DOCSLIB.ORG

Hearing Officer Report – Olney Charter High School

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hearing Officer Report – Olney Charter High School BOARD OF EDUCATION THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA In the Matter of: Charter Nonrenewal Proceeding Regarding Olney Charter High School HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT The Hearing Officer submits this report regarding the hearing conducted in this matter, together with the attached findings of fact, conclusions of law, proposed adjudication and certification of the record. Rudolph Garcia, Esquire HEARING OFFICER 235 Lloyd Lane Wynnewood, PA 19096 www.RudolphGarcia.com Direct: 610-986-1061 [email protected] Date: September 19, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS HEARING OFFICER’S REPORT I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE .....................................................................................................1 II. GROUNDS FOR NONRENEWAL OF OLNEY’S CHARTER .............................................5 A. Material Violations of Charter Standards and Conditions ................................................7 1. Olney failed to meet charter conditions for Renaissance Schools. ............................8 2. Olney has not achieved the performance expected of Renaissance Schools. ....................................................................................................................10 3. Olney failed to meet charter requirements for Statements of Financial Interest. .....................................................................................................13 4. Olney failed to meet charter requirements for Highly Qualified Teachers. ..................................................................................................................15 5. Olney failed to meet charter requirements for certification of special education staff. .........................................................................................................15 6. Olney violated its own Bylaws. ................................................................................16 B. Failure to Meet Student Performance Requirements .......................................................17 1. Olney’s Keystone Exam results have not met the Chapter 4 and New Hope standards. ........................................................................................................18 2. Olney’s SPP and Future Ready Index data falls below the standards set by the State’s accountability systems. ................................................................21 C. Failure to Meet Generally Accepted Standards of Fiscal Management and Audit Requirements ..................................................................................................23 1. Olney has had poor fiscal management. ...................................................................24 2. Olney has failed to complete timely financial audits. ..............................................28 3. Olney’s Board provided insufficient oversight of ASPIRA’s fiscal management. ............................................................................................................30 4. Olney guaranteed financing for ASPIRA and other ASPIRA- managed schools. .....................................................................................................31 5. Olney shifted funds to ASPIRA and other ASPIRA-managed schools. .....................................................................................................................33 6. Olney paid exorbitant rent to ACE/Dougherty. .......................................................34 D. Violation of Applicable Laws .........................................................................................36 1. Olney used charter school funds for non-charter school purposes. ..........................36 2. Olney’s Board took actions that raised conflicts of interest, failed to address those conflicts through an open and public process, and - i - breached their fiduciary duties. ................................................................................38 3. Olney violated the Sunshine Act. .............................................................................42 4. Olney violated Highly Qualified Teacher requirements. .........................................45 5. Olney violated certification requirements. ...............................................................45 6. Olney violated requirements regarding student enrollment materials. .....................46 7. Olney violated student discipline requirements. ......................................................47 8. Olney violated requirements for English language learners. ...................................49 III. OTHER ASSERTED DEFENSES .........................................................................................50 A. Student Demographics .....................................................................................................50 B. Special Admission Schools. ............................................................................................56 C. Alleged Racial Inequities ................................................................................................57 D. School Advisory Council ................................................................................................59 E. Comparison to Hostos and Pantoja. .................................................................................61 F. Comparison to Mastery Charter Schools .........................................................................61 G. Comparison to Richard Allen Charter School. ................................................................63 H. Hearing Process Issues ....................................................................................................64 1. The Charter’s Notice Provision ................................................................................64 2. Evidence Regarding the CSO’s Analysis .................................................................65 3. Previously Unavailable Evidence .............................................................................65 4. Hearsay .....................................................................................................................67 5. Expert Sources and Reports .....................................................................................68 a. Inadmissible evidence does not become admissible merely because an expert relies upon it. .......................................................................68 b. An expert report is inadmissible hearsay. .........................................................70 6. Post Hearing Attacks on the Validity of this Proceeding .........................................71 a. Transition from SRC to BOE ............................................................................71 b. Request for Recusal ..........................................................................................72 c. Previous Non-Renewal Hearings ......................................................................73 d. Unjustified Continuance Requests ....................................................................74 e. Proposed Intervention by ASPIRA ...................................................................76 f. Last Minute Requests for Documents ...............................................................77 g. Timely Completion of the Hearings ..................................................................78 h. Reaction to a Comparison of Renewal Outcomes .............................................79 - ii - i. Timing of Objections to Exhibits ......................................................................80 j. Exhibits Regarding Other Charter Schools .......................................................80 k. Conclusion ........................................................................................................82 7. Motions to Reopen the Hearing ...............................................................................84 a. Initial Motions ...................................................................................................84 b. Motions for Reconsideration .............................................................................86 IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS ..........................................................................................................89 V. RECOMMENDATION ..........................................................................................................91 ATTACHMENTS TO REPORT A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ........................................................................... A-1 Findings of Fact ............................................................................................................ A-1 General Background .............................................................................................. A-1 Procedural Posture ................................................................................................. A-2 Material Violations of Charter Standards and Conditions .................................. A-15 Background Regarding Renaissance Charter Schools ................................. A-15 Olney’s Charter ............................................................................................ A-26 CSO Review of Charter Schools’ Operations .............................................. A-31 Statements of Financial Interest ................................................................... A-34 Highly Qualified Teachers ........................................................................... A-34 Certification Requirements .........................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Annual Report 2014
    CLIMB ON annual report 2014 A WORD FROM OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR POBS RESULTS IN 2014 FINANCIALS Dear Friends: UNAUDITED FOR 2014 $63,000 RESTRICTED OPERATIONAL 2014 was an adventurous year at the Philadelphia Outward SINGLE- AND MULTI-DAY COURSE OFFERINGS POBS REVENUE OVERVIEW 2014: FUNDS Bound School. $1,485,000 2012 2013 2014 You may have met one of the 4,100 students who participated 120 in one of our experiential education programs this past 110 year. You may have spoken with one of our instructors who collectively delivered 9,191 student program days in 2014. 95 100 Or, you may have seen us in the news during our annual Building Adventure event in mid-October where over 120 78 80 people rappelled 31 stories (418 feet) from the top of One Logan Square in Center City. The Philadelphia Outward Bound School is the “school” that inspires leadership and 5755 60 service to communities through single and multi-day 51 outdoor experiences that change lives through challenge and discovery. 40 2014 In truth, the Philadelphia Outward Bound School is not a 21 20 REVENUE traditional educational institution. We educate by “doing,” 11 12 10 $805,000 $617,000 and our students find us through our many partnerships 5 6 TOTAL FUNDS PROGRAM TUITION & with schools and youth-serving organizations across the 0 RAISED CO-PAYS greater Philadelphia metropolitan region. Together, with these educational partners, we inspire more than 4,000 SHORT LONG CORPORATE ONE-DAY EXPEDITION EXPEDITION TEAMBUILDING INSIGHT youth to be more than they thought they could be - and to (</= 7 DAYS) (8+ DAYS) PROGRAMS PROGRAMS graduate from high school, to finish college and to return home to make their world a better place.
    [Show full text]
  • The Calendar of the School District of Philadelphia September 2009 to July 2010 2009-2010 SRC CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE
    Merlin Thomas, Greenberg School, 2009 The Calendar of The School District of Philadelphia September 2009 to July 2010 2009-2010 SRC CHAIRMAN’S MESSAGE To the Entire School District Community: I ask for your partnership moving forward because we all have a role to play. Teachers must strive for excellence in the classroom. Administrators must Welcome back to school for the 2009-2010 academic year. I am truly support teachers and create excellent schools. Parents and guardians must excited to be a part of The School District of Philadelphia during what is ensure that their children are at school on time every day and prepared to going to be an exhilarating year full of change and opportunity for our learn. Above all, students must embrace learning, participate in class, com- students, parents/guardians, teachers and administrators. plete homework assignments, and study hard. One of the School Reform Commission’s first actions at the time I was There is much work to be done this year and many decisions to be made named Chairman was to approve a strategic plan for the School District, about how the vision in our strategic plan will be realized. However, I Imagine 2014. I was impressed with how a community as large and diverse have been inspired by what the School District community has achieved as the School District community could work together over many months thus far and am confident that together much will be accomplished this to articulate a common vision for what high-quality education means and school year. then develop a specific plan for achieving it.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission Instructions Submission Instructions
    SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS Applicants must respond to each question/item in each section of the application. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Electronic Application Process Applicants are required to complete and submit the application, including all required attachments to: [email protected] The application and all required attachments must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on May 21, 2010 to be considered for the first list to be posted on the website. Applications will be received after May 21 on an ongoing basis and will be reviewed in the order in which they are received. There will be NO exceptions made to the May 17 application deadline to be considered for the first posted list. Applicants must respond to each question/item in each section of the application. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you complete the application as early as possible so that we may help you correct any problems associated with technical difficulties. Technical support will be available Monday – Friday, throughout the application period, from 9:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. All information included in the application package must be accurate. All information that is submitted is subject to verification. All applications are subject to public inspection and/or photocopying. Contact Information All questions related to the preferred provider application process should be directed to: Mark Coscarella Interim Supervisor Office of Education Improvement & Innovation OR Anne Hansen or Bill Witt Consultants Office of Education Improvement & Innovation Telephone: (517) 373-8480 or (517) 335-4733 Email: [email protected] Michigan Department of Education 2010-11 Section 1003(g) School Improvement Grants Preferred External Educational Services Provider Application 1 EXTERNAL PROVIDERS: BACKGROUND & APPROVAL PROCESS Under the Final Requirements for School Improvements Grants, as defined under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, Title I, Part A.
