IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v87y2021ics0149718921000379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A PEP grant’s influence on change in a school district: One year post funding

Author

Listed:
  • Egan, Cate A.
  • Abel-Berei, Catherine P.
  • Goc Karp, Grace

Abstract

This study examined teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions of the institutionalization phase of the Carol M. White Physical Education for Progress (PEP) grant. A qualitative exploratory single case study (Yin, 2014) was utilized to examine the elements of the PEP grant that sustained or did not sustain after its conclusion, along with elements that were institutionalized and influences on this process. The findings were represented in the following three themes: (a) positive shifts, (b) backsliding, and (c) new directions, each with their own subthemes. Positive shifts includes sub-themes: (a) philosophy, (b) instruction, assessment and curriculum, (c) collaboration, and (d) respect. Backsliding includes sub-themes: (a) wellness team functioning, (b) the loss of PD and collaboration time, and (c) reduced data collection. New directions includes sub-themes: (a) mastery learning, (b) during school physical activity, (c) stress, and (d) administrative support. The factors that were institutionalized were quality physical education leadership roles, change in teachers’ philosophies that influenced their instruction and assessment, and garnered administrative support. These elements were embedded into the physical education program and the school so much so that principals now expect the same type of programming from any new hire.

Suggested Citation

  • Egan, Cate A. & Abel-Berei, Catherine P. & Goc Karp, Grace, 2021. "A PEP grant’s influence on change in a school district: One year post funding," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:87:y:2021:i:c:s0149718921000379
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101942
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718921000379
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2021.101942?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:87:y:2021:i:c:s0149718921000379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.