Search

In the spring of 2016, the National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC), the Colorado League of Charter Schools (the League), the Delaware Charter Schools Network (DCSN), and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (the Alliance) collaborated to collect data and information about charter school facilities and facilities expenditures in the state of Delaware. The data collection in Delaware was supported by the Charter School Facilities Initiative (CSFI), which is a national project developed by the League to research charter school facilities and facilities expenditures across the country. The CSFI team identified 28 brick and mortar Delaware charter school facilities that were eligible to participate in this project. All 28 eligible charter school facilities completed the Charter School Facilities Survey. The survey methodology used for the report was designed to address Delaware specific facility and policy related issues, including: shared use information, facility amenities, ownership, financing, grade levels and waiting lists. For more information on survey methodology please see Appendix A. The information contained in this report is based on the Charter School Facilities Survey and enrollment data collected for the 2015-16 school year. The policy conclusions are based on the charter school facility landscape in Delaware, the national facility landscape, and the collective expertise of the NCSRC, the League, DCSN, and the Alliance. In 2015-16, Delaware charter schools served over 14,000 students--or 10.4 percent of the roughly 136,000 public school students statewide. In 2015-16, 31 percent of Delaware charter school students were economically disadvantaged and 58 percent belonged to a minority group.

Is it possible to get an "Ivy" education for $7,376 a year? Can a college provide high-quality undergraduate education at a reasonable cost? In this paper, the author explores if cost can be reduced and quality improved through the use of new "value-designed" models of undergraduate education. A value-designed model allows one to appeal to customers seeking the greatest value. These are the students--or perhaps more often, their parents--who are looking for a high-quality product at a relatively low price. To be able to charge a relatively low price, a college must have either a large subsidy from public or private sources or low costs. In this paper, the author focuses on the cost side of providing a high-quality education. Appended are: (1) College of Entrepreneurial Leadership and Society (CALS); and (2) Estimated Operating Expenses for CELS. (Contains 53 notes.)

In the past decade, controversies about public spending on education have grown as states adopted performance standards pledging that every child will learn enough to become an independent productive citizen and as "No Child Left Behind" ("NCLB") has put teeth into those expectations. Educators say that meeting higher standards requires more money. Some policymakers claim that past spending increases were large enough to pay for higher performance if funds were used productively. Critics of demands for more money point to cases where major spending increases were misspent, with little or no impact on student learning. In this environment, elected officials, especially governors and state legislators, have searched for answers to two questions: How much money will it take for all students to meet standards and how should the money be spent? The School Finance Redesign Project (SFRP) was created to help elected officials better understand how the finance system currently works and to identify options in allocating resources to support K-12 education. The project now includes more than 20 separate projects. This Interim Report explains the question, the research strategies, and the ways how results will be presented. Early findings indicate that educators feel pressures to close achievement gaps and raise overall levels of student learning, but they have a great deal of difficulty changing how they spend money and time and how they select and train staff. (Contains 1 footnote and 1 table.) [This report was produced by the Center on Reinventing Public Education's School Finance Redesign Project.]

In this paper, a companion piece to "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools" (ED544382), the authors analyze small high school spending in three urban districts--Baltimore City, Boston, and Chicago--to understand whether it is higher than in larger schools; if it is, why it is different; and the policy considerations connected to small school spending. Specifically, they examined two key questions: (1) How much do districts spend to operate small high schools? and (2) How do patterns of resource use in small high schools differ from patterns of resource use in larger high schools? They detail the methodology they used to address these two questions and present a discussion of findings, policy considerations, and recommendations for how school and district leaders can approach small school resource use and funding. [For the full report, see ED544392.]

