Educators’ Perspectives on LGBTQ Students with Disabilities: A Nationwide Survey in Special Needs Schools in Japan

Abstract

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, or Queer (LGBTQ) students with disabilities face unique challenges in the educational environment, and educators must provide support based on intersectionality. However, research on LGBTQ students in special needs education is limited, and the extent of educators’ awareness and support is not well documented. Therefore, this study explored the awareness, knowledge, and support practices of special needs school educators regarding LGBTQ students. We conducted a nationwide survey of educators in special needs schools in Japan, and 2024 valid responses were analyzed using multiple correspondence and cluster analyses. The results revealed that many educators lacked an understanding of basic LGBTQ terminology and may have been unaware of their discriminatory behaviors. Additionally, most educators had never encountered LGBTQ students with disabilities, potentially hindering these students’ opportunities to seek support. Furthermore, educators who had received LGBTQ training reported higher awareness and being more proactive in supporting LGBTQ students than those who had not. Thus, training may be associated with support-related attitudes. This highlights the need for ongoing training programs that address LGBTQ identity and disability, considering their intersectionality. These preliminary findings suggest the potential for creating an inclusive environment for LGBTQ students with disabilities; nevertheless, structural barriers remain.

1. Introduction

1.1. Issues and Challenges in LGBTQ-Inclusive Education

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, or Queer (LGBTQ) individuals are sexual and gender minorities with gender identities or sexual orientations differing from those of the societal majority, who are heterosexual and cisgender. In recent years, global awareness and concern regarding sexual and gender minorities have increased, leading to the implementation of laws and policies that advocate the rights of LGBTQ individuals and promotion of the corresponding social support systems.

Moreover, international discussions regarding inclusive education have expanded to address broader dimensions of diversity in schools. In 1994, the Salamanca Statement emphasized the importance of inclusive education on an international level and advocated an educational environment in which all children, regardless of disabilities, learn together (UNESCO, 1994). Over time, inclusive education has evolved into an educational approach that applies not only to disabilities but also other diverse backgrounds, including race, language, and gender (Ainscow, 2005). In 2016, UNESCO reinforced the necessity of an educational environment in which all students, including those who identify as LGBTQ, can learn without discrimination. It urged national education policies to respect LGBTQ rights and highlighted the importance of preventing discrimination and violence based on sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in schools. Furthermore, UNESCO (2016) recommended providing training opportunities for school staff to ensure that they can appropriately support LGBTQ students.

In addition to these international initiatives, large-scale studies have been conducted in some countries to understand the status of LGBTQ-inclusive education in schools. For instance, a survey targeting approximately 3400 public school educators was conducted in Canada to assess teachers’ awareness of and experiences with LGBTQ-inclusive education (Taylor et al., 2016). The results demonstrated that although many educators recognized the importance of LGBTQ-inclusive education, the lack of sufficient training was a significant challenge. Similarly, a study in the U.S. surveyed 584 teacher educators across 45 states and found that although many respondents held positive views about the importance of LGBTQ topics, they often lacked confidence in engaging in LGBTQ-related teaching (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, 2022). In addition, Hidaka et al. (2019) conducted a nationwide survey of approximately 20,000 school educators in Japan to examine their understanding, knowledge, and experiences related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and diversity. The results revealed that approximately 77.1% of educators had never directly encountered students who identified as homosexual, and approximately 65.5% had never encountered students experiencing gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder. The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) defines gender dysphoria as a significant incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and their assigned sex at birth, accompanied by clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In contrast, the fourth edition of the DSM uses gender identity disorder as a diagnostic term, referring to the incongruence between gender identity and assigned sex (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Moreover, awareness of fundamental terms, such as “sexual orientation,” was low among educators, with only 8.2% of the respondents reporting that they understood the term (Hidaka et al., 2019).

These findings indicate an urgent need to raise awareness and understanding among educators regarding LGBTQ-related issues. Furthermore, the development of inclusive support systems within school environments should be emphasized.

1.2. The Intersectionality of LGBTQ Identity and Disability

Crenshaw (1989) introduced the concept of intersectionality and argued that the discrimination and disadvantages faced by Black women cannot be fully explained by race- or gender-based oppression alone. Intersectionality is a framework that examines how different social categories combine to create unique experiences and challenges that cannot be understood within a single social category. Recent research emphasizes that the categories comprising one’s identity are not singular but rather interrelated and compounding (Martin et al., 2025).

Applying the concept of intersectionality to LGBTQ identity and disability suggests that LGBTQ students with disabilities face compounded and unique challenges in schools. These challenges cannot be effectively addressed through LGBTQ or disability support alone. Kahn and Lindstrom (2015) conducted interviews with LGBTQ adolescents with disabilities and found that these students often encountered discrimination at the intersection of their sexual orientation and disability. Similarly, Henry et al. (2010) conducted a case study of a student who reported feeling discriminated against not only within the heterosexual majority but also within the gay community.

Therefore, a comprehensive intersectional approach is required. Henry et al. (2010) noted that support systems for LGBTQ students and students with disabilities often operate in isolation, focusing on a single aspect of identity rather than addressing their multiple, intersecting identities. This gap persists today, as emphasized in the recent literature. Martin et al. (2025) underscored the importance of adopting an intersectional approach to better understand and support adolescent identity and experiences. Their review highlighted the complex interaction between internal dimensions of identity, such as sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, necessitating inclusive and holistic support systems in schools.

