From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Borrowed from CNN http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/players/riley/


Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.furman.edu/riley/about/index.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. -- — CactusWriter | needles 05:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Richard Riley. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

COI edit request


Hi there. I am a freelance marketer who has been hired by the Riley Institute at Furman University. My COI and disclosure as a paid editor are on my user page. Pending editor review, I'm requesting the addition of a section titled "Education policy as governor" on the Wikipedia article for Richard Riley. Thank you very much for your time!


Specific text to be added:

Education policy as governor

In the early 1980s, South Carolina ranked near or at the bottom among states for a variety of education and quality-of-life indicators, including 47th in percentage of high school graduates, 49th in per capita income, and 50th in SAT scores.1

Previously, in 1977, the state passed the Education Finance Act (EFA), which put into place a fiscal foundation for the funding of public schools and equalized the weighted per-pupil distribution of state funds across districts. Expanding upon the EFA, Riley sought to address student achievement gaps and a lagging economy through education reform during his time as governor.  

Initially, he attempted to push through a modest school improvement proposal in the 1983 session of the General Assembly. The bill failed to pass due to concerns over its proposed tax increase and its incremental approach.

Later that year, however, the United States National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk, a report that called for significant reform to the United States education system. Leveraging the widespread sense of urgency spurred by the report, Riley drew up a political strategy that bolstered bipartisan interest in a new, more ambitious bill that mobilized both the grassroots and the “grasstops.”2

Riley’s team appealed directly to the public by hosting more than 13,000 South Carolina residents in a series of public forums across the state. Among its grasstops efforts, the campaign appointed high-level business, political, and education leaders to committees, one that focused on the financing of the legislation and another that focused on the concerns and desires of the business community.

With the legislative proposal calling for a penny-on-the-dollar sales tax increase, the grassroots campaign operated under the slogan, “A penny for their thoughts.” Sixty-two percent of respondents in a statewide public opinion poll conducted in July 1983 supported increasing the state sales tax to raise additional money for education, if needed.3

Prior to the start of the 1984 legislative session, only 22 of 124 South Carolina House of Representatives members supported the bill, largely due to the proposed tax increase, which is what contributed to the demise of Riley’s original school improvement proposal.4 Riley’s legislative allies broke the proposal down into parts to offer rationale and gain support for each of its provisions before turning attention to the cost of the entire package.5 After several revisions, the proposal passed 70-16 in the South Carolina House6 before passing 32-19 in the South Carolina Senate.7

The South Carolina Education Improvement Act (EIA) of 1984 was signed into law on June 28, 1984. The EIA authorized more than 60 provisions aimed at incentivizing high performance among students and teachers and increasing accountability and oversight in districts and schools.

Rolled out over the course of five years, provisions included new programs to help underperforming students improve in reading, math, and science; teacher and principal incentive pay programs; and a school improvement award program.  

Impact

In 1989, a report commissioned by one of the state’s oversight bodies found that gains were made in a variety of key performance areas:8

  • Average SAT scores increased by 35 points among all students and 69 points among Black students.
  • The number of high school graduates entering college increased by 6.2%.
  • Statewide school attendance rates increased by an average of 6,100 students a day.

South Carolina saw considerable economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s after the passage of the EIA. Between 1984 and 1993, more than 185 foreign companies established operations in the state, generating more than 40,000 new jobs.9

Legacy

A study by the RAND Corporation, a global policy think tank, pronounced the EIA as “the most comprehensive single piece of legislation improving education to come out of any state.”10

In 2008, the legislature approved a cut in the state’s overall education spending. EIA monies have since been used to pay for education expenditures that were previously covered by general fund revenues; however, the EIA account continues to be maintained as a separate, dedicated revenue line for education in the state. As of fiscal year 2021-22, the EIA generates nearly $900 million in new monies annually. 11 

As a result of his efforts, Riley was dubbed as South Carolina’s “Education Governor.”12


Reason for the change:

The South Carolina Education Improvement Act is noteworthy, regarded as one of the most comprehensive education reform efforts to occur at the state level. The legislation helped lay the groundwork for Riley's later appointment to the post of United States Secretary of Education.

References supporting change:

1 Saunders Huguley, Sally. “ Rallying Education Activism From The Grassroots Up: A Case Study of The South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984”. 2016. University of South Carolina, Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved June 5, 2023.