    [Show full text]
  • 1974. the Plan for School Facilities Is Preceded by a Summary Of
    -DO C 1.")62112 RESt Pt2 ED 032 724 EF 003 471 Capita! Prosrz.m. School District of Phladelphia: July 1._1968 to June 30. 1974.. "Philadelphia Board of Education. PS. Pub Date 27 May 68 Note -112p. - EDRS Price MF -50501-IC -$5.70 Descriptors *Budgets. *Capta! Outlay (for Fixed Assets). Construction Costs. Construction Programs. Educational Planning. Facility Reciu:rerr.2nts. *Financial Support. Master Mans, School Construction. *School Expansion This report presents the School District of Philadelphia's long-range plan for school facilities and. based upon it. a capitalprogram for the years 1969 through 1974. The plan for school facilities is preceded bya summary of present facility conditions and a consideration of indicated needs for expansion. General fiscal policies. a total ,program summary. targets for accomplishment. proi_ect descriptions. and the 1969 capital budget are presented in the capitalprogram. Photographs and graphic illustrations are included. (FS) CAPITAL PROGRAM SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA JULY 1, 1968 TO JUNE 30, 1974 PREPARED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT AND STAFF OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF EDUCATION ON MAY 27, 1968 RICHARDSON DILWORTH, ESQ., President REV. HENRY H. NICHOLS, Vice President GERALD A. GLEESCN, JR. ESQ. MR. WILLIAM GOLDMAN MRS. ALBERT M. GREENFIELD MR. GEORGE HUTT JONATHAN E. RHOADS, M.D. MR. WILLIAM ROSS ROBERT M. SEBASTIAN, ESQ. DR. MARK R. SHEDD, Superintendent U.S. DEPARTMENT Of HEALTH. EDUCATION& WELFARE tL Off la Of EDUCATION Va) THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED ;ROM l'HE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING ITPOINTS Of VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE Of EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter from the Superintendent I.Introduction and Summary 1 A.The Goals of the Philadelphia Schools 1 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix EE.09 – Cultural Resources
    Appendix EE.09 – Cultural Resources Tier 1 Final EIS Volume 1 NEC FUTURE Appendix EE.09 - Cultural Resources: Data Geography Affected Environment Environmental Consequences Context Area NHL NRHP NRE NHL NRHP NRE NHL NRHP NRE NHL NRHP NRE NHL NRHP NRE NHL NRHP NRE State County Existing NEC including Existing NEC including Existing NEC including Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Preferred Alternative Hartford/Springfield Line Hartford/Springfield Line Hartford/Springfield Line DC District of Columbia 10 21 0 10 21 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 49 249 0 54 248 0 MD Prince George's County 0 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 23 0 1 23 0 MD Anne Arundel County 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 MD Howard County 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 MD Baltimore County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 10 0 MD Baltimore City 3 44 0 3 46 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 25 212 0 26 213 0 MD Harford County 0 5 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 12 0 1 15 0 MD Cecil County 0 6 2 0 8 2 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 11 2 0 11 2 DE New Castle County 3 64 2 3 67 2 0 2 1 0 5 2 3 187 1 4 186 2 PA Delaware County 0 4 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 1 18 0 PA Philadelphia County 9 85 1 10 87 1 0 2 1 3 4 1 57 368 1 57 370 1 PA Bucks County 3 8 1 3 8 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 15 1 3 15 1 NJ Burlington County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 17 0 1 17 0 NJ Mercer County 1 9 1 1 10 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 5 40 1 6 40 1 NJ Middlesex County 1 20 2 1 20 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 42 2 1 42 2 NJ Somerset County 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 NJ Union County 1 9 1 1 10 1 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 17 1 2 17 1 NJ Essex County 1 24 1 1 26 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 65 1 1 65 1 NJ Hudson County
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 City of Philadelphia Summer Camps, Programs and Activities