Consequently, LGBTQ students with disabilities experience unique difficulties. Inclusive education has been promoted worldwide in recent years, leading to improvements such as individualized accommodations for students with disabilities and some institutional responses for LGBTQ students. For instance, students at some institutions have access to disability support offices or LGBTQ counseling services; however, these are typically provided through separate channels with little coordination. According to Henry et al. (2010), such compartmentalized support structures in higher education may lead to fragmented experiences for students with intersecting identities. Nevertheless, support systems that address the intersection of these identities remain inadequate. Although LGBTQ students with disabilities are present in schools, their needs are often overlooked. Rather than focusing solely on a single aspect of identity, support systems must be expanded and must adopt an intersectional perspective to foster truly inclusive education.

1.3. LGBTQ Students in Japanese Special Needs Schools

In 2013, Japan introduced an inclusive education system with an amendment to the School Education Act Enforcement Order (MEXT, 2013). However, Japan’s education system retains the structure of special needs schools, and many children with disabilities continue to be educated in separate settings from mainstream classrooms. In 2022, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommended that Japan end segregated education and transition toward an inclusive system (United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2022). Despite this advice, special needs schools continue to play a central role in Japan’s special needs education system.

Special needs schools are educational institutions designed to provide education equivalent to kindergartens, elementary schools, junior high schools, and high schools for children with disabilities. Additionally, these institutions aim to equip students with the necessary knowledge and skills to overcome challenges in learning and daily life caused by disabilities and to foster their independence (MEXT, 1947). According to the MEXT (2020), the educational placement of students with disabilities is determined by local boards of education in Japan. This decision is based on a comprehensive evaluation of several factors, such as the nature of the disability, required educational support, local educational resources, the opinions of the student and their guardians, and expert input from fields such as education, medicine, and psychology. Japanese special needs schools are operated as separate institutions from mainstream schools. Currently, special needs education in Japan classifies disabilities into five categories: visual, hearing, intellectual, physical, and health impairments. Special needs schools are divided into four educational categories: kindergarten, elementary school, junior high school, and high school. The structure of these schools varies, with some specializing in a single disability category or educational division, and others accommodating multiple categories or divisions (MEXT, 2007).

According to MEXT (2024a), the number of students enrolled in special needs schools in the 2023 academic year (April 2023–March 2024) was 151,362. Despite Japan’s declining birthrate, this number has been increasing annually. Consequently, the demand for student support in special needs schools is expected to continue to increase.

LGBTQ students with disabilities are highly likely to be present in these schools. In the U.S., a survey of nearly 13,000 LGBTQ+ youth (aged 13–18 years), conducted by the Human Rights Campaign (2024), found that 29.7% have been diagnosed with a disability by a doctor, healthcare provider, or mental healthcare provider. This figure indicates that schools have a significant proportion of LGBTQ+ students with disabilities. Moreover, research has shown that LGBTQ youth with disabilities experience significantly higher rates of mental health challenges compared to their LGBTQ peers without disabilities. Hogan (2024) argued that these students face heightened risks of bullying, harassment, and suicidal ideation and emphasized the urgent need for school-based support. Furthermore, the lack of educational support that not only provides academic instruction but also uses a whole-child approach to address students’ social and emotional needs contributes to the marginalization of these students within the school system, exacerbating mental health disparities (Hogan, 2024). These findings highlight the urgent need for specialized support in special needs schools. As mentioned above, an intersectional approach is required to address the complex intersectional needs of these students. Educators must be equipped with the knowledge and resources necessary to effectively support these students according to their specific needs. However, research on LGBTQ issues in special needs education remains limited, and the extent of educators’ awareness and support is not well documented. The understanding and current support practices of special needs educators regarding LGBTQ issues must be examined to provide appropriate support to LGBTQ students in special needs education. This remains a crucial challenge in special needs education. The novelty of this study lies in its examination of the intersection of LGBTQ identity and disability in the context of special needs schools and its focus on educators’ perspectives.

1.4. Research Objectives

This study conducted a questionnaire survey to explore the knowledge, awareness, and current state of support regarding LGBTQ issues among educators in special needs schools in Japan who specialize in educating children with disabilities. This study aimed to identify the challenges associated with LGBTQ support in special needs education and examine effective approaches for educators to address these challenges. Furthermore, it sought to provide insights into inclusive support strategies in special needs education and contribute to the improvement of educational policies and practices in this field. Considering the exploratory and cross-sectional nature of this study, the findings are intended to offer insights rather than be generalized to all special needs schools.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

This non-experimental cross-sectional study used a self-administered anonymous questionnaire. The participants were educators employed in special needs schools. All special needs schools in Japan were included in the survey. According to statistics provided by MEXT (2024a), Japan had 1178 special needs schools and 101,835 educators in the 2023 academic year (April 2023–March 2024). This study did not impose any restrictions on specific regions, ages, or years of service, and all educators were eligible to participate. We obtained 2024 responses, all of which were valid, representing approximately 2.0% of all special needs school educators in Japan.