This report is one of nine detailed case studies of small urban high schools that served as the foundation for the Education Resource Strategies (ERS) report "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools." These nine schools were dubbed "Leading Edge Schools" because they stand apart from other high schools across the country in designing new ways to "do school" while outperforming most high schools in their local districts. ERS found that Leading Edge Schools deliberately create high-performing organizational structures, or Strategic Designs, that deliberately organize people, time, and money to advance their specific instructional models--the set of decisions the schools make about how they organize and deliver instruction. They create these Strategic Designs through four interconnected practices: (1) Clearly defining an instructional model that reflects the schools' vision, learning goals, and student population; (2) Organizing people, time, and money to support this instructional model by (a) investing in teaching quality, (b) using student time strategically, and (c) creating individual attention for students; (3) Making trade-offs to invest in the most important priorities when faced with limits on the amount, type, and use of people, time, and money; and (4) Adapting their strategies in response to lessons learned and changing student needs and conditions. Using these strategies as their framework, ERS assessed case study school practices and quantified their resource use. They did this by creating a set of "diagnostic indicators" that describe how schools best use their resources for improving student performance. They are used throughout the case studies to illustrate resource use. ERS hopes that these case studies will serve multiple purposes: to generate ideas about implementing strategies in schools; to help develop new small schools and reform existing schools; and to engage colleagues, principals, and teachers in conversations about what is possible in their districts. Appendices present: (1) Resource strategies; (2) High Tech High sample student schedule; (3) High Tech High graduation requirements; and (4) High Tech High staff list. (Contains 15 notes and 6 figures.) [For the full report, "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools," see ED544382.]

This report is one of nine detailed case studies of small urban high schools that served as the foundation for the Education Resource Strategies (ERS) report "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools." These nine schools were dubbed "Leading Edge Schools" because they stand apart from other high schools across the country in designing new ways to "do school" while outperforming most high schools in their local districts. ERS found that Leading Edge Schools deliberately create high-performing organizational structures, or Strategic Designs, that deliberately organize people, time, and money to advance their specific instructional models--the set of decisions the schools make about how they organize and deliver instruction. They create these Strategic Designs through four interconnected practices: (1) Clearly defining an instructional model that reflects the schools' vision, learning goals, and student population; (2) Organizing people, time, and money to support this instructional model by (a) investing in teaching quality, (b) using student time strategically, and (c) creating individual attention for students; (3) Making trade-offs to invest in the most important priorities when faced with limits on the amount, type, and use of people, time, and money; and (4) Adapting their strategies in response to lessons learned and changing student needs and conditions. Using these strategies as their framework, ERS assessed case study school practices and quantified their resource use. They did this by creating a set of "diagnostic indicators" that describe how schools best use their resources for improving student performance. They are used throughout the case studies to illustrate resource use. ERS hopes that these case studies will serve multiple purposes: to generate ideas about implementing strategies in schools; to help develop new small schools and reform existing schools; and to engage colleagues, principals, and teachers in conversations about what is possible in their districts. Appendices present: (1) Resource strategies; (2) Pacific Rim high school sample student schedule; (3) Pacific Rim high school graduation requirements; and (4) Pacific Rim staff list. (Contains 12 notes and 7 figures.) [For the full report, "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools," see ED544382.]

This report is one of nine detailed case studies of small urban high schools that served as the foundation for the Education Resource Strategies (ERS) report "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools." These nine schools were dubbed "Leading Edge Schools" because they stand apart from other high schools across the country in designing new ways to "do school" while outperforming most high schools in their local districts. ERS found that Leading Edge Schools deliberately create high-performing organizational structures, or Strategic Designs, that deliberately organize people, time, and money to advance their specific instructional models--the set of decisions the schools make about how they organize and deliver instruction. They create these Strategic Designs through four interconnected practices: (1) Clearly defining an instructional model that reflects the schools' vision, learning goals, and student population; (2) Organizing people, time, and money to support this instructional model by (a) investing in teaching quality, (b) using student time strategically, and (c) creating individual attention for students; (3) Making trade-offs to invest in the most important priorities when faced with limits on the amount, type, and use of people, time, and money; and (4) Adapting their strategies in response to lessons learned and changing student needs and conditions. Using these strategies as their framework, ERS assessed case study school practices and quantified their resource use. They did this by creating a set of "diagnostic indicators" that describe how schools best use their resources for improving student performance. They are used throughout the case studies to illustrate resource use. ERS hopes that these case studies will serve multiple purposes: to generate ideas about implementing strategies in schools; to help develop new small schools and reform existing schools; and to engage colleagues, principals, and teachers in conversations about what is possible in their districts. Appendices present: (1) Resource strategies; (2) University Park sample student schedule; (3) University Park graduation requirements; and (4) University Park staff list. (Contains 8 notes and 5 figures.) [For the full report, "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools," see ED544382.]

