SEB Low Flow Meter Specifications And Instructions

Maintenance & Repair

Under most applications the SEB should function for many years without requiring service. Certain electrical conditions could cause the Hall-effect sensor to fail. If this should occur, replace the sensor by unthreading it from the cap. Screw in a replacement sensor and reconnect. There is only one moving part, the propeller. This is ordinarily replaced at the factory, since the meter must be recalibrated at the time of replacement. If it is necessary to field-replace a rotor, first snap off the black sensor cover. Then remove the snap ring retaining the brass top plate. Remove the plate to expose the rotor. Reverse the process after replacing the rotor.
General Information Specifications
The SEB is a plated brass meter suited for clean water. It is available in 1/2" and 3/4" thread, with union-type meter couplings. This meter is ideal for water applications in the ranges 0.2 to 18 GPM. A 5-30 VDC square wave output makes the SEB ideal for many OEM control applications. This signal interfaces easily with programmable logic controllers and computer input boards. S-series meters can be combined with the SeaMetrics FT420 flow computer for reading flow rate and total flow, with 4-20 mA output. For metering pump pacing only, a standard feature PD10 divider is recommended. Sensor GMR Connections Materials Body Rotor Chamber Rotor Shaft Bearings Flow Range 1/2" 3/4" Accuracy Standard K Factor 1/2" 3/4" Maximum Temperature Maximum Pressure Maximum Current Cable Maximum Cable Run 5 - 30 VDC current sinking pulse 1/2", 3/4" Male NPT Nickel-plated brass Thermoplastic Thermoplastic Tungsten Carbide Sapphire, graphite 0.2 - 10 GPM 0.2 - 18 GPM 1% FS 308 Pulses per gallon 174 Pulses per gallon 185 F (85 C) 175 psi (12 bar) 20 mA #22 AWG 3-con,12' (4m) 2,000 feet (650m)

Installation

Single-jet meters are some what insensitive to upstream and downstream flow conditions. For best results, however, upstream and downstream straight pipe of five diameters is recommended. Use the union couplings included with the unit for ease of installation and service.

LT-10622-A Page 1 of 2

Features
Hall-effect 12 VDC signal interfaces easily with a wide variety of electronics
Union ends (with couplings) for easy installation and service
Compact nickel-plated body ideal for water service
Removeable top, isolated from fluid, contains electronics

Dimensions

1/2" MNPT

Dimension A

1/2" 1.56 10.0 2.7 5.1 3/4" BSP
3/4" 1.56 10.2 2.7 5.1 1" BSP

"A"

"B" 12cable length

B C D E

Meter Thread "E"

Sensor Connection

(BLACK) Power (-) (WHITE) Signal

"C"

"D"

(RED) Power (+) 5-30 VDC

How to Order Size: 1/2" 3/4"

SEB-________

-050 -075
Standard plated brass meter with 12' cable and union couplings

2 of 2

20419 80th Ave. So., Kent WA. 98035 USA Phone: 253-872-0284 Fax: 253-872-0285 www.seametrics.com 1-800-975-8153

