ethanporcaro/eric-fulltext-meta huggingface dataset:
Higher Education in South Carolina: A Briefing on the State's Higher Education System
Author: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Date: 2010-03-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Research Universities,Technical Institutes,Private Colleges,Law Schools,Institutions,State Government,State Agencies,Tuition Grants,Multicampus Colleges,Public Colleges,Educational Quality,Efficiency,Accountability,Access to Education,Public Agencies,Labor Force Development,Ability,Paying for College

South Carolina is home to a robust higher education system including 33 public institutions including 3 research universities, 10 comprehensive four-year universities, 4 two-year regional campuses of the University of South Carolina and 16 technical colleges. The State is also home to a number of independent and private colleges including: 23 independent senior colleges and universities, 2 independent two-year colleges, a private senior college, a private for-profit law school, and a private for-profit junior college. Together, these institutions with their varied missions and character are serving over 240,000 students. Other options for those seeking higher education opportunities within the State include at least 23 out-of-state degree granting institutions that are licensed by the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education to operate in the state. Apart from the public institutions, there are three state agencies tasked with specific responsibilities and duties relating to higher education in South Carolina. The South Carolina Commission on Higher Education is the agency in state government specializing in post-secondary education and responsible for quality, efficiency, accountability, accessibility, and studies and plans for higher education and recommending courses of action to ensure a coordinated system of higher education in the state. The State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education has key responsibilities in regard to ensuring that the system of technical colleges is responsive to needs for industry and workforce development. A third state agency, the South Carolina Tuition Grants Commission, was established in 1970 with the responsibility of administering the tuition grants to independent college students. The purpose of this publication is to provide a brief overview of South Carolina's system of higher education and outline some of the opportunities and challenges facing higher education in South Carolina.
The Worst of Times: Children in Extreme Poverty in the South and Nation. SEF Research and Policy Report
Author: Suitts, Steve
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Schools,Poverty,Low Income Groups,Family Income,Family (Sociological Unit),School Districts,Counties,Economic Factors,Homeless People,Children,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Academic Achievement,Rural Areas,Unemployment,Welfare Services,Student Loan Programs,Loan Repayment,Geographic Location,Expenditure per Student,Federal Aid

The numbers of poor and low income students in the public schools of the South and nation have substantially increased during the last decade. Today a majority of the South's public school students are low income, and nationwide more than 45 percent of the public school children are also eligible for free or reduced lunches due to low family income. A large, growing number of children live in destitute, often desperate conditions across the country--girls and boys under the age of 18 whose families and households have incomes below 50 percent of the national poverty threshold. These children include the homeless and a much larger number of children in transitory or fragile households where each person survives on less than seven or eight dollars a day. These children live in extreme poverty in the United States. This report examines the latest census data on children in extreme poverty in the South and the nation. It summarizes and analyzes patterns of extreme child poverty in the states and in most US counties. It also estimates how the recent recession has expanded the number of children in extreme poverty in both the South and the nation. The report uses data for all children--not just school-age children. It examines patterns and conditions in more than 2,700 public school districts with almost 32 million students enrolled across the United States. Finally, the report addresses some of the implications of these findings for local, state, and federal policies in education, and it offers specific conclusions and recommendations. Appended are: (1) Percentage of Children in Extreme Poverty by State; (2) Nation's 100 School Districts with Highest Reported Rates of Extreme Child Poverty; (3) Nation's School Districts Reporting No Extreme Child Poverty; (4) Estimated Increase of Children in Extreme Poverty by State; (5) State Indicators of Recent Economic Hardship; and (6) Notes on Data, Estimates, and Methods.  A bibliography is included. (Contains 11 footnotes.) [For &quot;The Worst of Times: Children in Extreme Poverty in the South and Nation. Special Summary,&quot; see ED524095.]
Migration of Undergraduate First-Time Transfers: Snapshot Analysis 2006-2008
Author: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Date: 2010-03-04
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Technical Institutes,Colleges,Transfer Students,Multicampus Colleges,Two Year College Students,Two Year Colleges,College Transfer Students,Reverse Transfer Students,Undergraduate Students,Enrollment,Enrollment Trends,Research Universities,Educational Trends,Comparative Analysis