2.2. Procedure

Participants were recruited by sending a letter requesting participation and a notice poster for educators to the principals of all special needs schools in Japan. The principals were asked to share the information about the survey with all staff members in the school. The response period was from December 2023 to January 2024. The questionnaire was administered online using Google Forms, and each educator was encouraged to respond voluntarily. To ensure voluntary participation, the purpose of the study and handling of personal information were explained at the beginning of the questionnaire. Moreover, the instructions clearly stated that participation in the survey would be considered consent to participate in the research. Additionally, the cover page of the questionnaire included a statement that no individual would suffer any disadvantage based on their decision to respond or not, or on the content of their responses. These measures were intended to ensure participant confidentiality and promote an honest response environment. This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Human Sciences for the Tokyo Area, University of Tsukuba in 2023 (approval number T23-68).

2.3. Survey Questions

The survey questions were designed based on items used by Hidaka et al. (2019). We selected the demographic items with the highest relevance to the study’s objectives and ethical appropriateness. Specifically, the questions asked about the participants’ basic attributes (age; gender identity; support area, such as visual impairment; and assigned divisions, such as kindergarten) and their understanding of LGBTQ-related terms, awareness of the existence of LGBTQ students, experience with LGBTQ-related training, and experience with LGBTQ students. Furthermore, as the participants were educators at special needs schools, an original item was included to inquire whether educators ask the students about their preferences regarding the gender of the person providing physical support, such as assistance with toileting or dressing. The survey items and results are presented in

Table 1. Overall and cluster summary statistics.

	Question	Options	Total (N = 2024), N (%)	Cluster 1, (N = 1086), N (%)	Cluster 2 (N = 513), N (%)	Cluster 3 (N = 425), N (%)
Demographic Characteristics
1	Age	20–29 years old	323 (16.2)	128 (12.0) *−	27 (5.3) *−	168 (40.3) *+
		30–39 years old	397 (19.9)	136 (12.7) *−	100 (19.7)	161 (38.6) *+
		40–49 years old	504 (25.3)	320 (29.9) *+	105 (20.7) *−	79 (18.9) *−
		50–59 years old	636 (31.9)	391 (36.6) *+	236 (46.5) *+	9 (2.2) *−
		60 years old and above	133 (6.7)	94 (8.8) *+	39 (7.7)	0 (0.0) *−
	Gender identity	Man	810 (40.5)	―	―	―
		Woman	1175 (58.8)
		X-gender	9 (0.5)
		Non-binary	5 (0.3)
	Special education support area	Visual impairment	234 (11.6)	―	―	―
		Hearing impairment	289 (14.3)
		Intellectual disability	1384 (68.4)
		Physical disability	449 (22.2)
		Health impairment	232 (11.5)
		Other disability	23 (1.1)
	Department in charge	Kindergarten	58 (2.9)	―	―	―
		Lower elementary	338 (16.7)
		Upper elementary	353 (17.4)
		Junior high school	449 (22.2)
		High school	721 (35.6)
		Advanced course	59 (2.9)
		Other department	67 (3.3)
Measures
2	Do you understand SOGI ?	I understand it.	350 (17.6)	38 (3.6) *−	247 (49.3) *+	65 (15.6) *−
		I have heard of it but do not understand the details.	602 (30.3)	289 (27.1) *−	141 (28.1) *−	172 (41.1) *+
		I do not understand it.	1035 (52.1)	741 (69.4) *+	113 (22.6) *−	181 (43.3) *−
3	Do you think there is at least one sexual or gender minority student in every 40-student class?	I think so.	1118 (55.5)	373 (34.5) *−	387 (76.3) *+	358 (84.4) *+
		I do not think so.	243 (12.1)	204 (18.9) *+	33 (6.5) *−	6 (1.4) *−
		I do not know.	652 (32.4)	505 (46.7) *+	87 (17.2) *−	60 (14.2) *−
4	How many training sessions on LGBTQ have you participated in since you became a teacher?	None	490 (26.2)	421 (42.3) *+	12 (2.5) *−	57 (14.8) *−
		1	459 (24.6)	251 (25.2)	40 (8.2) *−	168 (43.8) *+
		2–4	741 (39.7)	311 (31.3) *−	276 (56.4) *+	154 (40.1)
		5 or more	178 (9.5)	12 (1.2) *−	161 (32.9) *+	5 (1.3) *−
5	Have you ever made discriminatory remarks or committed discriminatory actions against LGBTQ individuals?	Yes, I have.	111 (5.5)	35 (3.2) *−	70 (13.7) *+	6 (1.4) *−
		No, I have not.	1473 (72.9)	921 (84.9) *+	368 (71.9)	184 (43.5) *−
		I do not know.	436 (21.6)	129 (11.9) *−	74 (14.5) *−	233 (55.1) *+
6	Have you ever seen any students facing difficulties in their school life due to their gender identity or sexual orientation?	Yes, I have.	468 (24.0)	91 (8.7) *−	328 (67.4) *+	49 (11.7) *−
		No, I have not.	1483 (76.0)	954 (91.3) *+	159 (32.6) *−	370 (88.3) *+
7	When providing physical assistance to students, do you ask them (or their guardians) about their wishes regarding their caregiver’s gender?	Almost always	283 (15.0)	123 (12.3) *−	148 (31.1) *+	12 (3.0) *−
		Sometimes	458 (24.3)	218 (21.7) *−	122 (25.6)	118 (29.4) *+
		Never	1141 (60.6)	663 (66.0) *+	206 (43.3) *−	272 (6.7) *+

Note. Incomplete responses and responses of “I do not remember” are excluded. Percentages were calculated for the total sample or for each cluster. Multiple selections were allowed for the Special education support area and Department in charge. ― The item was not included in the cluster analysis. *⁺ The adjusted residual was more than +1.96 (p < 0.05), suggesting that the response occurred significantly more frequently than expected. *⁻ The adjusted residual was less than −1.96 (p < 0.05), suggesting that the response occurred significantly less frequently than expected.