State Government and Higher Education EDUC 872 Edward P. St. John Winter 2006 Office: Fax: Phone: E-mail: SEB 2002 (734) 647-25210 (734) 647-2013 edstjohn@umich.edu Office Hours: By Appointment Classroom: SEB 2302 Time: Thursdays, 1:00-4:00
Background States have constitutional authority for education, but there are major distinctions between the state roles in K-12 education and higher education. In K-12, states share authority for funding schools with local school districts and state boards (and legislatures) set educational policies for schools and educational standards for school children. In higher education, in contrast, states coordinate public colleges (and some states provide a coordinating role for private colleges), provide direct subsidies to public institutions, and fund college students who meet eligibility criteria for need-based and student financial aid programs. Local districts play a role in funding community colleges in some states. While the extent of institutional autonomy varies across states and for different types of institutions within states, colleges and universities have more control over academic programs and budgets than do public schools. These distinctions between the state role in K-12 and higher education are important given the new emphasis on expanding access to higher education through improvement of high school education. This course will engage students in an examination of the state role in higher education, as well as of the political and financial issues facing public colleges and universities. The state role in promoting access, equalizing education opportunity, and financing higher education is the primary focus on the course. Course Format This course will involve intensive study of the role of states in the financing and governance of higher education within the U. S. system. Students will select two (or more) states from different regions of the country to examine for systematic analysis during the course, as a means of building an individual and collective understanding of the state role. Students will become familiar with the website for the selected state higher education executive offices, completing reviews of state policy for the class as a whole.
The initial session (week 1) will focus on the overall course design and strategies for working together. The syllabus will be finalized after the first class session. The remainder of the course will be approached as five segments covering: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Organization, governance, and politics (weeks 2-3); Higher education finance at the state level (weeks 4-5); State policy on access and academic success (weeks 6-7); Desegregation and affirmative action (week 8); Study of state policies (weeks 9-12) Critical analysis of policy issues across the states (week 13-14) To build an understanding of : o State governance structures and policy agendas o The state role in the financing of higher education, influence of funding for students and institutions o The state role in promoting and improving diversity in higher education o The state role in accountability, planning and academic strategy in higher education. To build policy analysis skills, including ability to critically review theory, policy statements and other research in concise policy memos. To build skill at collaborating on research projects. To improve skills at writing research papers.

Objectives

Major Course Readings Required Heller, D. E. (Ed.), (2001). The states and public higher education: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 219-242). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. St. John, E. P. & Associates. (In Press) Education and the public interest: School reform, public finance, and access to higher education (Netherlands: Springer, Electronic copy available through Ctools). St. John, E. P., & Parsons, M. D. (Eds.). (2004). Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. See also Topical Readings (below), including required readings by course topic: Most other assigned readings are accessible through CTools Recommended Background Reading
Heller. D. E. & Marin. P. (Eds.). Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit scholarships. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project. Available on the world wide web at:
http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/meritaid/fullreport.php
Martin, R. E., (2005). Cost control, college access, and competition in higher education, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2005). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Lleras, M. P. (2004). Investing in human capital: A capital markets approach to student funding, by Miguel Palacios Lleras. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-521-82840-6. Assignments The course is structured as a collaborative research project on education policy in the states. Each student will select states (2 or more, depending on shared interests of course members) to follow through the course, using web pages for that state, along with national web pages with information on the states, to track policy changes in their states. Students will share reports on states, creating a common database for the final assignment. 1. Assignment 1: Original Position on the State Role. Consider the alternative views of policy decisions applied to states. Discuss theories of state policy in higher education, propose a preliminary research question, and develop a preliminary framework for addressing the question using data collected on the states. Counts as 10% of course grade. Due week 3. 2. Assignment 2: Study Proposal. Review the literature and prior research using state indicators and propose a study design for individual (or collaborative) research project using state indicators. Counts as 15% of course grade. Outlines and drafts encouraged. Final due week 8. Proposed schedule: revised question, draft review, and proposal outline by week 5 or 6, further revisions as needed before week 8. 3. Assignment 3: State Reports Using Framework Developed by the Class. Review of selected status, using frameworks proposed by the class. Collective draft of framework by week 7; sample state data collection by week 9; complete data collection for sample states (up to 8 or 9 for each class member) by week 11. 4. Assignment4: Problem Analysis: Individual analysis of a policy question. Question will ask for analysis of data from 50 states, to address a specific problem in one state of your choosing. Question will pertain to the policy problems discussed in class and currently facing states. Due week 12. Assignment will count as 15% of the grade. 5. Assignment5: Analysis of State Polices in a Selected Topical Area. Select a topic related to one or more of the course themes. Additional topic readings, beyond the 3