    200420042004 CityCityCity ofofof PhiladelphiaPhiladelphiaPhiladelphia SummerSummerSummer Camps,Camps,Camps, ProgramsProgramsPrograms andandand ActivitiesActivitiesActivities Letter to Come City of Philadelphia 2004 Summer Camps, Programs and Activities Overnight Camps 2 Day Camps Department of Recreation City of Philadelphia Community Day Camps 4 Freedom Schools School District of Philadelphia Summer Camps 16 Philadelphia Dept of Recreation G.R.E.A.T. (Gang Resistance Education & Training) 18 Center City 20 North Philadelphia 26 Kensington/Frankford/Lower Northeast 40 West Philadelphia/Overbrook/Wynnefield 44 Oak Lane/Olney/Logan/Nicetown/East Falls 54 Germantown/Mt. Airy/Chestnut Hill 63 Upper Northeast 70 South Philadelphia 78 Roxborough/Manayunk 86 Southwest Philadelphia 88 Philadelphia Suburbs 92 1 Overnight Camps Day Camps Camp Woodrock Camp Ladore 1229 Chestnut Street Suite M7 19125 701 N. Broad Street 19123 Woodrock, Inc.s Salvation Army Overnight camp offers six 1 week encampments, with a mission Two 1 week reduced-fee residential summer encampments in the to build cultural competencies. Activities include ropes, ceramic Pocono Mountains for children whose parents could not otherwise arts, hiking, sports, drama, and music (focusing on Africa, the afford to send them to camp. Swimming, arts & crafts, canoeing, Caribbean and Latin America). Transportation is provided to this ropes, hiking, campfire activities, and more. Transportation Pottstown, PA camp from Kensington and North Philadelphia provided. Fees vary according to family income. neighborhoods. Fee is $60 per session. Phone: 215-787-2818 Phone: 215-231-9810 Web Site: www.salvationarmyphiladelphia.org Web Site: www.woodrock.org Eligibility: Ages 6-12 Eligibility: Ages 8-12 Hours: July 8 - 14, 2004, August 4 - 9, 2004 Hours: July 5 - 28, 2004 Contact: Karl Dreher Camp Hidden Falls Camp Nazarene PO Box 27540 19118 3975 Germantown Avenue 19140 Girl Scouts of Southeastern Pennsylvania Nazarene Baptist Church Residential camp in the Pocono Mountains.
    [Show full text]
  • Chart of Accounts Manual
    SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA Chart Of Accounts Manual Business Rules and Definitions Office of Comptroller May 24, 2011 Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Policies and Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 1 3. ABC (Chart of Account) Code Structure ................................................................................................ 1 3.1 Expenditures ................................................................................................................................. 2 3.2 Revenues ....................................................................................................................................... 3 4. Chart of Account Element Definitions and General Usage ................................................................... 3 4.1 Fund .............................................................................................................................................. 3 4.1.1 Fund Categories .................................................................................................................... 4 4.1.2 Majord Fun Groups and Types – GASB 34 Definitions .......................................................... 5 4.1.3 SDP Fund Groupings .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The School District of Philadelphia Charter Schools (2009/2010)
    The School District of Philadelphia Charter Schools (2009/2010) Math, Science and Tech (K-12) 16 " Phila. Academy (HS) (9-12) " " Phila. Academy (ES) (K-8) 15 54 Media Tech (1/2) (5-12) " Tacony Academy (K-4) 14 18 50 " 11 52 " Hope (9-12) 3" 8" 26 Green Woods (K-8) West Oak Lane (K-8) " 19 " Imhotep (9-12) Global Leadership (2/2) (1-8) 28 Khepera (K-8) " 36 44 20 " 41 49 New Foundations (K-8) Mastery (Picke"tt) (7-10) Del. Valley (9-12) Germantown (North) (5"-6) " " Imani (K-8) 27 24 35 " Esperanza (9-12) " Planet Abacus (K-5) " DeHostos (K-4) Northwood (1/2) (K-8) " 40 " Franklin Towne HS (9-12) Eastern University (7-9) " " Maritime (5-12) " Wissahickon (K-8) Sankofa (K-4, 9) " Pantoja (K-8) N"orthwood (2"/2) (K-7) Multi-Cultural (9-12) " Franklin Towne ES (K-5) 29 " Truebright (7-11)Comm. Academy (K-12) " First Philadelphia (K-7) " Ad Prima (K-7) 32 " 33 34 KIPP (5-8)Bracetti (6-12) 31 " 37 " "Laboratory (2/3) (2-7) " Laboratory (3/3) (K-1) 22 Pan American (K-5) " " All"iance (1/2) (K-5) Mastery (Shoemaker) (7-11)Discovery (K-8) " " 21 Alliance (2/2) (K-1) " 25 " Global Le"adership (1/2) (K-8) Youth Build (UG) 51 Harambee (K-8) "Belmont Academy (K-4) Belmont (K-8) " 30 23 39 West Phila. Achievement (K-5) Boys Latin (9-11) " 04 03 07 06 KIPP (West) (5) " 02 " 43 46 Renaissance Adv.