2 Saffold, Robert. A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University, 2023. pp. 14-16. ISBN  9780578358567. 3 Sayles, Jr., F. “Poll Respondents Support Tax Hike for Better Schools,” The Charleston (South Carolina) News and Courier, September 8, 1983.

4 "Taking Root: Lessons Learned for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda". Achieve, September 2, 2009. p. 7. Retrieved June 5, 2023.

5 Saffold, Robert. A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University, 2023. pp. 14-16. ISBN  9780578358567.

6 S.C. House Journal. 105th General Assembly., 2nd sess., January 10, 1984.

7 S.C. Senate Journal. 105th General Assembly., 2nd sess., January 10, 1984.

8 Richard W. Riley Institute, Record Group 18/008, Furman University Archives, Greenville, SC.

9 "Taking Root: Lessons Learned for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda". Achieve, September 2, 2009. p. 7. Retrieved June 5, 2023.

10 "The best governor in America - and you've never heard of him. - Free Online Library". www.thefreelibrary.com. Retrieved April 27, 2023.

11 Saffold, Robert. A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University, 2023. p. 9. ISBN  9780578358567.

12 Self, Jamie. "Dick Riley: From 'Young Turk' to SC's 'Education Governor'". The State, December 28, 2015. Retrieved June 5, 2023.

Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 14:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Reply 8-OCT-2023

  Unable to review  

  • Your edit request could not be reviewed because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The citation style predominantly used by the Richard Riley article is Citation Style 1 (CS1). The citation style used in the edit request consists of manually-created non-ref note entries. [a] Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current style already in use in the article – in this case, CS1. (See WP:CITEVAR.)

In the extended section below titled Citation style, I have illustrated two examples: one showing how the edit request was submitted, and another showing how requests should be submitted in the future:

Citation style
Non <ref> note formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,[1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.[2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.[3]

1. Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2020, p. 1.
2. Harinath, Prisha. (2020). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
3. Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2020, p. 2.

In the example above there are three references provided with the claim statements, but these references have not been placed using Citation Style 1, which is the style predominantly used by the Richard Riley article. None of the parts of the reference have been placed under individual named parameters. Instead, the entire reference has been placed outside of <ref> notes. Using CS1, the WikiFormatted text should resemble the following:

Citation Style 1 formatting:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles,<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sjöblad|first1=Tristan|title=The Sun|url=http://www.booksource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=1}}</ref> while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Harinath|first1=Prisha|title=Size of the Moon|journal=Science|issue=78|volume=51|url=http://www.journalsource.com|date=2020|page=46}}</ref> The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Uemura|first1=Shu|title=The Sun's Heat|url=http://www.websource.com|publisher=Academic Press|date=2020|page=2}}</ref>

Which displays as:

The Sun's diameter is 864,337 miles, [1] while the Moon's diameter is 2,159 miles. [2] The Sun's temperature is 5,778 Kelvin. [3]

References

  1. ^ Sjöblad, Tristan. The Sun. Academic Press, 2020, p. 1.
  2. ^ Harinath, Prisha. (2020). "Size of the Moon", Science, 51(78):46.
  3. ^ Uemura, Shū. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2020, p. 2.

In the example above the references have been formatted according to Citation Style 1, which places each source's information under individual citation templates (e.g., {{ cite book}}, {{ cite journal}}, etc.) which themselves contain individual citation template parameters (e.g., |author_last=, |author_first=, |title=, |date=, |url=, etc.) all encased within a <ref> note. As Wikipedia is a volunteer project, edit requests such as yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review.

Kindly submit a new edit request below this reply post at your earliest convenience, taking care to ensure that it makes use of CS1. If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor.

Notes

  1. ^ General practice dictates that the style already in use for an article be the one that is subsequently used for all future additions unless changed by editorial consensus. [1]

References

  1. ^ "WP:CITEVAR - Wikipedia:Citing sources". Wikipedia. 20 October 2018. Retrieved 22 October 2018. Guideline: It is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it.