.

2.4. Analysis Method

Descriptive statistics were used for each survey item to understand the distribution and trends in the response data. Multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) was conducted to explore the overall trends and structure of the data and the relationships between individual survey items. MCA is a statistical method used to visually represent the relationships between multiple categorical variables that is effective for exploring the underlying structure of data (Greenacre, 2017; Hjellbrekke, 2018). In this study, age was used as a basic attribute, and seven items, including six survey questions, were used for the MCA. The goal was to identify the relationships among the seven items and visually reveal the overall trends of the participant responses using the MCA.

If the MCA uses a high number of categories, the results can become overly complex and difficult to interpret. The survey questions for the “Special education support area” and “Department in charge” domains included numerous categories that could complicate the results and hinder their interpretation. Additionally, the response counts for X-gender (a term primarily used in Japan to describe a gender identity that does not fall within the categories of man and woman) and non-binary answers in the “Gender identity” question were extremely low, leading to significant skewness in the overall data distribution. Therefore, the “Special education support area,” “Department in charge,” and “Gender identity” variables were excluded from the MCA to maintain analytical clarity. Notably, excluding these variables may have resulted in the omission of certain structural patterns and associations related to support areas, departments, and gender identities. Consequently, the MCA results should be interpreted cautiously.

Subsequently, a cluster analysis was performed using the same seven survey items as in the MCA to categorize educators based on similar characteristics. Cluster analysis, which is used to identify patterns within a population and reveal subgroups, is widely applied in educational and social research (Kaufman & Rousseeuw, 2009). This study calculated Euclidean distance and performed a hierarchical cluster analysis using the Ward method. The Ward method minimizes the increase in variance within clusters and is suitable for hierarchical cluster formation (Everitt et al., 2011). Using an excessive number of clusters can complicate interpretation, whereas using an insufficient number of clusters can result in the loss of important differences in the data. Therefore, a balance was sought between the interpretability and distinguishability of clusters, and an appropriate branching point was selected based on the dendrogram results. After classification, descriptive statistics were used to clarify the characteristics of each cluster and quantitatively compare their features.

Furthermore, the results of the MCA and cluster analysis were crosschecked to verify whether the clusters were appropriately formed based on the correlations between the survey items. Specifically, the adjusted residuals from the cluster analysis that were positively significant were superimposed on the MCA plot, and the consistency between the cluster trends and data distribution visualized by the MCA was checked. This process aimed to assess the validity of the cluster classification results and strengthen the overall reliability of the analysis.

Age was categorized into five groups: 20–29 years, 30–39 years, 40–49 years, 50–59 years, and 60 years and above. In addition, responses indicating “I do not remember” for training experience and “No answer” for all questions were excluded from the analysis. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS (version 29.0.2.0). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 for all analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Summary of Collected Data

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of the participants, including information on three educator clusters identified using the cluster analysis (details presented in Section 3.3). Most participants were aged 50–59 years (31.9%) or 40–49 years (25.3%) and identified as women (58.8%) or men (40.5%). We compared the age distribution of the participants with the national statistics on special needs school teachers (MEXT, 2024b). The chi-square test revealed a statistically significant difference between the two distributions (χ² = 91.52, p < 0.001), indicating an underrepresentation of participants aged 30–39 years and an overrepresentation of those aged 50–59 years in our sample. However, the national statistics reflect only certified teachers, whereas the present study included a broader range of educational personnel working in special needs schools such as school nurses and dormitory instructional care staff. Therefore, the observed age distribution differences should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore, most participants supported students with intellectual disabilities (68.4%), followed by those with physical disabilities (22.2%) and hearing impairments (14.3%). In addition, most participants worked in high schools (35.6%) and junior high schools (22.2%).

Regarding the meaning of SOGI, 17.6% of the participants answered that they knew it, whereas the majority (52.1%) did not. Regarding belief in at least one sexual or gender minority student being present in every class of 40 students, 55.5% responded “Yes,” whereas 44.5% responded “No” (12.1%) or “I do not know” (32.4%). Moreover, 26.2% had never experienced training on LGBTQ, whereas the majority (73.8%) of the participants had attended at least one training session. Among the participants, 5.5% reported having made discriminatory remarks or taken discriminatory actions toward LGBTQ individuals, whereas the remaining 94.5% answered negatively (72.9%) or responded that they did not know (21.6%). Additionally, 24.0% of the participants had observed students facing difficulties related to their gender identity or sexual orientation, whereas most (76.0%) had not. When providing physical assistance to students, 15.0% of the participants almost always inquired about students’ gender preferences for caregivers, whereas 60.6% never did.

3.2. MCA Results

The reliability of the dimensions was evaluated using eigenvalues, contribution rates, and Cronbach’s α coefficients.

Table 2. Dimension contributions.

