state speech claims, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has identified several factors to guide an analysis of whether differences exist between federal and state constitutional provisions. Pap’s A.M. v. City of Erie, 571 Pa. 375, 812 A.2.d 591, 603 (2002) (citing Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 526 Pa. 374, 586 A.2d 887, 895 (1991)). Plaintiff has not addressed any of these factors, and our own consideration of them does not indicate the Pennsylvania Constitution differs from the federal constitution in the area of school speech. To the contrary, Pennsylvania state courts have followed federal constitutional principles when considering the speech of teachers in Pennsylvania classrooms, see Fink v. Bd. of Educ. of Warren County Sch. Dist., 65 Pa.Cmwlth. 320, 442 A.2d 837, 839-40, 841-42 (1982) (<HOLDING>), and as a matter of state policy — relevant to
holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding the school did not violate the teachers constitutional rights by prohibiting the teacher from reading the bible in class holding that the district was not liable under respondeat superior for a teachers sexual assault of a student even though it occurred on school grounds and during school hours because the criminal misconduct was not within the scope of the teachers employment holding that a collective bargaining agreement between school board and teachers union established a teachers legitimate claim of entitlement to their positions at elementary school holding that school officials may not limit the first amendment rights of students and teachers to freedom of speech and expression