The Commission on Higher Education had a student intern from USC-Columbia initiate an analysis of data on the migration of undergraduate first-time transfers to compare trends, growth, and proportions of transfers to and from various sectors and institution types over a three-year period, from 2006-2008. Staff have refined the analysis and produced this report entitled &quot;Migration of Undergraduate First-Time Transfers: Snapshot Analysis.&quot; This report shows that since 2006: (1) student transfer from one institution to another has increased significantly (16.8%) and that transfer has increased at a higher rate than opening undergraduate enrollment; (2) transfers out of the technical college system have seen a 22% increase; similarly, transfers out of the regional campuses of USC have seen a 21.2% increase; (3) the number of transfers originating at technical colleges and moving into public research institutions has increased significantly (48.5%); and (4) the number of transfers originating at technical colleges and moving into the comprehensive teaching colleges and universities has increased (15.4%). This report shows that in 2008: (1) Of the 15,658 transfer students, 2,479 (15.8%) were &quot;reverse&quot; transfers from a four-year to a two-year or technical college; and (2) Of 5,587 transfers originating at public and independent two-year institutions, 11.8% made a &quot;lateral&quot; transfer to another two-year institution. (Contains 11 figures.)
No Time to Lose: Why America Needs an Education Amendment to the US Constitution to Improve Public Education
Author: Southern Education Foundation
Date: 2009-08-00
Type: Reports - Evaluative
Subjects: Public Education,Constitutional Law,Educational Equity (Finance),Economic Development,Global Approach,Population Trends,National Security,Democracy,Federal Aid,Low Income Groups,Minority Group Students,Federal Government,Government Role,Court Litigation,Federal Legislation,Equalization Aid

This report outlines the case for an education amendment to the US Constitution to reduce radical disparities in the allocation of resources and funds for the education of the nation's public school students. The report argues that an education amendment is the best way to fundamentally reform the &quot;structural arrangements&quot; that are wasting the talent and productive capacities of millions of Americans. Such an amendment would provide a permanent framework for the exercise of federal power in the area of public education and provide sorely needed clarification of the federal role. Enactment of an education amendment requiring the federal government to augment state resources and finances to ensure that all Americans have fair and equal access to quality public education is an idea, a possibility, whose time has come. Appended are: (1) The South: America's Legacy of Gross Disparities in Funding Education; and (2) Judicial Findings: Egregious Conditions and Disparities in Public Schools. A bibliography is included. (Contains 58 endnotes.)
The Worst of Times: Children in Extreme Poverty in the South and Nation. Special Summary
Author: Southern Education Foundation
Date: 2010-06-15
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Poverty,School Districts,Educational Policy,Public Education,Low Income Groups,Educational Finance,Resource Allocation,Geographic Location,Economic Factors,Homeless People,Children,Racial Differences,Federal Aid,Academic Achievement

More than 5.7 million children lived in extreme poverty in the United States in 2008--surviving on less than $7 or $8 per day. Almost 1 in every 12 children was in a household with an income below 50 percent of the federal poverty line. These children belonged to households in every state of the Union, but they were largely concentrated in the 15 states of the American South. More than 2.4 million extremely poor children--42 percent of the nation's total--lived in the South. This report raises serious questions about the impact and validity of current educational policies and practices at every level on children in extreme poverty. These children exist in significant numbers in school districts in every region and state in the country. But, no educational policy at any level today acknowledges America's large population of children in extreme poverty and the extraordinary challenges they face in education. In these hard times, policymakers and educators can help to assure that the children with the least do not suffer the most as students by adopting an informal practice of an &quot;extreme child poverty impact assessment.&quot; This impact assessment should gauge how any major change in policy, practice, or funding in public education might adversely or positively affect the education of children in extreme poverty in their school districts and offer alternatives that could reduce any adverse impact. (Contains 3 footnotes.) [For the full report, &quot;The Worst of Times: Children in Extreme Poverty in the South and Nation. SEF Research and Policy Report,&quot; see ED524090.]
Reducing Plagiarism by Using Online Software: An Experimental Study
Author: Kose, Ozgur
Date: 2011-00-00
Type: Journal Articles
Subjects: Foreign Countries,College Freshmen,Student Attitudes,Internet,Plagiarism,Computer Software,Cheating,Ethics,Cultural Context,English (Second Language),Academic Discourse,Writing Instruction,Action Research

This action research attempts to explore the perceptions of Turkish university students on plagiarism while evaluating the effectiveness of an online application used to deter plagiarism. The participants were 40 first year university students studying in two different sections of an academic writing class. The findings show that the participants acknowledge the existence of purposive plagiarism while the application shows that anti-plagiarism applications can help reduce university students' level of plagiarism. [An earlier version of this paper was presented at Israel's First International Conference on Academic Writing, Tel Aviv, Israel, 2010.]
Projections of Education Statistics to 2020. Thirty-Ninth Edition. NCES 2011-026
Author: Hussar, William J.
Date: 2011-09-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Secondary Schools,High School Graduates,School Statistics,Enrollment Projections,Elementary Secondary Education,Public Schools,Educational Trends,Elementary School Teachers,Secondary School Teachers,Expenditures,Postsecondary Education,Elementary Schools,Student Characteristics,Academic Degrees,Colleges,Teacher Salaries,Institutional Characteristics,Ethnicity,Race

