pennsylvania department of education
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

4
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

2
(FIVE YEARS 0)

Author(s):  
Candy Gunther Brown

Chapter 10 analyzes decisions by the Pennsylvania Department of Education Charter School Appeal Board (CAB) first to grant and then to rescind an elementary school charter in Education for New Generations Charter School v. North Penn School District (2016). CAB determined that school ties to Pranic Healing and Arhatic Yoga (PHAY) and plans to teach Superbrain yoga (SBY) constitute sectarian religious instruction. Master Choa Kok Sui (1952-2007) avowedly developed PHAY in the Philippines to manipulate subtle energies; SBY makes the brain “super” by increasing intuitive intelligence through activating heart and crown chakras to open the gateway to God. One of the proposed school’s co-founders argued in an unrelated case that PHAY is a religion for free exercise purposes. CAB almost granted the charter, illustrating that less familiar religions can be difficult to recognize when framed as scientific techniques with educational benefits. Comparing Sedlock with Education for New Generations, this chapter argues that resource disparities between those issuing and defending against religious charges exert a surprising degree of influence on legal determinations; the California school district had financial motives for teaching yoga, whereas the Pennsylvania district had financial reasons to block a charter school that happened to be based on yoga.


Author(s):  
George W. Semich ◽  
Beatrice Gibbons

In his recent text (2011), Educational Leadership and Planning for Technology, Picciano noted that “an important ingredient for implementing change, improvement, and innovation in education is a knowledgeable and vibrant staff “(p. 215). However, there is a body of research (Goodson,1991; Becker, 1994; U.S. Congress, 1995; Northrup & Little, 1996; Trotter, 1999;Cuban, 2001; Park & Staresina, 2004; Christensen, Horn, and Johnson, 2009;Hargreaves, Earl, & Schmidt, 2002), that clearly indicates that teachers are not making the best use of technology in classroom. To meet this challenge,the authors secured a professional development grant from the Pennsylvania Department of Education which provided an opportunity for them to hire a highly skilled workshop facilitator who conducted a full day workshop that covered smart board technologies, web quests, and synchroneyes software to a group of teachers from our local PDS school. In an earlier chapter, the authors shared information about the workshop. The primary focus of this chapter is to revisit our findings from the faculty training workshop and present additional information from the faculty perspective and the current relate literature.


2001 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 353-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl I. Fertman ◽  
Cele Fichter ◽  
Jo Schlesinger ◽  
Susan Tarasevich ◽  
Holly Wald ◽  
...  

This article presents data from an evaluation of the Pennsylvania Student Assistance Program (SAP). Focusing on both program process and effectiveness, the evaluation was conducted to determine the overall efficacy of SAPs in Pennsylvania and, more specifically, how SAP is currently being implemented. Five data collection strategies were employed: statewide surveys of SAP team members and county administrators, focus groups, site visits, and the Pennsylvania Department of Education SAP Database. A total of 1204 individual team members from 154 school buildings completed the team member survey. Fifty-three county administrators completed the county administrator survey. Focus groups were comprised of SAP coordinators, school board personnel and community agency staff. Site visits were conducted at five schools. The findings of the evaluation indicate that SAP in Pennsylvania is being implemented as designed. Recommended is the development of benchmarks and indicators that focus on the best SAP practices and the extent to which various indicators of the effectiveness of SAP are occurring at appropriate levels.


1981 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 266-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet F. Stotland ◽  
Ellen Mancuso

On June 21, 1979, Judge Clarence C. Newcomer, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, issued his decision and Order in the case of Armstrong v. Kline. Judge Newcomer held that the undisputed policy and practice of the Pennsylvania Department of Education of refusing to provide or fund the provision of a program of special education and related services in excess of 180 days per year to any handicapped student was in violation of Public Law 94-142. Also held to be in violation of the law was the Department's companion policy of instructing all hearing officers who preside at special education due process hearings that they were without the power to order or approve any educational programs exceeding 180 days per year. On July 15, 1980, the Appellate Court upheld the District Court in three separate opinions. This article describes the decision of the District Court, explains how the reasoning of the Appellate Court differs, and points out some of the implications of the Appellate Court's holding.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document