No.	Item	Dimension 1	Dimension 2
	Eigenvalue	1.768	1.313
	Contribution (%)	25.3	18.8
	Cronbach’s α	0.507	0.278
1	Age	0.068	0.588 *
2	SOGI awareness	0.410	0.020
3	Presence in class	0.193	0.269
4	Training experiences	0.530 *	0.059
5	Discrimination	0.061	0.293
6	Have seen LGBTQ students	0.193	0.269
7	Ask caregiver’s gender	0.113	0.082
	Total	1.768	1.313

* Items with the highest contribution rate in each dimension.

presents the results. Dimension 1 had the greatest explanatory power in this analysis. Dimension 2 was significant but had a lower contribution than that of Dimension 1. The cumulative contribution rate for these two dimensions was 44.0%. Although this was insufficient to fully explain the data, it was considered acceptable to explain a significant portion of the patterns.

Next, we examined the contribution rates of the items to each dimension. Training exhibited the highest contribution for Dimension 1, whereas age had the highest contribution for Dimension 2.

Figure 1 demonstrates the MCA results. The most positive plot in Dimension 1 corresponded to having participated in LGBTQ training for five or more sessions, whereas the most negative plot corresponded to having no training experience at all. Moreover, the categories for training experience (0, 1, 2–4, and 5 or more sessions) were arranged in an orderly sequence along Dimension 1. As training experience had the highest contribution rate, Dimension 1 primarily functioned as an axis representing the LGBTQ training experience.

Furthermore, in Dimension 2, the most positive plot corresponded to participants who answered “I do not know” when asked whether they had ever made discriminatory remarks or committed discriminatory actions, followed by those aged 20–39 years. In contrast, the most negative plot was associated with participants aged 60 years and above. Additionally, the age groups were arranged sequentially along Dimension 2. As age had the highest contribution rate in this dimension, it was the primary factor structuring Dimension 2.

Based on these findings, Dimension 1 was defined as LGBTQ training experience, and Dimension 2 as age. Dimension 1 reflected higher levels of awareness related to inclusive practices. Educators with more training were more likely to understand SOGI terms and have encountered students facing difficulties due to their gender identity or sexual orientation. Dimension 2 reflected generational differences in awareness and attitudes. Older educators were less likely to believe that every 40-student class had at least one sexual or gender minority student and appeared less aware of LGBTQ-related issues. These dimensions highlighted that both training experience and age were associated with the participants’ recognition and support of LGBTQ students in school settings.

3.3. Cluster Analysis Results

Based on the dendrogram results, an appropriate branching point was selected. The data were classified into three clusters to ensure a clear differentiation of their characteristics. To analyze the distinguishing characteristics among the clusters, adjusted residuals were calculated for each variable to assess statistical significance. Table 1 presents the results. Adjusted residuals exceeding ±1.96 were considered statistically significant. Values surpassing this threshold are marked accordingly. In addition to examining the overall trends, descriptive statistics were conducted for each cluster to gain a detailed understanding of their unique characteristics.

Cluster 1 mainly consisted of educators aged 40 years and above with little or no experience in LGBTQ-related training. A significantly higher proportion (69.4%) was unfamiliar with SOGI, and only 34.5% thought that typical classes of forty students had at least one LGBTQ student. This indicated low awareness. Furthermore, this cluster had the highest proportion (42.3%) of educators who had never attended LGBTQ-related training, and 84.9% believed that they had never committed discriminatory behavior. It also had the largest percentage (66.0%) of educators who never asked students about their caregiver gender preferences when providing physical assistance. Considering their limited LGBTQ awareness and passive support attitudes, this cluster was labeled “Older Individuals and Low Awareness.”

Cluster 2 mainly consisted of educators aged 50–59 years with extensive experience in LGBTQ-related training. A significantly higher proportion (49.3%) were familiar with SOGI, and 76.3% acknowledged the presence of LGBTQ students in their classrooms. Training participation was notably high, with 56.4% having attended two to four sessions and 32.9% having attended more than five sessions. In addition, 13.7% of the participants in this cluster reported that they had committed discriminatory behavior, which was the highest among all clusters. This group also had the highest proportion (31.1%) of educators who asked students about their caregiver gender preferences when providing physical assistance. Considering their high awareness and active support for LGBTQ students, this cluster was labeled “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness.”

Cluster 3 consisted mainly of educators aged 20–39 years, with limited experience in LGBTQ-related training. Although many participants in this cluster had heard of SOGI, their understanding was insufficient, with 41.1% responding, “I have heard of it, but I don’t know the details.” A significant proportion (84.4%) believed that there was at least one LGBTQ student per class, which was the highest among all clusters. However, their participation in training was limited, with 43.8% attending training only once. Additionally, 55.1% were unsure whether they had committed discriminatory behavior. When providing physical assistance, 29.4% asked students about their caregiver gender preferences, while 43.3% did not ask at all. Considering their basic awareness coupled with a lack of deep understanding and clear actions, this cluster was labeled “Young Individuals and Uncertain Awareness.”

Notably, this clustering was based on broad categorical variables, such as age ranges and training experience, which may have affected the stability and granularity of the results. Therefore, clusters should be interpreted with caution, particularly in terms of their generalizability to other contexts and populations.