&quot;Projections of Education Statistics to 2020&quot; is the 39th report in a series begun in 1964. It includes statistics on elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary degree-granting institutions. This report provides revisions of projections shown in &quot;Projections of Education Statistics to 2019&quot;. Included are projections of enrollment, graduates, teachers, and expenditures to the year 2020. In addition to projections at the national level, the report includes projections of public elementary and secondary school enrollment and public high school graduates to the year 2020 at the state level. The projections in this report were produced by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to provide researchers, policy analysts, and others with state-level projections developed using a consistent methodology. They are not intended to supplant detailed projections prepared for individual states. This report is organized by the level of schooling with sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 covering aspects of elementary and secondary education and sections 5 and 6 covering aspects of postsecondary education. Appended are: (1) Introduction to Projection Methodology; (2) Supplementary Tables; (3) Data Sources; (4) References; (5) List of Abbreviations; and (6) Glossary. (Contains 78 tables and 28 figures.) [For &quot;Projections of Education Statistics to 2019. Thirty-Eighth Edition. NCES 2011-017,&quot; see ED517134.]
Access &amp; Equity... Diversity in Higher Education. South Carolina Access &amp; Equity Statewide Program, Fiscal Year 2009-2010
Author: South Carolina Commission on Higher Education
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Numerical/Quantitative Data
Subjects: Higher Education,Access to Education,Equal Education,State Programs,Financial Support,Educational Finance,Resource Allocation,Scholarships,Student Financial Aid,Enrollment,Undergraduate Students,Graduate Students,Minority Group Students,Race,Sex,College Freshmen,Trustees,College Faculty,Academic Degrees

From 1981 to 1986 South Carolina implemented a federally mandated desegregation plan designed to: (1) enhance the State's public historically black colleges; (2) desegregate student enrollment at the State's baccalaureate degree granting public colleges and universities; and (3) desegregate faculties, staffs, and governing bodies of all public colleges and universities in South Carolina. In 1985, the Commission on Higher Education adopted the &quot;South Carolina Plan for Equity and Equal Opportunity in Public Institutions of Higher Education 1986-87 and Beyond&quot; which over a three year period, provided funds to support: (1) a Graduate Incentive Fellowship Program; (2) an Other Race Grants Program (now called Access &amp; Equity Undergraduate Scholars Program); (3) a Minority Recruitment and Retention Grants Program, and (4) programs to enhance the State's two public historically black institutions. In February 1988, the Commission approved guidelines for the Access and Equity program. The Access and Equity program vision is to achieve educational equity for all students and faculty in higher education. This report discusses (1) the history of the Access and Equity program; (2) the Access and Equity program's goals; (3) the Access and Equity program's objectives for 2009 and beyond; (4) the guidelines for the use of the Access and Equity program; and (5) the guidelines for the Access and Equity scholarships and aid programs. Statistics on the South Carolina Access and Equity statewide program for the fiscal year 2009-2010 are also included. A list of the Access and Equity Institutional Representatives is appended.
Perspectives on Program Duplication
Author: Morrison, Gail M.
Date: 2010-05-28
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Public Colleges,College Programs,Duplication

Concerns about program duplication in higher education are often reminiscent of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's now famous remark about pornography: &quot;I know it when I see it.&quot; The problem with that reaction is that, at least on its surface, this response seems intuitive and emotional, to say nothing of subjective and personal. The fact is that the addition of new programs at public institutions in South Carolina is the result of an extensive process that is reasoned and analytical. This process encompasses a critical analysis of barriers and opportunities, market assessment, and estimates of costs and benefits to the students, the institution, and the state by the institutions as well as by the Commission on Higher Education. This paper discusses the issues concerning program duplication in higher education. (Contains 1 footnote.)
A Closer Look at Public Higher Education in South Carolina: Institutional Effectiveness, Accountability, and Performance, 2009
Author: Walters, Garrison
Date: 2009-01-14
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Higher Education,Public Colleges,Institutional Evaluation,Public Education,Accountability,Graduation Rate,Annual Reports,School Effectiveness,Evaluation Methods,Academic Achievement,Educational Assessment,Undergraduate Students,Undergraduate Study,Comparative Analysis,Institutional Mission,Enrollment,Financial Support,Access to Education,Transfer Students,Teacher Education Programs,Educational Indicators,College Entrance Examinations,Institutional Cooperation,Educational Quality,Teacher Salaries,Educational Finance,Educational Legislation,Federal Legislation,State Legislation,Rating Scales,Teacher Effectiveness,College Administration,College Graduates,Student Research

