When Title I passed, there was joy and jubilation. Educators who had spent a lifetime working with poor children stared hope in the face. Those new to education were excited about all of the possibilities. Clearly, all who were involved, whether at the federal, state, or local levels, experienced an educational peak seldom seen. It bordered on euphoria. None was more gratified than California's new Director of Compensatory Education, Wilson Riles.
The trends during the 60s were directed to a large extent by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. However, prior to the law students who were under-achieving were labeled as slow, retarded, or deprived. There was a tendency to apportion blame. Poor parents were described as victims. With the onset of Title I, educators and non-educators began to believe in parents -- their potency and power. A fundamental precept was parental involvement. Based upon the assumption that parents, regardless of economic or ethnic backgrounds, wanted the "best" for their children, an array of parent programs evolved.
Because Title I required the services to be "over and above" or supplemental to the existing program, students were taken out of class for doses of remedial mathematics and reading. Specialists and resource teachers provided small group instruction for at least one of two class periods per day. These "pull out" programs increased as funds became available.
Another significant trend was the diagnosis-prescription notion. In other words, each student was diagnosed, whether formally or informally. The instruction was predicated on the diagnosis. This modified medical model viewed student weaknesses. Their strengths were seldom part of the diagnosis.
From the standpoint of personnel, teacher aides and assistants grew like Topsy. Paraprofessionals found their way into the schools. Their duties varied, depending upon their skills and teachers perceived needs. Aides' responsibilities ranged from custodial care to teaching. One of the great benefits was the number of paraprofessionals who found their way back to school. For many, their own education not only helped them in the classroom but their lives were enriched substantially. The records are replete with paraprofessionals who graduated from high school and went on to college.
Parents became conversant with issues related to education. Their advocacy frequently challenged school administrators and teachers. There were programs which trained parents in posing the "right" questions. The fervor around parent participation had significant impact on the schools.
BATTLES AND BATTLEFIELD
Unquestionably, the primary battle was to convince decision makers to focus financial resources on poor students. Because many students from low socio-economic backgrounds were previously written off, having to include them seemed a foreign concept. The idea of spending a specified amount of money on "these children" was extremely difficult for some to internalize. It was even more difficult to practice the notion of compensating for past deficits.
Closely related to the focus on poor and under-achieving students was adherence to the rules and regulations. Various creative "approaches" to bending the rules were discovered. Far too frequently, funds found their way into general purpose expenditures. The concept of categorical funds was new. It required the kinds of specificity and accountability which were extremely exacting. Those responsible for monitoring found themselves at odds with some insistent administrators. These administrators were understandably looking at the plethora of needs of the district and school. Hence, to narrow the focus removed the flexibility to remedy real and general problems.
An often unspoken battle revolved around a disbelief that the children of the poor, the children from Black, Hispanic and Native American ethnic groups could, in fact, learn. It was almost unthinkable that they could learn on a par with middle-class children. The philosophy of compensatory education embraced the concept of most children's being endowed with intellectual potential.
Battle fatigue and burn-out were issues of the day in the 60s and 70s. Teachers were required to do more. While there was help in terms of teacher aides and teacher specialists, regular classroom teachers bore the brunt of achievement expectations. The pressure was often enormous. Teachers were not financially rewarded and frequently were ciriticized for poor achievement.
One of the primary issues had to do with the deficit mode of financing ESEA, Title I. If students achieved appreciably, funds were diverted to other needy students. After encountering this growing frustration as students slipped back, the State of California was able to impress upon the federal officials the seriousness of this issue. A modification which provided for a minimum of three years enabled students to stabilize.
This represented only one of the several ways Wilson Riles was able to influence change. Both his personality and his commitment transcended many of the potential problem areas. Perhaps one of his strongest assets was his ability to interpret an issue without attacking the person. His patient, but emphatic, manner helped the opponent to "walk a mile in someone else's shoes." Dr. Riles always expected the best. He was not suspicious or accusatory. However, once he discovered a non-believer, he forcefully expressed the goals, objectives and mandates. Riles, perhaps more than any person I know, holds no malice. This was particularly true in instances in which someone had violated the spirit and letter of the law. With a silk glove approach, he insisted upon compliance, but kept lines of communication open so as to make a believer of the person.
Dr. Riles was a persuasive speaker and during the early times of the program, a team of us traveled statewide to carry the message. It was Wilson Riles' even temper, persuasive personality and deep commitment which informed and inspired the 1,100 school districts to join in this unique reform for the "least of these."
Ruth B. Love, Ph.D.