TABLE 3

The Moderating Role of School GSAs on Rates of Homophobic Bullying in California Schools Before and After the Vote on Proposition 8

Fixed EffectsbSE95% CI
Prevote
 Reference: schools without GSAs
  Linear trend1.26***0.150.97 to 1.54
  Quadratic trend0.09***0.020.05 to 0.12
 GSA effect
  GSA−2.50***0.38−3.24 to −1.76
  Linear trend*GSA−0.58**0.21−1.00 to −0.16
  Quadratic trend*GSA−0.06*0.03−0.11 to −0.004
Prevote-versus-postvote change
 Reference: schools without GSAs
  Postvote−0.71*0.33−1.35 to −0.07
  Linear trend*postvote−1.59***0.21−2.01 to −1.18
  Quadratic trend*postvote−0.10**0.03−0.15 to −0.04
 GSA effect
  Postvote*GSA0.100.45−0.79 to 0.98
  Linear trend*postvote*GSA1.00***0.310.38 to 1.62
  Quadratic trend*postvote*GSA0.030.05−0.07 to 0.13
Probed postvote trends
 Schools without GSAs
  Linear trend−0.33*0.15−0.63 to −0.03
  Quadratic trend−0.010.02−0.06 to 0.04
 Schools with GSAs
  Linear trend0.090.17−0.26 to 0.43
  Quadratic trend−0.040.04−0.11 to 0.03
Random effect
 School mean10.89a1.708.01 to 14.79
 Residual38.57a1.9534.94 to 42.58
  • Variance explained for the model is 0.058. Rates of homophobic bullying were estimated on the basis of the aggregated school-level data (n = 5121). Time was centered on the 2008–2009 academic year (postvote = 0 [2001–2002 through 2007–2008] versus 1 [2008–2009 through 2014–2015]). GSA = 0 [for schools with no GSAs] versus 1 [for schools with GSAs]. Coefficients that involve GSAs indicate the differences in schools with GSAs versus schools without GSAs in intercept, linear slope, and quadratic slope. Coefficients that involve the postvote indicate the prevote-versus-postvote changes in intercept, linear slope, and quadratic slope. Postvote linear and quadratic trends were probed via post hoc analyses of significant interactions. CI, confidence interval.

  • a Value refers to variance.

  • * P < .05.

  • ** P < .01.

  • *** P < .001.