Regards,  Spintendo  21:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi, @ Spintendo. I hope you're well. I resubmitted my COI edit request (posted below) two weeks ago using the "add topic" function. I no longer see this page as being listed on the COI edit request log, so I'm not sure if I submitted correctly. I recognize that my request involves significant changes, which would account for a longer turnaround time. Is there any further action I need to take at this time for the edits to be considered? Thank you for your time.
Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 18:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC) reply

COI edit request - reformatted references

Thank you for the clarification on CS1, @ Spintendo. I have reformatted the references and am resubmitting the COI edit request below. I appreciate your time and am happy to provide any additional clarification


Specific text to be added:

Education policy as governor

In the early 1980s, South Carolina ranked near or at the bottom among states for a variety of education and quality-of-life indicators, including 47th in percentage of high school graduates, 49th in per capita income, and 50th in SAT scores.1

Previously, in 1977, the state passed the Education Finance Act (EFA), which put into place a fiscal foundation for the funding of public schools and equalized the weighted per-pupil distribution of state funds across districts. Expanding upon the EFA, Riley sought to address student achievement gaps and a lagging economy through education reform during his time as governor.  

Initially, he attempted to push through a modest school improvement proposal in the 1983 session of the General Assembly. The bill failed to pass due to concerns over its proposed tax increase and its incremental approach.

Later that year, however, the United States National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk, a report that called for significant reform to the United States education system. Leveraging the widespread sense of urgency spurred by the report, Riley drew up a political strategy that bolstered bipartisan interest in a new, more ambitious bill that mobilized both the grassroots and the “grasstops.”2

Riley’s team appealed directly to the public by hosting more than 13,000 South Carolina residents in a series of public forums across the state. Among its grasstops efforts, the campaign appointed high-level business, political, and education leaders to committees, one that focused on the financing of the legislation and another that focused on the concerns and desires of the business community.

With the legislative proposal calling for a penny-on-the-dollar sales tax increase, the grassroots campaign operated under the slogan, “A penny for their thoughts.” Sixty-two percent of respondents in a statewide public opinion poll conducted in July 1983 supported increasing the state sales tax to raise additional money for education, if needed.3

Prior to the start of the 1984 legislative session, only 22 of 124 South Carolina House of Representatives members supported the bill, largely due to the proposed tax increase, which is what contributed to the demise of Riley’s original school improvement proposal.4 Riley’s legislative allies broke the proposal down into parts to offer rationale and gain support for each of its provisions before turning attention to the cost of the entire package.5 After several revisions, the proposal passed 70-16 in the South Carolina House6 before passing 32-19 in the South Carolina Senate.7

The South Carolina Education Improvement Act (EIA) of 1984 was signed into law on June 28, 1984. The EIA authorized more than 60 provisions aimed at incentivizing high performance among students and teachers and increasing accountability and oversight in districts and schools.

Rolled out over the course of five years, provisions included new programs to help underperforming students improve in reading, math, and science; to create teacher and principal incentive pay programs; and to implement a school improvement award program.  

Impact

In 1989, a report commissioned by one of the state’s oversight bodies found that gains were made in a variety of key performance areas:8

  • Average SAT scores increased by 40 points among all students.
  • The number of high school graduates entering college increased by 6.2%.
  • Statewide school attendance rates increased by an average of 6,100 students a day.

South Carolina saw considerable economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s after the passage of the EIA. Between 1984 and 1993, more than 185 foreign companies established operations in the state, generating more than 40,000 new jobs.4

Legacy

A study by the RAND Corporation, a global policy think tank, pronounced the EIA as “the most comprehensive single piece of legislation improving education to come out of any state.”9

In 2008, the legislature approved a cut in the state’s overall education spending. EIA monies have since been used to pay for education expenditures that were previously covered by general fund revenues; however, the EIA account continues to be maintained as a separate, dedicated revenue line for education in the state. As of fiscal year 2021-22, the EIA generates nearly $900 million in new monies annually.10

In the years following the passage of the EIA, Riley was dubbed as South Carolina’s “Education Governor.”11

Reason for the change:

The South Carolina Education Improvement Act is noteworthy, regarded as one of the most comprehensive education reform efforts to occur at the state level. The legislation helped lay the groundwork for Riley's later appointment to the post of United States Secretary of Education.

References supporting change:

1 Saunders Huguley, Sally (2016). Rallying Education Activism From The Grassroots Up: A Case Study of The South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 (PhD thesis). University of South Carolina. p. 102. Retrieved 2023-10-10.

2 Saffold, Robert (2023). A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University. p. 14-16. ISBN  9780578358567.

3 Sayles Jr., F. (1983-09-08). "Poll Respondents Support Tax Hike for Better Schools". The Charleston (South Carolina) News and Courier.

4 Taking Root: Lessons Learned for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda (PDF) (Report). Achieve. 2009-09-02. p. 7. Retrieved 2023-10-10.

5 Saffold, Robert (2023). A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University. p. 14-16. ISBN  9780578358567.

6 S.C. House Journal. 105th General Assembly., 2nd sess (Report). House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina. 1984-01-10.

7 S.C. Senate Journal. 105th General Assembly., 2nd sess (Report). Senate of the State of South Carolina. 1984-01-10.

8 Peterson, Terry (1989-06-29). An Evaluation of South Carolina’s Education Improvement Efforts Five Years Later (Report). South Carolina Business-Education Committee. p. 2.

9 Hitt, Jack (1986-10-01). "The best governor in America - and you've never heard of him". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2023-04-27.

10 Saffold, Robert (2023). A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University. p. 9. ISBN  9780578358567.

11 Self, Jamie (2015-12-18). "Dick Riley: From 'Young Turk' to SC's 'Education Governor'". The State. Retrieved 2023-06-05.


Best, Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 21:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Reply 30-OCT-2023

Thanks you for making these changes, it is much appreciated.

  • There are two sources in the request that still need to be clarified. I see that most of these sources contain page numbers (thank you for that) but two of the remaining sources do not have page numbers attached to their citations. One source is a 166 page dissertation. Needless to say, while your expectations of my speed-reading abilities may be a bit off the mark ( ) it still would be helpful if we could get at least some of these pages narrowed down a bit.
  • The Peterson source (which is also a multi-page report) is also missing page numbers. If you could provide these, it would be much appreciated.
  • When ready to proceed with the requested information, kindly change the {{ Edit COI}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=y to |ans=n. Thank you!