course literature, are encouraged. Develop you own framework and analysis approach (and this should build on your position statement and one or more of your interim papers). Review and the related state reports prepared by colleagues in the course (and other sources of evidence on states that relate to your topic). Consider recent directions in policy, along with possible future directions, relative to your current (original or reconstructed) position on the role of state policy. The paper can build on and integrate other analyses and position statement, if they are appropriate revised and refined. The final paper will be due at the last course meeting (or very soon thereafter) and will count as 35% of the course grade. Course Design Collaborative Research Projects: The class should function as a collaborative research team, with each course member compiling state reports for all of the class members to use in their research. The timely completion of the state reports is crucial because other students will need access to all of the state reports to complete their assignments for the course. With each course member tracking two (or more) states, the class as a whole will have a substantial number of cases for student final papers. Late Assignments: Participation and collaboration in the course is crucial to the success of classmates. Timely completion of assignments, especially state reports, is critical to the success of classmates in the course. In addition, since feedback and communication about interim reviews are an important means of enabling communication with the professor about themes and topics that might be considered in the final paper, timeliness is also important for these assignments. Late assignments will be penalized by 0.333 point on the grade (e.g. change the grade from an A to A- for an assignment that is a week late). Students must complete all assignments to complete the course. Recommended Readings: Position papers should be written as statements of understanding that present claims from theory along with interpretation and analysis of evidence. A series of books on background topics related to the course have been ordered as recommended texts. Students are encouraged to read these texts, as appropriate. Some of these texts hold critical positions, others use economic rationales, and still others take pragmatic positions. Based on the professors reading of the position statement, the professor may encourage students to read recommended texts as they think through their position in the series of position papers. Final Assignment: The final assignment is a major paper for the class. It will be possible to have these papers as individual or as collaborative assignments. It is possible to generate a publishable paper as an outcome of the course. Grading Philosophy: The course is designed to enable students to produce a high quality research paper. It is important that the required readings be referenced in the interim assignments for two reasons: 1) since there are no exams, students should use the assignments to demonstrate their understanding of the course literature; and 2) the required reading is relevant to research in the field and probably should be cited in