This report is one of nine detailed case studies of small urban high schools that served as the foundation for the Education Resource Strategies (ERS) report "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools." These nine schools were dubbed "Leading Edge Schools" because they stand apart from other high schools across the country in designing new ways to "do school" while outperforming most high schools in their local districts. ERS found that Leading Edge Schools deliberately create high-performing organizational structures, or Strategic Designs, that deliberately organize people, time, and money to advance their specific instructional models--the set of decisions the schools make about how they organize and deliver instruction. They create these Strategic Designs through four interconnected practices: (1) Clearly defining an instructional model that reflects the schools' vision, learning goals, and student population; (2) Organizing people, time, and money to support this instructional model by (a) investing in teaching quality, (b) using student time strategically, and (c) creating individual attention for students; (3) Making trade-offs to invest in the most important priorities when faced with limits on the amount, type, and use of people, time, and money; and (4) Adapting their strategies in response to lessons learned and changing student needs and conditions. Using these strategies as their framework, ERS assessed case study school practices and quantified their resource use. They did this by creating a set of "diagnostic indicators" that describe how schools best use their resources for improving student performance. They are used throughout the case studies to illustrate resource use. ERS hopes that these case studies will serve multiple purposes: to generate ideas about implementing strategies in schools; to help develop new small schools and reform existing schools; and to engage colleagues, principals, and teachers in conversations about what is possible in their districts. Appendices present: (1) Resource strategies; (2) Perspectives sample student schedule; (3) Perspectives graduation requirements; and (4) Perspectives staff list. (Contains 11 notes and 7 figures.) [For the full report, "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools," see ED544382.]

Education Resource Strategies (ERS) works with school and district leaders to help them more strategically use resources--people, time, and money--to improve student performance. They have found that many school districts begin creating small high schools without a clear sense of how much they will spend or how to ensure that small schools organize in ways that will promote high performance. To begin to address these challenges, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supported ERS in a three-year effort aimed at building understanding and tools to support districts in creating cost-effective systems of high-performing urban high schools. This report summarizes ERS' four main findings from detailed case studies of nine small urban high schools. They have dubbed these nine schools "Leading Edge Schools" because they stand apart from other high schools across the country in designing new ways to "do school" while outperforming most high schools in their local districts. This report explores how the Leading Edge Schools organize their resources--people, time, and money--including how they take advantage of their smallness to improve student performance. The report also looks at how much each of these schools spends to achieve their organizational designs and how the local context--funding levels, administrative policies, and union contracts--affects resource decisions. Although these schools spend varying amounts per pupil and organize resources in unique ways, they share a set of practices that distinguishes them from typical large urban high schools. The following appendices are included: (1) Project Description: Rethinking the Cost of Small High Schools; (2) Introduction to the "Big 3" Framework; (3) Comparative Leading Edge School Data on Diagnostic Resource Indicators (Average, Range); and (4) Comparative Leading Edge School Data on Diagnostic Resource Indicators (by School). (Contains 27 endnotes and 32 figures.) [For the executive summary, see ED544385.]

