5 In a statement to a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, 88th Congress, First Session. (Part 1, page 436).

6 Under a cooperative arrangement among 12 educational research organizations in as many countries.

7 An informally constituted group of educators and leading citizens brought together as a direct consequence of the National Testing Project Conference, sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation at the suggestion and request of the U.S. Commissioner of Education, Francis Keppel.

8 Harold C. Hand, "What the Criteria of Integrity Require of Instructional Innovation," Address before the 20th annual conference of the Association for Supervision in Curriculum Development, 1965 (mimeo).

9 Mimeographed statement, reporting the progress of the Exploratory Committee, April 23, 1965. 10 Unpublished manuscript, p. 24 (mimeo).

11 Benjamin S. Bloom (Editor), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Cognitive Domain: New York; Longmans, Green and Co., 1954; and David R. Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom and Bertrand B. Masia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: Effective Domain: New York; David McKay Co., Inc. 1964.

PARTNERSHIP IN
EDUCATION

Vice Chairman: TERRY SANFORD, former Governor of North Carolina
The Role of The States

Consultant: NICHOLAS A. MASTERS, Staff, Joint Committee on Organization of the Congress

Both public and private educational systems are faced with tremendous problems in meeting the American challenge to provide educational opportunity for all citizens. The technological demands of our civilization, along with the demographic problem of a rapid rise in the college-age population, make it inexcusable to waste or to utilize ineffectively all available human and material resources. The rise in the number of full-time college students, for example, in the next few years will be dramatic. According to the 1964 annual report of the Carnegie Foundation: "1965 enrollments will run something over 5,200,000; in 1980 they will exceed 10,000,000." Yet during this period the prospect is for more students and fewer teachers, and more research and less teaching. Therefore, if our educational system is to continue to fulfill its function of providing the skilled manpower we need, the intelligent and informed citizenry we require, and the avenue for upward social mobility that we demand and desire for all citizens, action must be taken now to find ways to strengthen our State governments. We cannot overlook the fact that it is our State governments that have the primary responsibility for providing educational opportunity.

A recognition of the State's primary role is implicit in the Federal programs which have been adopted. All Federal programs have taken the form of categorical grant-in-aid to our State and local governments. Despite the increasing role played by the Federal Government, those in State government cannot fall into a habit of feeling that many problems are beyond their solution and that they must wait for the Federal Government's money and plan. In his campaign for governor of North Carolina a few years ago, Terry Sanford declared: "The improvement of education is primarily a state responsibility. We cannot shove it off on the counties and cities, which too often lack the money. Neither can we do nothing, inviting the Federal Government to take over, and waiting for general Federal aid, which has been coming around the corner for at least 20 years to my own personal knowledge." When viewed nationally, the State governments have not been negligent or indifferent to these increasing demands. State outlays for education in 1964 were

the rise in expenditures in other areas has been a spectacular increase in State debt which is now somewhere near the one hundred billion dollar mark. We cannot forget, however, that we have 50 States, and not all the States meet their responsibilities in the same manner or to the same extent. As table I demonstrates, there is considerable variation in terms of State investment and State activity in the development of human capital through education:

As tables II and III reveal, there is considerable variation in terms of our State governments' ability to finance public schools and the effort they make. I'm speaking here, of course, of public elementary and secondary education. The data presented in the tables clearly indicate not only the wide variations and the potential yet to be tapped, but also the almost unbelievable scope of the effort that will be needed.

DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN CAPITAL THROUGH EDUCATION BY THE 50 STATES

Note: Effect of Migration: The educational status, liabilities and assets of a state result from its educational effectiveness and from migration. The rankings of industrial states are generally lowered by migrants who have come from states with low cost and ineffective school systems.

Note: When states have different rankings but same percent, this is due to rounding of percents.
*Median means that 50% of the people have completed more than this amount of schooling and that 50% have
completed less.

1Population 25 years old and older, 1960.

Sources of Data: Cols. 2, 4, 6, and 10 from: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1960, "Vol. II, Characteristics of the Population," 1962.

Col. 12 from: U.S. Dept. of Army, Office of Surgeon, Health in the Army, May, 1964.

Col. 8 from: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Census of Population 1960, U.S. Summary, 1962.

Also see: Rankings of the States, 1963, National Education Association, Research Report, 1963-R1.

*In column 10 "total public school revenue" includes varying and inconsistent amounts of federal funds, since methods of designating federal funds received and expended vary from state to state. This would tend to cause possible distortions in the evaluation of the "effort" made by the states. However, the average U. S. figure for revenue receipts from federal sources for the 1962-63 year is estimated at 3.6 percent of the total. This average U. S. figure has remained generally the same since 1955-56, at about 4 percent of total revenue receipts. Only Alaska, Hawaii and New Mexico were above 10 percent. Column 12 indicating non-public school enrollment is included to correct possible distortion of "effort" column. There are eight states which have a range of 21.1% to 17.9% of their total elementary and secondary school enrollments in non-public schools. While these children are not in public schools and, therefore, do not involve public tax effort, they do have to be paid for privately. Accordingly, other things being equal, the tax efforts of states with a high percentage of non-public school pupils will be lower than those with a low percentage of such pupils.

**Because of the relative purchasing power of the dollar in Alaska, dollar amounts for that state should be reduced by about one-fourth to make them roughly comparable to those of other states.

Sources of data in above table:

Cols. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11: Rankings of the States, 1964; Research Report, 1964-R1. Washington, D. C.: Research Division, National Education Association, January 1964. pp. 28, 46, 38.

Col. 12: Rankings of the States. 1963; Research Report, 1963-R1. Washington, D. C.: Research Division, National Education Association, January 1963. p. 21.

Col. 4: Digest of Educational Statistics, 1964. Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U. S. Dept. of HEW. p. 67.

Col. 6: Survey of Current Business Office of Business Economics, U. S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D. C.: Aug. 1964. p. 16; and Digest of Educational Statistics, 1963. Washington, D. C.: Office of Education, U. S. Dept. of H. p. 4.

NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS