Teacher-Mentors and the Educational Resilience of Sexual Minority Youth

Abstract

This is the first study to examine the benefits of informal mentoring on the educational resilience of sexual minority youth. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we show that having a mentor, especially one that is a teacher, is associated with higher levels of post-secondary participation for gay, lesbian, and bisexual youth. Teacher-mentors are particularly significant to the educational resilience of sexual minority women of color. Unfortunately, sexual minority women of color are also the least likely to be mentored by teachers. Our findings underscore the urgency to understand how school- and community-based mentoring efforts can better meet and respond to the needs of sexual minority youth of color, especially women.

KEYWORDS:

• mentors
• gay and lesbian youths
• resilience

INTRODUCTION

Youth mentoring is proliferating in the United States. Most research on the effects of youth mentoring is based on formal programs in which adult mentors are assigned to youth. In particular, the community- and school-based programs of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America (BBBSA), the oldest and largest mentoring organization in the United States, are the subject of most studies. Recent reviews of youth mentoring research have concluded that, in general, having a mentor is associated with improvements in behavior, overall well-being, and academic and employment success (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, & Cooper, 2002; Grossman, Roffman, & Rhodes, 2002; Karcher, Kuperminc, Portwood, Sipe, & Taylor, 2006).

In recent years, researchers have begun to examine the effects of informal, or so-called natural, mentoring in which youth select mentors from those adults who are already in their lives. These informal mentoring relationships have been found to be beneficial to youth and are associated with reduced delinquency and positive educational and health outcomes (DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005a, 2005b; Zimmerman, Bingenheimer, & Notaro, 2002). Informal mentoring is particularly significant for many sexual minority youth who find formal mentoring programs to be hostile to who they are. For example, BBBSA garnered unwanted attention when it came to light that its local chapters were screening out volunteer mentors based on their sexual orientation (Beadle, 2002; Johnson, 2005).

While scholars have examined the role of mentoring in the lives of pre-college youth of color, particularly Latino and African American youth (Odih, 2002; Ruiz, Rodriguez, & Zavala, 2007; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2003) and college-aged sexual minority students (Rankin, 2003; Sanlo, Rankin, & Schoenberg, 2002), this is the first study to examine the mentoring experiences of pre-college sexual minority youth. Given our emphasis on the experiences of sexual minority youth of color, we contribute to the small but growing literature on the lives of sexual minority youth of color (Blackburn, 2005; Johnson, 2006, 2007; Kumashiro, 2001; McCready, 2004).

Sexual minority youth may be the most underserved population of students (Uribe, 1994). Herr (1997) posits that heterosexism and homophobia contribute to the structure of a school “failure” by sexual minority students. Sexual minority students feel confined by the pressure to conform and believe that an essential part of them is being dismissed, despised, or deleted from school life (Khayatt, 1994). Sexual minority youth of color, in particular, face a unique set of challenges in schools, where they are more likely than White sexual minority youth to feel unsafe. These youth are at-risk of being harassed and otherwise victimized because of their racial or ethnic identity as well as their sexual orientation (Kosciw, 2004).

Given their marginalization in schools (Prettyman, 2007) and the dearth of role models for sexual minority youth (Tully, 2000), we focus our study on the role of teacher-mentors in the lives of sexual minority youth. Highlighting the experiences of sexual minority youth of color, we answer the following questions:

1. To what extent are sexual minority youth mentored by teachers?

2. What are the academic benefits of teacher-mentors for sexual minority youth?

TEACHERS IN THE LIVES OF SEXUAL MINORITY YOUTH

Teacher-mentors can play an important role in the educational resilience of sexual minority youth. Educational resilience is “the heightened likelihood of educational success despite personal vulnerabilities and adversities brought about by environmental conditions and experiences” (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994, p. 46, as cited in Wayman, 2002). Teacher–student relationships and trust improve academic performance via their effects on motivation and school adjustment, behavior, and feelings of safety and connectedness (Crosnoe, Johnson, & Elder, 2004; Lee, 2007; Sacco & Nakhaie, 2007). These positive outcomes have led many schools to create formal programs to promote relationship building between teachers and students (Pianta, Stuhlman, & Hamre, 2002; Rappaport, 2002).

While teachers are resilience resources for students in general (Beuvais & Oetting, 1999), their effect on the lives of sexual minority youth has not always been described as positive. Sexual minority students at schools where there are supportive adults report higher levels of sense of belonging, post-secondary aspirations, and academic achievement (Kosciw, 2004). However, all teachers are not necessarily supportive of sexual minority youth. Russell, Seif, & Truong (2001) found that having a poor relationship with teachers was a significant predictor of having trouble at school for sexual minority youth. Students report having heard teachers use homophobic language at school. They also report the failure of teachers to act when they witness acts of harassment based on actual or perceived sexual orientation (Harris Interactive & Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 2005).

Teachers’ own prejudices against sexual minorities may prevent them from being positive role models for sexual minority youth. Teachers with such intolerant beliefs and attitudes resist efforts to teach them about issues facing sexual minorities (Robinson & Ferfolja, 2001). They also may be lax in their disciplinary responses to homophobic slurs made by students or may themselves alienate or marginalize sexual minority students via regular classroom interactions that communicate their disdain or disapproval (Kahn, 2006; Sykes, 2004). Teachers or other school adults who are themselves sexual minorities may be reluctant to mentor sexual minority youth because they do not want to remember and relive the pain that they experienced in their own adolescence (Bass & Kaufman, 1996). These teachers may also be unavailable to their sexual minority students while they try to cope with the homophobia that they face as professionals working in schools (Bass & Kaufman, 1996; Dejean, 2004; Rowe, 2006; Sullivan, 1993).

DATA AND METHODS

Data

Data are from Wave III of the public-use dataset of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health; Udry, 2003). ¹ Participants were first surveyed more than 12 years ago when they were school-aged and enrolled in grades 7 through 12 (Wave I: 1994–1995). Since then, they have been surveyed two more times, in 1996 (Wave II) and in 2001–2002 (Wave III) when they were between the ages of 18 and 26. There are 4,882 cases in the public-use Wave III dataset.

Self-disclosure bias is a common challenge for many researchers, especially in the study of topics that individuals may consider private, personal, or sensitive such as matters of sex and sexuality (Catania, 1999). Throughout the data collection, Add Health researchers used audio computer-aided self-interview technologies (audio-CASI) to maximize privacy and reduce self-disclosure bias. Add Health respondents listened to survey questions via headphones and entered their responses on laptops.

Sample

Participants were asked to describe their sexual identity in the following terms: “100% heterosexual (straight); mostly heterosexual (straight), but somewhat attracted to people of their own sex; bisexual—that is, attracted to men and women equally; mostly homosexual (gay), but somewhat attracted to people of the opposite sex; 100% homosexual (gay); or not sexually attracted to either males or females.” Sexual minority youth of color are those youth who described themselves as “100% homosexual (gay)” or indicated some degree of attraction to the same sex and who self-identified as African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Latino, or Native American.

Sexual minorities account for 9% (SE = .5) of this population of youth. Thirty percent (SE = 2.3) identify as African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Latino, or Native American. Females account for 73% (SE = 2.4) of sexual minority youth. Twenty-seven percent (SE = 2.5) of lesbian and bisexual females and 40% of gay and bisexual males (SE = 5.0) are racial or ethnic minorities.

Measures

Teacher-mentors. Add Health defines mentors as nonparental adults who made an important positive difference in one's life. Respondents were asked a series of questions about the person who served as their most significant mentor since the age of 14. Respondents provided details about their relationship to their mentor such as how they met and the sex of the mentor. We focus on the relationship between sexual minority youth and the teachers and coaches who served as their mentors.

Post-secondary participation. We examine the role of teacher-mentors on the post-secondary participation of sexual minority youth. Specifically, we describe the relationship between having a teacher-mentor and having completed at least 1 year of college at the time of the Add Health interview, controlling for age. On average, respondents were 22 years old at the time of their interview in Wave III.

Methods

The Add Health dataset includes a post-stratification sample weight for use in cross-sectional analyses such as ours. This weight accounts for the complex survey design elements of the Add Health study—in other words, the unequal probabilities of selection into the sample (Chantala, 2003). Findings based on analyses of this weighted sample are nationally representative of youth that were in grades 7 through 12 in 1994.

We began by comparing the prevalence of teacher-mentors and other informal mentors across five groups of youth: (a) sexual minority youth versus heterosexual youth, (b) lesbians and bisexual females versus gay and bisexual males, (c) sexual minority youth of color versus White sexual minority youth, (d) sexual minority females of color versus sexual minority males of color, and (e) lesbians and bisexual females of color versus lesbians and bisexual White females. We performed cross-tabulations and used chi-square tests of independence to assess whether members of these groups were significantly more or less likely to have been mentored. Although our study focuses primarily on the experiences of sexual minority youth of color, the experiences of other groups of youth provide an important context.

Next, we examined the relationship between various mentoring statuses (i.e., having a mentor, having a teacher-mentor, and having no informal mentor of any kind) on post-secondary participation. For all youth and for each of the comparison groups of youth described above, we assessed whether mentored youth had higher rates of post-secondary participation than unmentored youth and whether youth with teacher-mentors had higher rates of post-secondary participation than youth with other informal mentors. To determine whether these relationships met the standards of statistical significance (p < .05), we estimated a series of logistic regression models to control for the effect of age on post-secondary participation. Respondents ranged in age from 18 and 28 years old (mean age = 22 years old).

RESULTS

Table 1 displays statistics about the prevalence of informal mentors and teacher-mentors among sexual minority youth.

TABLE 1 Prevalence of Mentors or Teacher-Mentors Among Youth

	Had mentor (%)	Had teacher-mentor (%)
All youth	75.7(.7)	23.9 (.8)
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth	81.3 (2.0)	32.2 (2.9)
Heterosexual youth	75.5 (.8)	23.1 (.8)
Lesbian and bisexual women	81.6 (2.3)	31.3 (3.5)
Women of color	75.8 (4.5)	20.2 (5.4)
White women	83.5 (2.6)	34.6 (4.2)
Gay and bisexual men	80.5 (4.4)	34.7 (5.4)
Men of color	81.1 (6.0)	27.2 (7.9)
White men	80.1 (6.2)	39.9 (7.3)

Informal Mentors

Sexual minority youth are significantly more likely than heterosexual youth to have informal mentors (81% vs. 76%), F(1, 4796) = 6.08, p < .01. Among sexual minority youth, there are no significant differences between females and males (82% vs. 81%) or between youth of color and White youth (78% vs. 83%). Although a lower percentage of lesbian and bisexual females of color are mentored than White lesbian and bisexual females (76% vs. 84%), the difference is not statistically significant. Among sexual minority males, there are no statistically significant differences by racial–ethnic minority status. While sexual minority females of color are mentored at a lower rate than sexual minority males of color (76% vs. 81%), the difference is not statistically significant.

Teacher-Mentors

Teacher-mentors are the most common informal mentors of sexual minority youth after relatives. Thirty-two percent of mentored sexual minority youth had mentors who were teachers. Like for all youth, teacher-mentors become significant in the lives of sexual minority youth between the ages of 16 and 17 when students are typically in their last 2 years of high school. Sexual minority youth are more likely than heterosexual youth to have mentor-teachers (32% vs. 23%), F(1, 3682) = 10.64, p < .001. This finding is explained by the differences in the prevalence of teacher-mentors among White youth by sexual minority status. Thirty-six percent of White sexual minority youth have teacher-mentors compared to 24% of White heterosexual youth, F(1, 3678) = 11.52, p < .001. However, there are no differences by sexual minority status in the rate of mentoring by teachers among youth of color.

Sexual minority females and males do not differ significantly in the extent to which they are mentored by teachers. However, sexual minority youth of color are significantly less likely to have teacher-mentors than are White sexual minority youth (23% vs. 36%), F(1, 3678) = 4.50, p < .05. Explaining this is the fact that sexual minority females of color are significantly less likely than White sexual minority females to have teacher-mentors (20% vs. 35%), F(1, 3678) = 3.73, p < .05. The difference in the rate of mentoring by teachers between sexual minority males by racial–ethnic minority status is not statistically significant.

Post-Secondary Participation of Mentored Youth

As shown in Table 2, mentors—especially teacher-mentors—are associated with significantly greater post-secondary participation for youth. Fifty-eight percent of mentored youth had finished at least 1 year of college at the time of the survey compared to 38% of unmentored youth. The benefit accrued to youth with teacher-mentors is particularly pronounced. Among mentored youth, the rate of post-secondary participation among those with teacher-mentors is 33% greater than that of youth with other types of informal mentors (71% vs. 54%).

TABLE 2 Percentage of Youth Who Completed at Least 1 Year of College, by Mentored Status

		1	2	3	4
		Had	No	Teacher-	Other
	All (%)	mentor (%)	mentor (%)	mentor (%)	mentor (%)
All youth	52.9 (.8)	57.8∗∗∗ (.9)	37.9 (1.6)	71.3∗∗∗ (1.8)	53.6 (1.1)
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth	60.1 (2.6)	64.4∗∗∗ (2.9)	41.4 (5.9)	77.0∗∗ (4.7)	58.4 (3.5)
Heterosexual youth	52.9 (.9)	57.7∗∗∗ (1.0)	38.3 (1.7)	70.9∗∗∗ (1.9)	53.7 (1.2)
Lesbian and bisexual women	60.3 (3.0)	64.0∗∗ (3.4)	43.7 (6.6)	78.6∗∗ (5.4)	57.3 (4.0)
White women	62.3 (3.7)	65.0 (4.1)	48.6 (8.6)	77.1∗ (6.3)	58.6 (5.0)
Women of color	53.2 (5.2)	59.2∗ (5.9)	34.5 (10.0)	83.3∗ (10.4)	53.0 (6.5)
Gay and bisexual men	59.6 (5.2)	65.4∗ (5.4)	35.4 (11.7)	73.1 (8.9)	61.3 (6.8)
White men	63.9 (6.9)	69.7 (6.8)	40.4 (16.6)	83.5 (8.5)	60.6 (9.4)
Men of color	53.1 (7.8)	59.1 (8.7)	27.6 (16.3)	50.5 (17.3)	62.3 (9.9)
Note: The results of two sets of significance tests are displayed. The first describes the difference in the post-secondary participation of mentored versus unmentored youth (columns 1 and 2); the second describes the differences between youth with teacher-mentors versus those youth with other kinds of informal mentors (columns 3 and 4).

Benefits of Informal Mentoring

Like all mentored youth, sexual minority youth who are mentored are significantly more likely than those who have not completed at least one year of college by the time of the survey. However, the relative benefit of being mentored for sexual minority youth is about 30% less than it is for heterosexual youth. Being mentored is associated with a 39% increase in the post-secondary participation of sexual minority youth compared to a 51% increase for heterosexual youth.

Mentoring benefits both sexual minority males and females. However, the greater benefit is accrued to sexual minority males, for whom we find that mentoring is associated with an 85% increase in post-secondary participation (compared to a 46% increase for sexual minority females). As a group, gay and bisexual men, regardless of racial–ethnic minority status, reap these benefits of mentoring. However, the same is not true for sexual minority females. Having been mentored is not associated with higher rates of post-secondary participation for White sexual minority females. Sexual minority females of color, on the other hand, reap large and positive benefits from mentoring. The post-secondary participation of unmentored sexual minority females of color is 35% compared to 59% for sexual minority females of color who were mentored.

Benefits of Mentoring by Teachers

Sexual minority youth who have teacher-mentors are significantly more likely than those with other informal mentors to have completed at least 1 year of college by the time of the survey. The benefits of being mentored by teachers for sexual minority youth are the same as they are for heterosexual youth. Sexual minority and heterosexual youth with teacher-mentors have post-secondary participation rates that are 32% higher than those of their peers who have other kinds of informal mentors.