This report is one of nine detailed case studies of small urban high schools that served as the foundation for the Education Resource Strategies (ERS) report "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools." These nine schools were dubbed "Leading Edge Schools" because they stand apart from other high schools across the country in designing new ways to "do school" while outperforming most high schools in their local districts. Leading Edge Schools deliberately create high-performing organizational structures, or Strategic Designs, that deliberately organize people, time, and money to advance their specific instructional models--the set of decisions the schools make about how they organize and deliver instruction. They create these Strategic Designs through four interconnected practices: (1) Clearly defining an instructional model that reflects the schools' vision, learning goals, and student population; (2) Organizing people, time, and money to support this instructional model by (a) investing in teaching quality, (b) using student time strategically, and (c) creating individual attention for students; (3) Making trade-offs to invest in the most important priorities when faced with limits on the amount, type, and use of people, time, and money; and (4) Adapting their strategies in response to lessons learned and changing student needs and conditions. ERS hopes that these case studies will serve multiple purposes: (1) to generate ideas about implementing strategies in schools; (2) to help develop new small schools; (3) to reform existing schools; and (3) to engage colleagues, principals, and teachers in conversations about what is possible in their districts. Appended are: (1) Resource Strategies; (2) Boston Arts sample student schedules; (3) Boston Arts sample teacher schedule; (4) Boston Arts graduation requirements; and (5) Boston Arts staff list. (Contains 6 figures and 14 notes.)

This report is one of nine detailed case studies of small urban high schools that served as the foundation for the Education Resource Strategies (ERS) report "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools." These nine schools were dubbed "Leading Edge Schools" because they stand apart from other high schools across the country in designing new ways to "do school" while outperforming most high schools in their local districts. ERS found that Leading Edge Schools deliberately create high-performing organizational structures, or Strategic Designs, that deliberately organize people, time, and money to advance their specific instructional models--the set of decisions the schools make about how they organize and deliver instruction. They create these Strategic Designs through four interconnected practices: (1) Clearly defining an instructional model that reflects the schools' vision, learning goals, and student population; (2) Organizing people, time, and money to support this instructional model by (a) investing in teaching quality, (b) using student time strategically, and (c) creating individual attention for students; (3) Making trade-offs to invest in the most important priorities when faced with limits on the amount, type, and use of people, time, and money; and (4) Adapting their strategies in response to lessons learned and changing student needs and conditions. Using these strategies as their framework, ERS assessed case study school practices and quantified their resource use. They did this by creating a set of "diagnostic indicators" that describe how schools best use their resources for improving student performance. They are used throughout the case studies to illustrate resource use. ERS hopes that these case studies will serve multiple purposes: to generate ideas about implementing strategies in schools; to help develop new small schools and reform existing schools; and to engage colleagues, principals, and teachers in conversations about what is possible in their districts. Appendices present: (1) Resource strategies; (2) Noble Street sample student schedule; (3) Noble Street graduation requirements; (4) Noble Street staff list. (Contains 15 notes and 5 figures.) [For the full report, "Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools," see ED544382.]

The Idaho Rural Education Task Force was formed in July 2007 with the goal of proposing and examining solutions to challenges facing rural schools. The task force's work this year has focused on three areas: recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers, funding shortages related to insurance costs and staff allowances, and the technology gap between rural and urban schools. Rural districts are challenged to find enough teachers to meet their needs, and often the qualified applicant pool for open positions is very small or non-existent. The situation is becoming more critical due to the increased math and science graduation standards recently adopted by the State of Idaho, elevating need for teachers. To assist districts in retaining teachers and to maximize the use of the current teacher population, the committee made recommendations regarding incentives for teachers who earn qualifications to teach in multiple subject areas and teachers who take on extra leadership duties. Although salaries are often cited as the number one issue in recruitment and retention of highly qualified teachers, insurance and benefits are also key components of teacher compensation: the task force recommends the establishment of a separate line item in the Public Schools budget, beginning in Fiscal Year 2010, dedicated to listing insurance costs and benefits. Although many of Idaho' districts would be considered remote and isolated rather than simply rural, technology and the Internet offer students and teachers access to the world beyond. The task force focused on two elements of technology: connectivity and technology support. Rural schools need adequate Internet access to meet the increasing demands of education and society and substantially increase the potential solutions in many areas of education, such as online remediation and distance learning for teachers and students. The task force is looking at making recommendations for potential collaboration with utilities, private industry, and higher education to assist districts in achieving adequate connectivity. The task force recognizes that the ability to maintain that technology is of equal importance and, therefore, will look to establish funding for a position (or partial position) per school district for technology support. Appendixes include: (1) Senate Bill No. 1236 (selected section); (2) Task Force personnel; and (3) Issues and Solutions Chart.