3.4. Correspondence Between MCA and Cluster Analysis

Figure 1 illustrates the variables with statistically significant positive residuals for each cluster by overlaying them on the MCA plot. The results indicated a general alignment between the MCA dimensions and characteristics of each cluster. The “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness” cluster, which comprised participants with extensive training experience, was positioned on the positive side of the training experience dimension in MCA. In contrast, the “Young Individuals and Uncertain Awareness” and “Older Individuals and Low Awareness” clusters, which comprised participants with limited training experience, were distributed on the negative side relative to the “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness” cluster. Furthermore, the “Young Individuals and Uncertain Awareness” cluster, which had a significantly higher proportion of participants aged 20–39 years, was located on the positive side of the age dimension. Conversely, the “Older Individuals and Low Awareness” cluster, which predominantly comprised participants aged 40 years and above, was positioned on the negative side.

4. Discussion

This study examined the knowledge, awareness, and support practices of special needs school educators in Japan regarding LGBTQ students and identified key challenges and potential solutions.

4.1. Challenges in Knowledge, Awareness, and Support of LGBTQ Students with Disabilities

The descriptive statistics revealed a generally low level of awareness of SOGI, suggesting that fundamental LGBTQ-related knowledge was not widely disseminated among special needs educators. This finding aligned with that of Hidaka et al. (2019), who noted that LGBTQ-related knowledge was not sufficiently disseminated in Japanese school education. The same applies to special needs school educators.

Previous studies on the LGBTQ population in Japan, such as those by Kamano et al. (2019) and Dentsu Inc. (2023), indicated a high probability that at least one LGBTQ student would be present in a class of forty. However, many of the participants in this study were unaware of the presence of LGBTQ students in their classrooms. The scarcity of LGBTQ-related knowledge and information may have contributed to this lack of awareness.

Furthermore, most participants reported never having encountered LGBTQ students with gender identity or sexual orientation issues during their school years, highlighting the invisibility of LGBTQ students in special needs schools. This suggests that school climate poses challenges to students in coming out or seeking support. O’Shea et al. (2020) noted that LGBTQ individuals with disabilities often struggle to express their LGBTQ identities when seeking support and feel pressured to conform to heterosexual and cisgender norms. These findings indicate that many special needs school educators may not fully recognize the challenges faced by LGBTQ students. Despite the high likelihood of LGBTQ students attending special needs schools, the high non-recognition rate indicates that these students continue to face challenges with coming out and seeking support.

Regarding discriminatory behavior, most participants stated that they had never used discriminatory remarks or committed discriminatory actions toward LGBTQ students. However, this does not necessarily imply an absence of discrimination. Unconscious biases and microaggressions related to disabilities and LGBTQ identity exist in everyday interactions, often in subtle and unnoticed forms (Miller & Smith, 2020; Miller et al., 2019). These findings suggest that special needs school educators may not be fully aware of these biases and discrimination. Miller and Smith (2020) noted that microaggressions related to intersectionality, beyond isolated LGBTQ, disability-related biases, and other factors, are present in educational settings. Therefore, raising awareness among special needs educators about the intersectionality of LGBTQ identity and disability and how it relates to microaggression is essential.

Furthermore, intersectionality-based microaggressions can be difficult for students to articulate. Miller et al. (2019) found that many LGBTQ students with disabilities described their experiences of microaggressions through the lens of a single identity (e.g., LGBTQ or disability) rather than recognizing the intersecting identities. This suggests that students may lack the conceptual frameworks needed to identify and express the unique challenges that arise from these intersecting identities. Addressing this issue requires more than a single perspective; it calls for broader initiatives to integrate intersectional perspectives into school policies and practices.

Concerning training sessions on LGBTQ, approximately 26% of the participants reported having no training experience. This suggests that training opportunities may not be equally accessible to all educators. In addition, approximately half of the educators attended training only once or never, suggesting that opportunities for deepening and updating LGBTQ knowledge remain insufficient. Taylor et al. (2016) examined approximately 3400 public school educators in Canada and found that only 33% had attended professional development on LGBTQ education. This highlights a global trend of inadequate LGBTQ training for educators. This lack of training likely contributed to the insufficient awareness and understanding observed in the present study. Although the present study found that training is associated with greater awareness and support behaviors among educators, this relationship does not apply uniformly across all individuals and educational settings. Nevertheless, training should be considered a continuous and contextually responsive process rather than a one-time intervention. Kahn and Lindstrom (2015) emphasized the importance of focusing on students’ multifaceted identities rather than addressing LGBTQ or disability issues in isolation. Providing training programs that consider the intersectionality of multiple minority identities and ensuring inclusive support for LGBTQ students with disabilities are crucial.

Furthermore, regarding gender preferences in physical assistance, most participants stated that they never asked students or their guardians about their caregiver gender preferences. This suggests a lack of consideration for gender identity and preferences in physical support situations. These circumstances may make it difficult for LGBTQ students to express their gender and support needs. According to O’Shea et al. (2020), LGBTQ individuals with disabilities often struggle to communicate their gender-related needs while seeking support. Implicit biases favoring same-gender assistance may act as barriers preventing LGBTQ students from receiving appropriate support. These findings highlight various challenges in the knowledge and awareness of special needs school educators regarding LGBTQ students.