research that contributes to the field. Grading will be based on quality of thought and understanding of issues in the literature. Students are encouraged to develop research informed positions on the literature. However, a range of views is expected and will be respected by the professor. An informed position will be valued in grading over an ideological (and unsupported) position. Using evidence to support positions and arguments is critical in this course. CTools Access Additional readings for the course will be made available by one of two methods. A great deal of material will be available through a CTools site created for the course. All members of the class will be given access to the site, and it can be reached at the following link and accessed with your unique name and Kerberos password: https://ctools.umich.edu/portal Electronic Reserves The university library maintains an electronic reserve system where materials housed in the library in electronic form can be accessed. A link for the electronic reserves site at the library can be found on the CTools main page or you can access it through the library web pages. Course Topics and Readings (Required & Recommended) Topic 1: Course Theories and Models (weeks 2 and 3) Required (Should be referenced in position paper) Mumper, M. (2001). The paradox of college prices: Five stories with no clear lesson. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 39-63). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Hearn, J. C. 2001. Paradox of growth in federal student financial aid. In The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy and practice, edited by M. B. Paulsen and J. C. Smart. New York: Agathon Press. Parsons, M. B. (2004). Lobbying in higher education: Theory and practice. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public Funding for Higher Education: Changing Contexts and New Rationales. (231-252). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. St. John, E. P. (2004). Policy research and political decisions. In E. P. St. John & M. D. Parsons (Eds.), Public funding for higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. (231-252). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Zumeta, W. (2004). State higher education financing: Demand imperative meet structural, cyclic and political constraints. In St. John, E. P. & Parsons, M. P. Public funding for higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Recommended (Additional general readings, to supplement those noted above) Baum, S. & Payea, K. (2004). Education pays 2004: The benefits of higher education for individuals and society. Trends in Higher Education Series. www.collegeboard.com Parsons, M. D. (1997). Power and politics: Federal higher education policy making in the 1990's. Albany: State University of New York Press. St. John, E. P. (1991). A framework for reexamining state resource-management strategies in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 1991, 62(3): 263287. St. John, E. P., & Elliott, R. J. (1994). Reframing policy research: A critical examination of research on federal student aid programs. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. 10 (pp. 126-180). New York: Agathon. St. John, E. P., & Parsons, M. D. (2004). Introduction. In E. P. St. John and M D. Parsons (Eds.) Public funding for higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. (1-16) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Topic 2: State Financing of Higher Education Required Reading Week 4 Heller, D. E. (2002). State merit scholarship programs: An introduction. In D. E. Heller & P. Marin (Eds.), Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit scholarships (pp. 15-23). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project. Heller, D. E. (in press), State support of higher education: Past, present, and future. In D. Priest & E. P. St. John (Eds.), Privatization of public institutions. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Hearn, J. C., & Longanecker, D. 1985. Enrollment effects of alternative postsecondary pricing policies. Journal of Higher Education 56(5): 485-508. Hearn, J. C., & Anderson, M. S. 1995. The Minnesota financing experiment. In Rethinking tuition and student aid strategies. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 89, edited by E. P. St. John. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Required Readings Week 5 St. John, E. P., et. al. (in press). Chapter 3, Financial Access, In St. John, E. P. & Associates, Education and the public interest St. John, E. P. & Chung, A. S. Chapters 7 & 8 in Education and the public interest. Recommended (especially for students whose final papers concentrate on finance) Dynarski, S. 2000. Hope for whom: Financial aid for the middle class and its impact on college attendance. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working paper 7756. Cambridge, MA: NBER. Hansen, W. L, & Weisbrod, B.A. 1969. Benefits, costs, and finance of public higher education. Chicago: Markham Pub. Co. Heller, D. E., & Nelson Laird, T. F. (1999). Institutional need-based and non-need grants: Trends and differences among college and university sectors. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 29(3), 7-24. Hossler, D., Lund, J. P., Ramin, J. Westfall, S., and Irish, S. (1997). State funding for higher education: A Sisyphean task. Journal of Higher Education 68: 160-96. Kane, T. J. 1999. The price of admission: Rethinking how Americans pay for college. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Lingenfelter, P. E., L'Orange, H. P., Winter, S. B., & Wright, D. L. (2004). State higher education finance FY 2003. Denver, CO: State Higher Education Executive Officers. (See also more recent reports at web site,) Marin, P. (2002). Merit scholarships and the outlook for equal opportunity in higher education. In D. E. Heller & P. Marin (Eds.), Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit scholarships (pp. 109-114). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Civil Rights Project. National Association of State Budget Officers. (various years). State expenditure report. Washington, DC: Author. National Association of State Scholarship and Grant Programs. (various years). NASSGP/NASSGAP annual survey report. Deerfield, IL; Harrisburg, PA; and Albany, NY: Illinois State Scholarship Commission; Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency; and New York State Higher Education Services Corporation.
National Center for Education Statistics. 2001. Study of college costs and prices, 1988-89 to 1997-98, volume 1, NCES 2002-157. By Cunningham, A. F., Wellman, J. V., Clinedinst, M. E., Merisotis, J. P. Project Officer: Carroll, D. Washington, DC: NCES. St. John, E. P., Musoba, G. D., Simmons, A. B., & Chung, C. G. (2002). Meeting the Access Challenge: Indianas Twenty-first Century Scholars Program. New Agenda Series, vol. 4, no. 4. Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation for Education. State Higher Education Executive Officers. (2004). State tax appropriations for higher education operating expenses, fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Denver, CO: Author. Toutkoushian, R. K. (2001) Trends in revenues and expenditures for public and private higher education. In M. B. Paulsen and J. C. Smart (Eds.), The finance of higher education: Theory, research, policy & practice (545-568), New York: Agathon Press. Topic 3: Access, Accountability and Academic Strategy Required Week 6 Hearn, J. C., & Griswold, D. P. (1994). State-level centralization and policy innovation in U.S. post-secondary education. Educational evaluation and policy analysis 16(2): 161-90. St. John, E. P., Kline, K. A. & Asker, E. H. (2001). The call for public accountability: Rethinking the linkages to student outcomes. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 219-242). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Zumeta, W. (2001). Public policy and accountability in higher education: Lessons from the past and present for the new millennium. In D. E. Heller (Ed.), The states and public higher education policy: Affordability, access, and accountability (pp. 155-197). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Required Week 7 St. John, E. P. & Associates. (In press). Chapter 3, 5, 6, 9, & 10, In Education and the Public Interest. Recommended (Especially for final assignments focusing on questions related to access, accountability & academic strategy) Halstead, D. K. 1974. Statewide planning in higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 8