This report provides an annual overview of data reported by South Carolina's public institutions of higher education as part of institutional effectiveness reporting and as part of the process of performance funding. Prior to the January 2000 edition, this document was entitled &quot;Minding Our P's and Q's: Indications of Productivity and Quality in South Carolina Public Colleges and Universities.&quot; In January 2000, the South Carolina Commission on Higher Education (CHE) substantially revised this publication in efforts to provide a source guide integrating data reported by the state's public colleges and universities in fulfillment of legislative requirements. The CHE integrated institutional effectiveness data reporting with performance data measured pursuant to Section 59-103-30 and Section 59-103-45 of the South Carolina Code of Laws, 1976, as amended, to determine institutional funding levels. Data related to the funding process reflect the 2006-2007 performance year. Throughout this publication, data are displayed on the 33 public institutions of higher education within groupings of institutions or sectors that have common missions as identified in Act 359 of 1996. However, due to the uniqueness in mission of each individual institution, the reader is cautioned against drawing conclusions and making comparisons solely based on the figures and tables found in this report. This report contain 11 sections. Sections 1-9 reflect the nine &quot;critical success factors&quot; identified by the General Assembly for South Carolina's public colleges and universities (Section 59-103-30). Data from both institutional effectiveness and performance funding reporting are combined in these sections. Section 10, &quot;Campus-Based Assessment,&quot; includes a summary of other institutional effectiveness reporting and the web addresses where detailed institutional reports are located. Section 11 provides links to institutions' performance ratings. (Contains 16 figures and 15 tables.) [For the 2008 edition of this report, see ED500527.]
Benchmark Assessment for Improved Learning. AACC Report
Author: Herman, Joan L.
Date: 2010-00-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Multiple Choice Tests,Test Items,Benchmarking,Educational Assessment,Student Evaluation,Evaluation Methods,Validity,Reliability,Alignment (Education),Guidelines,Test Construction,Educational Improvement,Test Bias,Educational Policy,Psychometrics,Access to Education,Academic Accommodations (Disabilities),Test Selection,Test Use,Evaluation Utilization,Federal Legislation,Formative Evaluation

This report describes the purposes of benchmark assessments and provides recommendations for selecting and using benchmark assessments--addressing validity, alignment, reliability, fairness and bias and accessibility, instructional sensitivity, utility, and reporting issues. We also present recommendations on building capacity to support schools' and districts' use of benchmark assessments for improved learning. Multiple Choice Item-writing Guidelines are appended. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables and 6 footnotes.) [For the &quot;Benchmark Assessment for Improved Learning. An AACC Policy Brief&quot;, see ED524108.]
Framework for High-Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments
Author: Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center
Date: 2009-01-00
Type: Reports - Descriptive
Subjects: Educational Quality,State Standards,Evaluation Criteria,State Departments of Education,Language Proficiency,English (Second Language),Second Language Learning,Academic Achievement,Guidelines,Interdisciplinary Approach,Student Characteristics,Student Evaluation,Evaluation Methods

The "Framework for High-Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments" (Framework) was conceived as a critical tool in states' efforts to ensure that their English learner (EL) students achieve English language proficiency (ELP) and, also, achieve at high levels academically. Building on the best knowledge from relevant research and practice, the Framework provides criteria for high-quality ELP standards and aligned assessments. It is essential that a state's system of standards and assessments accurately reflect the state's values, priorities, and needs--all of which may change and evolve over time. Intended primarily for state departments of education, the Framework suggests a cross-disciplinary process for using the criteria to either 1) engage in an evaluation of your state's existing ELP standards and assessments, and their implementation, or 2) oversee the development and implementation of new ELP standards and assessments. The "Getting Started" section of the Framework (pp. 5-9) presents a cross-disciplinary approach to evaluating or overseeing the development and implementation of ELP standards and assessments. The body of the Framework consists of two sections, the first focusing on ELP standards (pp. 10-20) and the second on ELP assessments (pp. 21-36). Each section outlines critical "criteria" for developing and implementing state ELP standards and assessments, respectively. Finally, the Framework includes two tables that are intended as quick references as you evaluate or oversee the development and implementation of your state's ELP standards and assessments. The first table (pp. 37-41) provides an overview of ELP standards and assessment criteria by relevance to quality. The second table (pp. 42-44) provides an overview of the criteria with examples of potential sources of documentation that may contain evidence related to each criterion. Appended are: (1) Overviews of Criteria and Considerations by Relevance to Specific Aspects of Quality and by Possible Sources of Evidence about How a State Is Addressing Them; and (2) Background--Development of the Framework. (Contains 2 tables and 31 notes.) [For the "Framework for High-Quality English Language Proficiency Standards and Assessments: Brief", see ED524107.]