Regards,  Spintendo  03:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you, @ Spintendo. I have no doubt that you're capable of reading very quickly but certainly don't want you to spend more time on the hunt than needed. :) I have added the page numbers for both of these sources.
One additional note: When revisiting the Peterson source to pull the page number, I realized that I had incorrectly stated that SAT scores increased by an average of 35 points. It was actually 40. I apologize for the error and have updated the text to correctly reflect what the Peterson report says. Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 15:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Earlgrayandprose: I'm trying to clear the oldest requests and see that this is in progress. However, several items are unsourced, the citations are not formatted inline with the proper templates ({{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}}, etc.), and some of them are not linked, making it harder to verify the content. If you add at least the bare URLs, I could use refill, and then manually add the page numbers. STEMinfo ( talk) 19:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for offering to help with this. The COI editor is very new, so I figured this was going to need delicate help with referencing. There's going to need to be some pruning of this proposed text, perhaps down to two or three paragraphs on the subject's role in passing this legislation (though the text Prior to the start of the 1984 legislative session, only 22 of 124 South Carolina House of Representatives members supported the bill, largely due to the proposed tax increase, which is what contributed to the demise of Riley’s original school improvement proposal. leads me to wonder how much input they had on the final legislation) There are a couple good sources here, but I would like to find some more reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that offer a conclusion-type analysis of the legislation. The Saunders Huguley thesis listed as one reference seemed like a good starting point towards opening up more references (because as a thesis, they've already done most of the legwork in finding sources) but I haven't gotten around to taking a look at it yet. So yeah, this is an intricate request (which speaks to the subject's legacy) that may have to be put off pending discussion and more research. Regards,  Spintendo  22:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply
'@ Spintendo, thank you for all of your support. Please let me know how I can be most useful moving forward. @ STEMinfo, I tried my best to format inline with the proper templates after @ Spintendo provided additional recommendations. I apologize for any errors. A few of the referenced materials do not have an online link. Rather, they are stored in the paper-based archive at Furman University's library. If this will present complications with respect to verification, please let me know. Thank you both again. Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 15:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply
My concern is with the Furman-associated references (including the Saffold source) which make up roughly 35—40% of the proposed text. Being published by the same university that was intricately involved in the development and passage of EIA in 1984, I have to ask how objective they could be in writing about its legacy. That being said, this doesn't necessarily rule out it being used as a source. I'm eager to hear feedback from other editors on this. Regards,  Spintendo  13:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Earlgrayandprose: @ Spintendo: I think the Furman sources are fine and don't seem to have any bias. I can't read the legislative sources, but found this one which I think will help. But I have a better idea about how to proceed. I agree with Spintendo that there's too much about the EIA that would be better in its own article, which we could link to, if only there was one. EG&P - how would you feel about creating a stub South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 article, using the info you suggested for Riley's article, and the Greenville Journal source I found above? I don't think that would trigger any COI objections as long as it's not too promotional about Furman or Riley, and sticks to the written history of the Act and its aftermath. You can ping us if you have a draft you'd like us to review ahead of time. Then we can focus Riley's article more on Riley, with fewer details about the act. I'd take your info and do it myself to start the ball rolling, but just had the unpleasant experience watching one of my drafts get converted into an article by another editor without giving me any attribution, so I want you to get the credit as the author. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:15, 17 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ STEMinfo: Thank you for taking the time to lend additional support and knowledge. I apologize for my slow reply; I had taken some time off to visit family. I'd be happy to reframe what I wrote here for a stub article on the EIA. When the draft is prepared, would you prefer that I ping you in this active conversation, or would prefer that I post on your user page? Thank you again! Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 14:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Earlgrayandprose: No worries. I think it's fine to ping me here. That way others who are interested in this subject can also chime in. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply
Hi, @ STEMinfo,
I hope you're well! Thank you for your patience as I've taken my time to get back to you. The holidays caused some delays to the content revision process. As you suggested, I have reworked the content above for its own Wikipedia article and incorporated the source you suggested. I have a draft (below) I'd love for you to review ahead of time.
Please let me know your thoughts and how I should proceed. Beneath the draft of the new article, you'll find the suggested edit I'd make to this page, which links both articles together.
I greatly appreciate your patience as I learn proper procedures for COI edit requests.
Draft of new article
South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984
The Education Improvement Act, known informally as the EIA, is a landmark South Carolina statute enacted by the state legislature and signed into law by governor Richard Riley on June 28, 1984. It is recognized as being one of the most robust education reform efforts to occur at the state-level in the United States.1
The EIA authorized more than 60 provisions aimed at incentivizing high performance among students and teachers and increasing accountability and oversight in districts and schools.
Rolled out over the course of five years, provisions included new programs to help underperforming students improve in reading, math, and science; to create teacher and principal incentive pay programs; and to implement a school improvement award program.  
Legislative History
In the early 1980s, South Carolina ranked near or at the bottom among states for a variety of education and quality-of-life indicators, including 47th in percentage of high school graduates, 49th in per capita income, and 50th in SAT scores.2
Previously, in 1977, South Carolina passed the Education Finance Act (EFA), which put into place a fiscal foundation for the funding of public schools and equalized the weighted per-pupil distribution of state funds across districts. Expanding upon the EFA, governor Riley sought to address student achievement gaps and a lagging economy through further education reform efforts.  