In addition to individual-level factors, such as limited knowledge, awareness, and unconscious bias, broader structural barriers may contribute to the continued invisibility of LGBTQ students with disabilities. In this study, only 55.5% of the participants stated that they believed a typical forty-student class includes at least one sexual or gender minority student, whereas 44.5% either disagreed or were unsure. This limited recognition may be shaped by school cultures that assume heterosexual and cisgender norms, which can marginalize students who do not conform to these expectations. Kahn and Lindstrom (2015) found that LGBTQ students with disabilities often had to navigate narrow definitions of normality shaped not only by their intersecting identities but also by school environments. These environments may influence how students perceive their identities and regulate their self-expression in everyday school life. If students feel pressure to conform to dominant norms, this can create barriers to visibility and support seeking. Moreover, current national policies in Japan do not sufficiently address the intersectional needs of LGBTQ students with disabilities or those in special needs schools. For instance, MEXT (2016) Guidelines on the Implementation of Detailed Measures to Support Students Regarding the Gender Identity Disorder, Sexual Orientation, and Gender Identity make no explicit reference to special needs schools. This absence suggests that institutional efforts to promote LGBTQ inclusion often overlook students at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities.

In this context, school cultures grounded in normative assumptions regarding gender, sexuality, and ability may create environments that limit LGBTQ students’ ability to express their identities or seek support. In addition, the absence of clear national policies on LGBTQ inclusion in special needs education may further contribute to this invisibility. These conditions highlight that both cultural and institutional factors may reinforce silence and marginalization. Addressing these issues requires not only efforts to increase individual awareness and training but also systemic reform in educational policy and school practices.

4.2. Tailored LGBTQ Training Needs Based on Educator Profiles

Focusing on the LGBTQ-related training experience dimension in Figure 1, the “≥5 sessions” variable was positioned at the most positive end of the training experience axis. Notably, the proximity of the “≥5 sessions” variable to both “SOGI—Understand” and “Seen—Yes” in the MCA space indicated that repeated participation in training was linked with a greater likelihood of understanding LGBTQ-related concepts and recognizing the difficulties that LGBTQ students may encounter in school settings. In addition, this finding suggested that educators who had attended multiple LGBTQ-related training sessions tended to have a deeper understanding of LGBTQ issues and adopt proactive approaches to support LGBTQ students. This finding aligned with that of Richard (2015), who highlighted that teachers who received LGBTQ training were more likely to incorporate discussions of sexual diversity in their lessons, actively intervene in homophobic behaviors, and serve as supportive figures for students coming out. These results emphasize the crucial role of LGBTQ training in fostering inclusive school environments.

In addition, these responses aligned with the statistically significant variables in the “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness” cluster, indicating that educators in this group actively engaged in LGBTQ student support. Their proactive approach suggested that they played a key role in enhancing LGBTQ support systems in special needs schools.

Conversely, the “0 sessions” variable was positioned at the most negative end of the training experience axis and was located in close proximity to “SOGI—Understand: No” and “Seen—No” in the MCA space. This indicated that educators with no LGBTQ-related training lacked fundamental LGBTQ knowledge and awareness and were less engaged in student support. Furthermore, responses regarding LGBTQ training experience were distributed sequentially along the training experience axis. This pattern underscores the importance of continuous learning rather than a single training session, emphasizing the need for ongoing professional development to update and expand knowledge. This finding aligned with that of Richard (2015), who suggested that long-term training had a greater impact on educators’ attitudes and knowledge than short-term or one-time training. Furthermore, Taylor et al. (2016) demonstrated the effectiveness of extensive LGBTQ training for educators.

Focusing on the age dimension in Figure 1, responses were positioned on the lower axis, where educators aged 50 years and above were also positioned. Notably, this area of the MCA space was adjacent to the “Class—No” response, suggesting that older educators tended to be less aware of the presence of LGBTQ students in their classes. However, not all older educators had low awareness. Responses from the “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness” cluster showed that they were actively engaged in supporting LGBTQ students, suggesting variation in awareness levels within older educators. Moreover, overlaying these findings with the cluster analysis results revealed that these responses aligned with statistically significant variables in the “Older Individuals and Low Awareness” cluster. This cluster showed a high proportion of educators with no LGBTQ training experience, with the majority aged 40 years and above. Additionally, this group had the highest proportion of participants who did not believe that classes of forty contained at least one LGBTQ student and who answered that they had never engaged in discriminatory behavior or actions. Gegenfurtner et al. (2023) noted that older educators tended to hold more negative attitudes toward LGBTQ individuals than younger educators. However, caution is needed in generalizing this tendency to all older educators, as the presence of a “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness” cluster—consisting mainly of participants aged 50–59—indicates that some older educators are actively engaged in supporting LGBTQ students. Nevertheless, this suggests that participants in the “Older Individuals and Low Awareness” cluster may have lacked awareness of their own discrimination, including microaggressions. These findings indicate that introducing basic LGBTQ training tailored to individuals in this cluster is essential. Training should be accessible and engaging by incorporating relevant themes that spark interest. This would serve as a crucial first step toward deepening educators’ understanding and improving support practices in schools.