Since receiving "Campus 2020 Thinking Ahead: The Report," the Ministry of Advanced Education and Labour Market Development has been reviewing its recommendations to improve post-secondary education in British Columbia. Several of these have been implemented, including: undertaking a review of student financial assistance and completing a review of the "Private Career Training Institutions Act." The Ministry has begun work on an Education Quality Assurance designation so students from around the world will recognize British Columbia (B.C.) as a destination for high quality, reputable and credible public and private post-secondary education. Many measures have been put in place to protect students, increase transparency, enhance education program quality, and strengthen accountability at B.C.'s private post-secondary institutions. By providing debt management, loan reductions, interest relief and loan forgiveness, the Ministry has assisted students with repayment so they may move forward on their chosen path. This report compares the actual results to the expected results identified in the Ministry's 2007/08--2009/10 Service Plan. To demonstrate the Ministry's approach to evaluating and implementing the 52 recommendations found in the "Campus 2020 Thinking Ahead: The Report," the highlights from 2007/08 have been organized according to the Report's vision for Access, Excellence, and Research and Innovation in post-secondary education. Contents include: (1) Message from the Minister and Accountability Statement; (2) Highlights of the Year; (3) Purpose of Ministry; (4) Strategic Context; (5) Report on Performance; (5) Report on Resources; and (6) Annual Service Plan. Appended are: (A) Ministry Contact Information; and (B) Hyperlinks to Additional Information.

This report sets forth the National Endowment for the Humanities' goals and objectives and highlights its related accomplishments for the year just concluded. Also included in the report is information on the Endowment's finances and operations during the year.

In the Fall of 2006, Education Resource Strategies (ERS), a nation-wide leader in helping school systems make the most of their resources, was invited by Saint Paul Public Schools (SPPS) to study the use of resources in the district and create priority recommendations to inform the district's strategic plan. Saint Paul is in a situation where overall enrollment is declining while key subgroups (students in poverty, English language learners, students with disabilities, and students of color) are increasing as a percentage of district enrollment. In this context, the analysis focused on three key questions: (1) How much money does SPPS spend and how are the resources distributed? (2) Does SPPS empower strategic use of school-level resources to improve student performance? and (3) Does SPPS use district resources in a way that supports schools in promoting student success? This report summarizes the key findings and priority recommendations regarding strategic resource use in SPPS. (Contains 13 footnotes.)

In the fall of 2006, Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Unified Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that called for a third-party research firm to analyze resource use across the Los Angeles school system. Education Resource Strategies (ERS) was chosen to conduct this analysis. The study was organized into two phases. Phase I of the study called for a six-year historical review of spending in the district to examine how spending patterns had changed and specifically whether or not central expenses had grown while spending on teachers had declined. The findings of phase I were released publicly in November of 2006 and presented to the Board of Education of LAUSD. Phase II of the study explores spending and use of resources more deeply to identify opportunities for more strategic use based on research and comparison to other urban school districts. This management brief series presents Phase II key findings and recommendations. This document includes an executive summary that provides a concise summary of Phase II findings and describes the top 5 actions that flow from ERS's detailed recommendations. This summary is followed by three management briefs that supply detailed answers to key questions as well as additional recommendations and questions for further leadership discussion: (1) Brief #1--Distribution and Use of System Resources: Analyzes the overall funding level in LAUSD as well as the way time, people, and money flow to schools and students, focusing on questions of equity, strategy, flexibility, transparency, and efficiency, with comparisons to other urban districts; (2) Brief #2--Time, People and Money in Schools: Describes how LAUSD schools currently allocate their time, people, and money and compares findings with practices often found in high-performing urban schools; and (3) Brief # 3--Professional Development: Analyzes LAUSD's overall investment in professional development and compares it to patterns and practices found elsewhere, focusing on whether the overall mix of initiatives aligns with district needs. (Contains 7 footnotes.)