    [Show full text]
  • Germantown High School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 5301 Germantown Avenue Investment Partners; 5901 Germantown Ave In
    ADDRESS: 5901-13 AND 5915-41 GERMANTOWN AVE & 61-71 AND 73 E HAINES ST Name of Resource: Germantown High School Proposed Action: Designation Property Owner: 5301 Germantown Avenue Investment Partners; 5901 Germantown Ave In. Nominator: Germantown United CDC, The Keeping Society of Philadelphia Staff Contact: Meredith Keller, [email protected], 215-686-7660 OVERVIEW: This nomination proposes to designate the properties at 5901-13 and 5915-41 Germantown Avenue and 61-71 and 73 E. Haines Street, four individual parcels that comprise the former Germantown High School, and list them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. The nomination contends that the buildings satisfy Criteria for Designation A, C, D, G, H, I, and J. Under Criterion A, the nomination argues that Germantown High School represents a pivotal moment in the history of public education in Philadelphia in response to Pennsylvania’s 1914 passing of the Cox Child Labor Law, which restricted work hours for children and allowed them to enroll in secondary schools. Under Criteria C and D, the nomination contends that the original building is a monumental example of Georgian Revival public school architecture and is reflective of the style of other Philadelphia school buildings constructed in the same period. Under Criterion G, the nomination argues that the open space separating the school buildings from Germantown Avenue was intentionally developed into a park-like setting to serve the high school. Under Criterion H, the nomination argues that the open space embodies “an important visual continuum along Germantown Avenue, a singular place that has offered the public a window to architectural and landscape beauty and grandeur since the 1850s.” Under Criterion I, the nomination contends that portions of the property that comprise the open space along Germantown Avenue potentially contain archaeological resources related to seventeenth-, eighteenth-, and early nineteenth-century structures.
    [Show full text]
  • School Facilities Survey
    DCCUMENT RESUME ED 036 072 EE 002 618 AUTHOR SAUNDERS, HARRY E. TITLE SCHOOL FACILITIES SUEVEY., INSTITUTION PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, PA. PUB DATE MAR 65 NOTE 240P.; A REPORT PRESENTED TO THESUPERINTENDENT CF SCHOOLS AND THE BOARD OF PUBLIC EDUCATIONOF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, PENN. AVAILABLE FROM PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION, PARKWAYAT 21ST, PHILADELPHIA, PENN. 19103 EDRS PRICE EDRS PRICE MF-$1.00 EC NOT AVAILABLEFROM EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *EDUCAIICNAI ADMINISTRATION, EDUCATIONALFINANCE, EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES, EDUCATIONALPOLICY, ENROLLMENT TRENDS, *FACILITY CASE STUDIES,*FACIIITY EXPANSION, *FACILITY REQUIREMENTS,SCHOOL EXPANSION, *SCHOOL PLANNING ABSTRACT THIS SURVEY OF FACILITY NEEDSINCLUDES AN EVALUATION OF STAFF ORGANIZATION AND OPERATINGPROCEDURES FOR THE PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC SCHCO.L DISTRICT. THE EDUCATIONALPOLICIES ADOPTED BY THE PHILADELPHIA BOARD OF EDUCATION RELATINGTO SCHOOL FACILITIES ARE DISCUSSED, AND EXISTING SITES ANDBUILDINGS, POPULATION ENROLLMENT DATA, AND FINANCIAL DATA ARE REVIEWED.BASED UPON THIS INFORMATION, STATEMENTS CCNCERNING NEW SCHOOL ANDEXISTING SCHOOL CAPITAL NEEDS ARE PRESENTED; SPECIAL ATTENTION ISGIVEN TO PRE-SCHOOL, KINDERGARTEN, AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES.THE ORGANIZATION, OBJECTIVES, AND FUNCTIONS OF THE SCHOOLFACILITIES DIVISION ARE DISCUSSED, AND RECOMMENDATIONS CCNCERNINGPOLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE PRESENTED. A TEN-YEAR CAPITALIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS PRESENTED IN THE FINAL CHAPTER, WHICH IS SEPARATELYBOUND AND IS NOT PART OF THIS DOCUMENT. (FS) SCHOOLFACILITIES SURVEY A report presentedto the Superintendent of Schools and the Board ofPublic Education of the Cityof Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEENREPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THEPERSON OR ORGAN!ZATION ORIGINATING ITPOINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DONOT NECES- SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICEOF EDU- CATION POSITION OR POLICY, by HARRY B.