In contrast, the “Young Individuals and Uncertain Awareness” cluster had a significantly higher proportion of educators with only one LGBTQ training experience. This suggested that they may not have had adequate learning opportunities, leading to fragmented or incomplete information. This cluster also had a high proportion of participants who were unsure whether they had discriminatory behavior and answered, “I have heard of SOGI, but I don’t know the details.” These findings indicated that, although this group had some awareness and interest in LGBTQ issues, their understanding remained incomplete. To address this, training for individuals in the “Young Individuals and Uncertain Awareness” cluster should not be limited to a single-issue perspective. As Kahn and Lindstrom (2015) emphasized, LGBTQ and disabilities should not be treated as isolated issues; instead, training should include intersectionality and diverse case studies to ensure that educators continuously develop their knowledge and support skills.

Notably, although age was a meaningful dimension in the analysis, awareness levels may also be shaped by other contextual factors. Therefore, age should be interpreted as one of several contributing factors rather than a definitive predictor of awareness.

Finally, MCA and cluster analysis results revealed that the three clusters were broadly separated within the MCA dimensions. “Older Individuals and Low Awareness” were concentrated in the lower left, “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness” clustered on the positive side of Dimension 1, and “Young Individuals and Uncertain Awareness” appeared in the upper left. This distribution indicated that each cluster’s attributes, LGBTQ knowledge, awareness, and attitudes were reflected in the MCA dimensional structure. Furthermore, these results validated the effectiveness of the cluster analysis using adjusted residuals and visually confirmed that LGBTQ training experience and age were significantly correlated with educators’ awareness and support behaviors.

These findings suggest that LGBTQ training programs for special needs school educators should adopt tailored approaches based on the characteristics of each cluster. This would ensure that the training meets the specific needs of each group and fosters inclusive educational environments.

5. Conclusions

This study revealed various challenges regarding the knowledge, awareness, and support practices of special needs educators for LGBTQ students. Fundamental LGBTQ-related terminology remains insufficiently understood, and many educators lack awareness of their microaggressions and discriminatory behaviors. Additionally, a significant proportion of educators are not aware of the possibility that LGBTQ students with disabilities may be present in their classes, and most educators in special needs schools have never encountered LGBTQ students with disabilities. These findings indicate that many educators may not be aware of LGBTQ students with disabilities in their schools. This lack of awareness could contribute to a school environment in which LGBTQ students with disabilities struggle to seek support or consult educators. Furthermore, some LGBTQ students with disabilities, who face complex needs due to the intersectionality of their LGBTQ identity and disability, may be unable to seek help, and thus remain unsupported.

Ensuring that educators receive opportunities for training and learning is essential to address these challenges. This study suggested that training experience significantly influences educators’ awareness of and support behaviors toward LGBTQ students. Participants who had participated in multiple training sessions demonstrated higher levels of understanding and proactive support, whereas those without training exhibited lower awareness and less interest in support initiatives. Therefore, rather than relying solely on one-time training, developing a structured, step-by-step training program tailored to different age groups and levels of prior experience is crucial. For instance, for the “Older Individuals and Low Awareness” cluster, foundational training focused on basic LGBTQ concepts and terms would be particularly effective. For the “Young Individuals and Uncertain Awareness” cluster, training should aim to integrate fragmented knowledge and develop consistent support practices, ideally through an intersectional approach that addresses the unique needs of LGBTQ students with disabilities. Educators in the “50–59 Years of Age and High Awareness” cluster, who already demonstrate proactive engagement, could further contribute by mentoring colleagues and modeling inclusive practices within their schools. Moreover, training programs should not only cover basic LGBTQ knowledge but also address the diverse needs of LGBTQ students with disabilities. Providing comprehensive support that not only separately considers LGBTQ identity and disability but also addresses their intersectionality is essential to ensure inclusive and effective support.

In this regard, the use of MCA in this study allowed for the identification of distinct educator profiles based on their knowledge, awareness, and support behaviors. The results offer valuable insights for designing more tailored and effective training programs.

Strengthening the knowledge and skills of educators in special needs education is important for improving support practices. These efforts could contribute to creating an inclusive and supportive environment, in which LGBTQ students with disabilities receive individualized support and feel safe expressing their identities with confidence.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, responses were collected from approximately 2000 educators working in special needs schools across Japan. Although the total number of educators nationwide is significantly larger, this study represents one of the first large-scale surveys in Japan to explore LGBTQ-related issues in the field of special needs education. As such, the significant number of responses reflects a substantial level of engagement and interest in this topic. However, the voluntary nature of the survey may have introduced a self-selection bias, as educators with prior LGBTQ training or a strong interest in LGBTQ issues were more likely to participate.

Second, the cross-sectional design of this study did not allow the identification of causal relationships or temporal changes. Future research should use official surveys conducted in collaboration with government agencies and educational institutions to gain a comprehensive understanding of educators’ experiences and attitudes. Large-scale systematic data collection efforts that encourage broad participation are essential for advancing inclusive practices in special needs education.

Third, as this study targeted educators, the perspectives of LGBTQ students with disabilities were not captured. This methodology may have overlooked important aspects of their lived experiences. Future research should incorporate the voices of LGBTQ students with disabilities to gain a comprehensive understanding of their needs and experiences.

Finally, although this study suggests the importance of differentiated and cluster-based LGBTQ training approaches, empirical evaluations of such structured implementations have not been conducted to date. Therefore, this remains a conceptual suggestion. Future research should examine the implementation and effectiveness of differentiated training designed to match various educator profiles and awareness levels.