In April 2004, the Governor's Commission on Higher Education and the Economy (CHEE) recommended that the Ohio Board of Regents submit a biennial report to the Governor and the General Assembly in connection with the budget process. This report is the second such report. The purposes of this report are to provide policy makers and the public with evidence of actual efficiencies attained and to be attained by the state's public colleges and universities and to stimulate further efficiencies. From FY 1999 to FY 2005 full-time equivalent (FTE) campus enrollment increased 16.1%, from 320,595 to 372,336. Over the same period, campus costs per FTE in constant 2005 dollars decreased 2.8%, from $11,084 to $10,779. Ohio's public campuses are educating more students at a lower, inflation-adjusted cost. During that period, state support per FTE declined $1,176. The campuses have covered $305 (or 26%) of that lost revenue through cost reductions. The balance ($871) has been defrayed primarily through tuition increases. This report demonstrates that: (1) Ohio public colleges and universities undertook administrative cost savings initiatives that saved in excess of $265 million in FY 2005 and FY 2006; (2) Ohio public colleges and universities undertook academic cost savings initiatives that saved in excess of $57 million in FY 2005 and FY 2006; (3) A number of institutions are engaging in new collaborative efforts to reduce costs or provide far broader educational opportunities at no additional cost, including regional academic and research alliances, shared resources and purchasing, and shared facilities; (4) Through pilot projects in course and curriculum redesign, improving student learning and faculty teaching, distance learning and community partnerships, institutions are reducing costs and improving outcomes; and (5) Ohio institutions introduced a number of new programs to meet state need, notwithstanding limited new state funding. Examples reported in this document represent a small fraction of those responses and are primarily intended to give the reader an indication of the range and variety of actions undertaken by public colleges and universities in Ohio: an appendix containing a more complete set of institutional responses is available. Finally, this report provides support for two legislative initiatives that could reduce institutional costs in the construction context: the elimination of the statutory requirements for multiple prime contractors and for the use of the prevailing wage. (Contains 1 figure and 2 tables.)

Like previous reports, the seventh annual "Performance Report for Ohio's Colleges and Universities" uses a variety of data and data sources to describe higher education in Ohio, from student academic preparation to learning environments, student progress, degree achievement, and licensure/employment outcomes. The report also provides information about research and job-training activities, and basic financial information about costs, state support and financial aid provided to students. The report is published in two documents: a summary of state-wide and sector-level information and a supporting document containing outcomes measures for individual higher education institutions. Significant findings indicate that: (1) Ohio has made progress in increasing higher educational attainment and research activity, but continues to lag behind other states and the national average; (2) Enrollment in higher education is increasing and the student body reflects the diversity of the Ohio population; (3) Thirty-seven percent of first-time freshmen in public institutions require remedial courses in their first year of college; (4) A high proportion of students attend more than one institution during their academic career and transfer students graduate at lower rates than non-transfer students, indicating that the transfer process is not seamless; (5) Although a majority of students who begin college are successful, there is room for improvement in the areas of retention, degree completion and time-to-degree; (6) Ohio has been graduating more students over the past five years and growth in graduate earnings is high, but in-state retention has decreased slightly over prior years; (7) Ohio's public higher education institutions operate efficiently compared to the rest of the United States; and (8) Tuition fees tend to be high in Ohio, but can be offset by financial aid to those who qualify. (Contains 15 figures and 32 tables.)