    [Show full text]
  • Dickinson Alumnus, September 1942
    DICKINSON ALUMNUS / Vol. 20, No. 1 I / Soptemb.,, 1942 I I The N_ew The History of JAMES WILSON Dickinson College HOTEL BY CARLISLE, PA. James Henry Morgan, Ph. D., D. D., LLD . • "The book every Dickinsonian should Headquarters for have in his library and read." DI c KIN s 0 NIAN s • $3.50 Postpaid Send orders with remittance made payable to Dickinson College, Carlisle, -B. S. SwARTZ, Owner Pa. Whenever You VISIT IN. CARLISLE ... You CAN SPEND THE NrGHT AT THE NEw GEORGIAN HALL ONE MILE WEST OF CAMP HILL ON THE CARLISLE , HARRISBURG PIKE Rooms $r.25 and $I.50 Per Person GEORGE W. BARNITZ, '14, OWNER When You Come Back to Carlisle Don't Forget to Visit Your Old Friends KRONENBERG'S "The College Store" In the New Fireproof Kronenberg Building PROFESSION AL CARDS R. R. McWHINNEY C. W. SIIARP, '14 LAW Attorney-at-Law Attorney-at-Law 1303 Berger Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. Baltimore, l\l<l. LESTER S. IIECIIT, '15 !<'HYSINGER EVANS Attorney-at-Law Attorney and Counsellor-at-Law 322 Ln nd Title lluilding, 1616 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pa. PhilnJelphia, Pa. ROSCOE B. S~HTII MALCOLl\1 B. STERRETT, Attorney-at-Law '00, '02L 705 Coal Exchange Building Attorney-at-Law 140 North Orange Avenue Wilkes-B::irre, Pa. Orlando, l!'lorida CLAYTON IIOFF1\1AN Attorney-at-Law "Songs of Geo. D. Darter Bank Ill<lg. Canton, Ohio Dickinson'' GEORGE 1\1. STEVENS, '22L • Counsellor-at-Law 1937 Edition :\l11rket et Fifth Street. • Camdeu. N. J. A new volume in two parts edited by Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Transition to High School: School "Choice"
    Transition to High School School “Choice” & Freshman Year in Philadelphia RESEARCH FOR ACTION FEBRUARY 2010 RESEARCH FOR ACTION Research for Action (RFA) is a Philadelphia-based, nonprofit organization engaged in policy and evaluation research on urban education. Founded in 1992, RFA seeks to improve the education opportunities and outcomes of urban youth by strengthening public schools and enriching the civic and community dialogue about public education. For more information about RFA, please go to our website, www.researchforaction.org. Learning from Philadelphia’s School Reform This report is one of a series on Philadelphia high schools. For education researchers and advo- cates, supporting and improving our public high schools is one of the most critical goals, as well as one of the most daunting challenges. RFA is committed to conducting research that can help identify the strategies that can make the biggest difference for high schools. Through mixed method, multi-year studies we examine: initiatives to improve persistently low-performing high schools, efforts to increase teacher effectiveness, supports for struggling learners, and access and readiness for college and career. RFA’s work on high schools is supported by grants from the William Penn Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Ford Foundation. This report is available for free on the RFA website—www.researchforaction.org—or in hard copy, $5 per copy shipping and handling. The policy briefs based on this report are available for free on the website. Other recent RFA publications focused solely or in part on high schools include: Christman, J. B., Brown, D., Burgess, S., Kay, J., Maluk, H.
    [Show full text]