Jacobs, B. A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 99-122. Keller, G. 1983. Academic strategy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kirst, B. & Venezia, A., & (Eds.) (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lombardi, J. V., and Capaldi, E. D. 1996. Accountability and quality evaluation in higher education. In Struggle to survive: Funding higher education in the next century, edited by D. S. Honeyman, J. L. Wattenbarger, and K. C. Westbrook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. 2000 (annual) Measuring up 2000. The state-by-state report card for higher education. Washington, DC: Authors. (see also more recent editions). St. John, E. P. (2003). Refinancing the College Dream: Access, Equal Opportunity, and Justice for Taxpayers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. St. John, E. P. (in press). Privatization and the public interest. In D. M. Priest & E. P. St. John (Eds.). Privatization in public institutions: Implications for the public trust. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. (see CTools) St. John, E. P. & Priest, D. M. (in press). Privatization in public universities. In D. M. Priest & E. P. St. John (Eds). Privatization in public institutions: Implications for the public trust. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (see CTools) Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. (2003). Knocking at the college door: Projections of high school graduates by state, income, and race/ethnicity 1988-2018. Boulder, CO: Author. Topic 4: Diversity, Affirmative Action, and Desegregation Required Week 8 Allen, W. R., Bonous-Hammarth, M. & Suh, S. A. (2004). Who goes to college? High school context, academic preparation, the college choice process, and college attendance. In St. John, E. P. (Ed.). (2004) Improving access and college success for diverse students: Research on the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, Readings on Equal Education, vol. 20. (pp. 45-70) New York: AMS Press.
Brown, M. C., Butler, J., & Donahoo, S. (2004). Desegregation and Diversity: Finding New Ways to Meet the Challenge. In St. John, E. P., & Parsons, M. D. (Eds.). (2004). Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Conrad, C., & Weerts, D. (2004). The Mixed Legacy of Federal Involvement in Higher Education Desegregation: An Unfinished Agenda. In St. John, E. P. & Parsons, M. D. (Eds.). (2004). Public funding of higher education: Changing contexts and new rationales. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. St. John, E. P. 2002. The Access Challenge: Rethinking the Causes of the Opportunity Gap. Policy Issue Report # 2002-1. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center. St.John, E. P. (2004). Conclusions and Implications. In St. John, E. P. (Ed.). (2004) Improving access and college success for diverse students: Research on the Gates Millennium Scholarship Program, Readings on Equal Education, vol. 20. (pp. 265-282) New York: AMS Press. St. John, E. P., & Musoba, G. D. (2002). Academic access and equal opportunity: Rethinking the foundations for policy on diversity. In M. C. Brown (Ed.), Equity and access in higher education: Changing the definition of educational opportunity (pp. 171-192). Readings on Equal Education, Volume 18. New York: AMS Press. (Reprinted in: Stage, F. K., Carter, D. F., Hossler, D., & St. John, E P. (Eds.) (2003) Theoretical perspectives on college students. ASHE Reader Series. Boston: Pearson.) Recommended (Especially for final papers concentrating on diversity) Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., and Haniff, N. Z. eds. 1991. College in black and white: African American students in predominantly white and historically black public universities. Albany: State University of New York Press. Goggin, W. J. 1999. May. A merit-aware model for college admissions and affirmative action. Postsecondary Education Newsletter. The Mortenson Research Seminar on Public Policy Analysis of Opportunity for Postsecondary Education. Pp. 6-12. Heller, D. E. & Marin, P. (2002), Who should we help? The negative social consequences of merit scholarships Available at:

Kane, T. J. 1994. College entry by Blacks since 1970: The role of college costs, family background, and returns to education. The Journal of Political Economy, 102(5), 878-911.
St. John, E. P., & Hossler, D. (1998). Higher education desegregation in the postFordice legal environment: A critical-empirical perspective. In R. Fossey, (Ed.), Readings on Equal Education: Vol. 15, Race, the courts, and equal education: The limits of the law (pp.123-156). New York: AMS Press. Williams, J. B. 1997. Race discrimination in higher education. New York: Praeger.