This report is the result of a survey conducted in late 2005 of higher education institution chief financial officers throughout the U.S. Midwest region concerning their plans to manage what was expected to be a substantial increase in the price of energy in advance of the 2005-06 heating season. Although the winter turned out to be one of the warmest on record, and the price of natural gas did not spike as dramatically as many had predicted, energy prices are expected to remain volatile, and such costs continue to be reflected in budget requests and tuition proposals for the 2006-07 academic year. The objective of the survey was to collect and distribute data on institutional planning and management that could be of use to college and university leaders and administrators responsible for finance, business affairs, purchasing, and physical plant operations, to be used as a benchmark experiences across colleges and universities in the region. This report is also intended to inform conversations and collaborations as energy cost containment and conservation become common agenda items in higher education into the foreseeable future. A list of sources for further information is included. (Contains 10 endnotes.)

This series of documents contains performance scoring information for 2004-2005 for individual institutions of higher education in South Carolina. This information is used in establishing 2005-2006 fiscal year allocations. Data includes: (1) Degrees Awarded; (2) Enrollment; (3) Average SAT score; (4) Faculty; (5) Tuition; and (6) Financial revenue. Evaluative scores are provided based on: (1) Mission Focus; (2) Quality of Faculty; (3) Classroom Quality; (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration; (5) Administrative Efficiency; (6) Entrance Requirements; (7) Graduate Achievement; (8) User-Friendliness of the Institution; and (9) Research Funding. Scoring interpretation is provided. Based on a 3.0 maximum possible score, the University of South Carolina Columbia scored 2.85 (95 percent), substantially exceeding standard performance level.

This series of documents contains performance scoring information for 2004-2005 for individual institutions of higher education in South Carolina. This information is used in establishing 2005-2006 fiscal year allocations. Data includes: (1) Degrees Awarded; (2) Enrollment; (3) Average SAT score; (4) Faculty; (5) Tuition; and (6) Financial revenue. Evaluative scores are provided based on: (1) Mission Focus; (2) Quality of Faculty; (3) Classroom Quality; (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration; (5) Administrative Efficiency; (6) Entrance Requirements; (7) Graduate Achievement; (8) User-Friendliness of the Institution; and (9) Research Funding. Scoring interpretation is provided. Based on a 3.0 maximum possible score, Francis Marion University scored 2.53 (84 percent), achieving standard performance level.

This series of documents contains performance scoring information for 2004-2005 for individual institutions of higher education in South Carolina. This information is used in establishing 2005-2006 fiscal year allocations. Data includes: (1) Degrees Awarded; (2) Enrollment; (3) Average SAT score; (4) Faculty; (5) Tuition; and (6) Financial revenue. Evaluative scores are provided based on: (1) Mission Focus; (2) Quality of Faculty; (3) Classroom Quality; (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration; (5) Administrative Efficiency; (6) Entrance Requirements; (7) Graduate Achievement; (8) User-Friendliness of the Institution; and (9) Research Funding. Scoring interpretation is provided. Based on a 3.0 maximum possible score, the Medical University of South Carolina scored 2.81 (94 percent), exceeding standard performance level.

This series of documents contains performance scoring information for 2004-2005 for individual institutions of higher education in South Carolina. This information is used in establishing 2005-2006 fiscal year allocations. Data includes: (1) Degrees Awarded; (2) Enrollment; (3) Average SAT score; (4) Faculty; (5) Tuition; and (6) Financial revenue. Evaluative scores are provided based on: (1) Mission Focus; (2) Quality of Faculty; (3) Classroom Quality; (4) Institutional Cooperation and Collaboration; (5) Administrative Efficiency; (6) Entrance Requirements; (7) Graduate Achievement; (8) User-Friendliness of the Institution; and (9) Research Funding. Scoring interpretation is provided. Based on a 3.0 maximum possible score, the University of South Carolina Sumter scored 2.77 (92 percent), exceeding standard performance level.