people. Names are a crucial facet of gender identity as society insists that the names given at birth in almost all cases signify the gender of the child named.

CROP 2, expands on the rejection and shame experienced by the young person when their family was not accepting of their chosen pronouns of they/them. The CROP advances to include concerns in relation to suicide. Despite the student’s intention to pay attention to the significance of preferred pronouns, from this point on in the reflection, the student social worker then inadvertently misgendered the young person stating: ‘She had attempted to take her own life’. This example demonstrates how, when faced with serious issues of safeguarding and risk, there may be a tendency to default to societal heteronormative language.

Student social worker professional development

Although this article has as its primary focus the potential benefits of social work student support within schools for LGBTQ+ young people, one of the unforeseen consequences of our work pertains to the rich learning opportunities they signal. All the documents include critical reflection in which students demonstrate insight into the tensions between the professional and personal use of the self.

In CROP 3, the social work student pauses to think about how their experience of being in a relationship with a transgender partner may have enhanced her empathy towards trans and non-binary young people. However, she also reflects that her own positionality also may have led to potential ‘knee-jerk response which might affect engagement’ as the struggles of some of the students evoked in her strong emotions such as ‘anger, sadness and empathy’.

While reflecting on the family rejection, shame and suicide attempt of the bisexual young person of Bangladeshi heritage, the student responsible for CROP 2 repeatedly grapples with her own inner conflict ‘as a mother’, as empathy for the parents’ conservative values conflicts with her concern for the wellbeing of the young person.

In CROP 1, the student social worker describes how she had learned about the power of LGBTQ+ symbols such as lanyards and ‘different sexualities and their flags’, and how the school placement had built her professional curiosity with regards to LGBTQ+ identities. She also reflects on how ‘being raised by a Catholic family myself’, she had been encouraged to see homosexuality as a sin and notes her fear that the LGBTQ+ and ally group would be received negatively at this Catholic secondary school.

In CROP 3, the student social worker welcomed the opportunity to promote change within the school culture using a skill of an ‘anti-oppressive nature’ she valued when she later moved onto her statutory placement in the final year of study. Thus, collectively the portfolio reflective documents demonstrate the rich opportunities for critical analysis and professional contemplation by social work students on practice placement in schools.

Concluding remarks

This article reflects on the portfolio documents of four social work students who undertook practice placements in secondary schools. Each of their portfolios outlines the interventions they made to support young people identifying as LGBTQ+.

At a time when schools are facing unprecedented cuts in funding, and children and young people’s mental health services can help only those with the most acute issues, our findings demonstrate the benefit to schools of having social work students on practice placement. Students’ reflections on the experience describe how they were able to spend more time talking to and supporting young people than the teachers could. Some worked with individuals whilst others worked to establish support groups in schools. In addition to providing significant benefit to the LGBTQ+ young people with whom they worked, the students’ reflective portfolios acknowledge the value of the school placements for their own development in supporting LGBTQ+ young people.

Schools have long been challenging environments for LGBTQ+ young people. Section 28 denied a generation of young people access to LGBTQ+ role models and created a culture in schools where LGBTQ+ identities were forced to be hidden and never discussed. The legacy of Section 28 continues to impact work in some schools but almost all schools remain stubborn sites of heteronormativity and binary gender norms. Many teachers feel ill equipped to deal with the complexities of sexual and gender identities and the mental health issues that develop when some young people are not recognised or included by either their teachers or their peers.

A limited body of research has explored the extent to which qualifying social work students feel prepared to practise competently with sexuality and gender minority people (Inch 2017). Themes evident in relation to students’ perceived lack of preparedness include unfamiliarity, limited knowledge, fear, and the absence of opportunities to consider relevant issues during social work training. Unfortunately, the lack of coverage of LGBTQ+ issues in social work literature and education persists (Nothdurfter and Nagy 2016), which this paper goes some way to address.

The work described here was not an anticipated aspect of the SWIS project and findings only came to light through reading placement documents. These examples show how students left their first placement with the confidence and competence which was lacking in Inch’s study in relation to preparedness – skills they will likely take into the final year and a social work career. Whilst our research relates to a small-scale study at one university, the findings may have broader implications for social work placements, particularly around ensuring that students feel ready for practise with members of all communities.

Placing social work students in schools, has the potential to provide much needed prevention and early intervention support for all young people. This article has demonstrated four instances of social work students working to improve inclusion in schools for LGBTQ+ young people but the further potential for work of this nature is required. Though a modest small-scale project, we demonstrate the potential of social work students as sources of support for vulnerable young people in schools and demonstrates how schools can provide a rich and high-quality practice placement experience for the social work students.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).