Initially, Riley attempted to push through a modest school improvement proposal in the 1983 session of the General Assembly. The bill failed to pass due to concerns over its proposed tax increase and its incremental approach.
Later that year, however, the United States National Commission on Excellence in Education published A Nation at Risk, a report that called for significant reform to the United States education system. Leveraging the widespread sense of urgency spurred by the report, Riley drew up a political strategy for a new, more ambitious bill that mobilized both the grassroots and the “grasstops.”3
With the legislative proposal calling for a penny-on-the-dollar sales tax increase, the advocacy campaign operated under the slogan, “A penny for their thoughts.” The campaign sought the direct involvement of the public, hosting more than 13,000 South Carolina residents in a series of public forums across the state.
To gain bipartisan support, the campaign also appointed business, political, and education leaders to committees, one that focused on the financing of the legislation and another that focused on the concerns and desires of the business community.
Prior to the start of the 1984 legislative session, only 22 of 124 South Carolina House of Representatives members supported the bill, once again citing concerns about a proposed tax increase.5 Additionally, several proposed provisions, such as performance bonuses for educators, were contentious.6 After several revisions, the proposal passed 70-16 in the South Carolina House7 before passing 32-19 in the South Carolina Senate.8 The Education Improvement Act was signed into law on June 28, 1984 with the one-percentage-point increase in state sales tax intact.
Impact
In the five-year period after it was signed into law, the Education Improvement Act produced a number of results, including:9
  • A significant increase in average SAT scores, especially among black students
  • Increased availability of four-year-old pre-kindergarten for lower-income families, a program that would be identified as a national model by the National Governors Association
  • A doubling of enrollment in “gateway courses” deemed important for college admission and academic success, such as those in chemistry, foreign languages, and Advanced Placement
South Carolina saw considerable economic growth in the 1980s and 1990s after the passage of the EIA. Between 1984 and 1993, more than 185 foreign companies established operations in the state, generating more than 40,000 new jobs.5
Legacy
A study by the RAND Corporation, a global policy think tank, pronounced the EIA as “the most comprehensive single piece of legislation improving education to come out of any state.”1
In 2008, the legislature approved a cut in the state’s overall education spending. EIA monies have since been used to pay for education expenditures that were previously covered by general fund revenues; however, the EIA account continues to be maintained as a separate, dedicated revenue line for education in the state. As of fiscal year 2021-22, the EIA generates nearly $900 million in new monies annually.10
References:
1 Hitt, Jack (1986-10-01). "The best governor in America - and you've never heard of him". Washington Monthly. Retrieved 2023-04-27.
2 Saunders Huguley, Sally (2016). Rallying Education Activism From The Grassroots Up: A Case Study of The South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 (PhD thesis). University of South Carolina. p. 102. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
3 Saffold, Robert (2023). A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University. p. 14-16. ISBN 9780578358567.
4 Sayles Jr., F. (1983-09-08). "Poll Respondents Support Tax Hike for Better Schools". The Charleston (South Carolina) News and Courier.
5 Taking Root: Lessons Learned for Sustaining the College- and Career-Ready Agenda (PDF) (Report). Achieve. 2009-09-02. p. 7. Retrieved 2023-10-10.
6 Saffold, Robert (2023). A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University. p. 18. ISBN 9780578358567.
7 S.C. House Journal. 105th General Assembly., 2nd sess (Report). House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina. 1984-01-10.
8 S.C. Senate Journal. 105th General Assembly., 2nd sess (Report). Senate of the State of South Carolina. 1984-01-10.
9 King, Jay (2023-02-08). “Riley Institute releases book on groundbreaking Education Improvement Act”. Greenville Journal. Retrieved 2024-01-05.
10 Saffold, Robert (2023). A People's Movement. The Riley Institute at Furman University. p. 9. ISBN 9780578358567.
Edit to Richard Riley article
Replace “As Governor of South Carolina, he initiated the Education Improvement Act, which a Rand Corp. study at the time called “the most comprehensive educational reform measure in the U.S.” with the following:
Riley spearheaded the South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984, a consequential statewide education reform effort that led him to being dubbed as South Carolina’s “Education Governor.”3
—
Reference supporting change:
3 Self, Jamie (2015-12-18). "Dick Riley: From 'Young Turk' to SC's 'Education Governor'". The State. Retrieved 2023-06-05. Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 17:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Earlgrayandprose: You did a great job with the text, but I'd like to make a couple of suggestions. You should create this as a draft, so it renders properly, and the references can be clicked through to verify. You'll also get credit for creating it in the edit history. To start, go to Wikipedia:Drafts#Creating and editing drafts and enter "South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984" in the box, and click on create draft. I also think you need a few more references for the text, much of which is unreferenced. The 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 6th paragraphs in "Legislative history" (second word is lower case per WP:MOS) are unreferenced. You can use the same sources multiple times if they substantiate the info you are writing. Ping me when it looks good and is ready to be reviewed. I can then move it to mainspace to make it live, and can then link to it. STEMinfo ( talk) 23:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks so much, @ STEMinfo! I've created a draft, and it should be in the queue for you to see. I added the additional references and made "history" lowercase as per WP:MOS. I believe it's ready for review! Let me know if I can answer any questions. I greatly appreciate your help! Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 20:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Earlgrayandprose: The article is now in mainspace. South Carolina Education Improvement Act of 1984 Congratulations! I'll work on linking to it later. STEMinfo ( talk) 01:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ STEMinfo My first authored Wikipedia article -- a thrilling feeling! I cannot thank you enough for your guidance, assistance, and patience. It really means a lot, and I hope our shared contribution will play a small part in advancing others' knowledge of education policy history. Please let me know if I can help in any way with the linking.
Take care,
Earlgrayandprose ( talk) 14:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Earlgrayandprose: I implemented your text request to link to the new article. It's fun to be a part of something that will outlive all of us! STEMinfo ( talk) 21:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Richard_Riley&oldid=1205500670"