Having a teacher-mentor rather than another kind of informal mentor is especially important for sexual minority females. Although sexual minority males who are mentored by teachers show improved post-secondary participation, these rates are not significantly different from those of sexual minority males who have other kinds of informal mentors. In contrast, sexual minority females—regardless of racial–ethnic minority status—experience a markedly greater advantage from having teacher-mentors versus other informal mentors. This is especially the case for sexual minority females of color. For these women, the post-secondary participation rate of those with teacher-mentors is 78% higher than it is among those who have other informal mentors (57% vs. 32%).

DISCUSSION

Mentors—especially teacher-mentors—are positive forces in the educational resilience of sexual minority youth. It is critical that sexual minority youth have access to school-based adults who can provide positive support and role modeling. Sexual minority youth of color, who are often the targets of harassment and violence due to both their sexual orientation and race or ethnicity, are in the most critical need of mentors who can help them feel safe and affirmed. Positive mentoring provides a way for sexual minority youth to enter into a healthy adulthood (Johnson, 2005) and helps create the conditions for these youth to realize their full potential in life.

Given the benefits of mentoring, we need to be concerned about the large percentage of sexual minority youth of color who do not have mentors. Where are the mentors for these youth? When developing mentoring opportunities for sexual minority youth, greater efforts must be made to proactively target sexual minority youth of color. Sexual minority females of color in particular are severely undermentored as a population; they are less likely to be mentored (both in general and by teachers, specifically) than any other group of sexual minority youth. To be successful in reaching these youth, we must understand the extent to which sexual minority youth of color are underserved because of a lack of access to supportive adults, difficulties in building rapport, or trust or a combination of factors.

Compared to all other informal mentors, teacher-mentors provide the biggest boost to the chances that sexual minority youth will attend college. Having a teacher-mentor makes the biggest difference in the rate of post-secondary participation for sexual minority females of color. Teachers are uniquely positioned to positively affect the lives of sexual minority youth in meaningful and significant ways. However, this potential can only be realized if teachers are sensitive to and respectful of their sexual minority students. Mentoring relationships require trust. Sexual minority youth will neither trust nor confide in teachers who are hostile to who they are or to the communities to which they belong. Sexual minority youth must feel safe to be themselves with teacher-mentors without fear of judgment or rejection.

Youth whose core identities remain unaccepted by their mentors may experience significantly negative consequences in their educational and identity development (Wilson, 1997). As such, current and preservice teachers should be provided with the necessary training and professional development so that they can learn how to be available and effective as supportive resources to diverse populations of students—including sexual minorities (Barajas, 2005; Jucovy, 2000). Gay–straight alliances in schools may serve as one of the sites where mentoring relationships between students and teachers can be cultivated (Macgillivray, 2007).

Efforts to support sexual minority students must guard against unintentionally contributing to the further marginalization of these youth. Snider (1996) posits that support programs within educational contexts such as schools should not be separate programs, further isolating the targeted student population. “Schools must make fundamental changes that work to eliminate racism and homophobia within the dominant educational structure” (p. 294). The educational needs of sexual minority youth of color in particular remain unfulfilled by this failure to adequately address the intersections of sexual orientation and racial or ethnic identity. Kumashiro's (2001, 2002) synthesis of antioppressive pedagogy recognizes these intersecting identities in the context of educational theory and practice. Antioppressive approaches to education are juxtaposed with contemporary education-based queer youth activism. They constitute a framework of theories that “offer ways of thinking and talking about education, oppression, identity, and change” helpful for “working against traditional ways of thinking and acting, teaching and learning” (p. 9). Sexual minority youth need—and deserve—mentoring experiences that do not require that they compartmentalize their multiple, intersecting identities (Johnson, 2005). Through mentoring relationships, sexual minority youth of color can tap into resources that can help them meet needs and face challenges that are experienced uniquely by those who are both “raced” and “sexualized.”

Notes

∗ p < .05;

∗∗ p < .01;

∗∗∗ p < .001.

1. This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due to Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (E-mail: [email protected]).