help their own children and have some say along with the professional about how both the quality and quantity of help are to be given and under what conditions and by whom?

The demands of the minorities for some school control have been perceived as inappropriate. As already noted these minorities-Blacks, Spanish speaking, Indians and poor-were never seen as part of the "white family" power structure. They were in a real sense never regarded as being other than marginal. The demands of these minority groups are viewed in an almost irrational light. Thus, the issue is first one of legitimation, at least in the eyes of the existing educational power structure.

The majority structure is aware that adaptation is the keynote to survival when fighting with a legitimate antagonist. However, you fight longer and harder with an illegitimate antagonist and have the support of all other parts of the system that only relate to “legitimacy," no matter how dysfunctional that part of the system being attacked is. In the days of chivalry, a knight of the realm was not permitted to fight with either a commoner or an attainted knight. The fact that one had been injured unjustly did not give one the right to settle differences by a joust. The right was based upon being perceived as being the equal before the law (with the social mores supporting it) of your opponent. Such is not the case for these minority groups.

In the present educational struggle, many in the controlling camp do not perceive this need for equality on the part of the minority groups and themselves; therefore, for them, legitimation does not exist. The result is that, in their view, the grievance should be handled not by the aggrieved but by the aggressor, according to the prescribed code of chivalry of the day. This results in such statements as "We will have to work with you in doing . . ." or "We will set up programs in which parents are educated to the problems of the school" or "We will appoint someone from a community agency to be on our advisory board.”

The minorities within the inner cities of this nation have made it plain that whether or not legitimacy is granted or even won in this struggle, they will continue the fight until they have sufficient control to create an education that will help their children make it into the mainstream of our social, political and economic life. It is becoming increasingly clear that the growing economic and political power of these groups, flowing from their value to the industrial economy as workers and consumers, will force the sociopolitical power structures in control of education to legitimize their struggle in some face-saving manner and produce appropriate concessions to their demands.

RATIONALE for Change

One can therefore see that the American educational institution-never having been set up to meet the needs, let alone the demands, of these newly arising power groups would be ill equipped to meet their requests even if it wanted to. When one adds the fact that under the control of systems whose best interests could allegedly be served by reducing, if not eliminating, the rights and powers of these minorities, then the reason for slow fulfillment of minority demands becomes more obvious. When a final factor is added, the major change agents

of these various systems-be they the family, legal, social or political—have shown but limited and cautious recognition of the rights and demands of the minority groups, then the slow acceptance of the rights of these minorities is understandable on the part of the educational system.

Not to be forgotten is the fact that the members of the educational system are also members of these varied social groupings. Often they see their professions and livelihoods, as well as their power within the educational system, threatened by the actions of these minority groups directed towards the public educational system. All these factors help to explain not only the slowness of the system to change in response to the minority groups demands but also the inability of minority groups to be better organized and become part of the power structure. These groups have deliberately never been given significant entree into the halls of power, nor were they trained or given the necessary skills to aid them in their

own cause.

SUPPLEMENTARY INSTITUTIONS HAVE HISTORICAL PRECEDENCE

One should not suppose that the introduction of a supplementary system or institution is new or radical. At one time in the history of our educational system, the one-room schoolhouses dominated in various parts of the country. The community – those who could afford to — hired the teacher, told her or him what to teach, and what not to teach, determined the rules of conduct that the teacher was to abide by, and the teacher acted accordingly. In a sense, the little red schoolhouse stood as a supplementary system between the home and the community. The school and its personnel were responsible to the community. In that system, the personnel were aware of being a service to the community system and to the family units making up that wider system.

With growth came more than increased staffing, facilities and bureaucratic structure. Instead of local community norms the structure had to meet, at best, city and state norms. In time, the structure and new norms became institutionalized. The structure developed a "life" unto itself. By the nature of its size, work force and interfacing with other systems, it was no longer capable of maintaining the aims and goals of local service and local educational needs. This is, in fact, an oversimplification of the events and circumstances which led to the change in our educational system. Equally, it is an oversimplification of the aims and goals of that system, but it does highlight the critical point that supplementary institutions are not revolutionary or novel but are an aspect of our history.

NEW NEEDS AND DEMANDS REQUIRE NEW OR IMPROVED STRUCTURES

As a nation we have grown to where the generalities and broad concepts of city, state, federal and world information no longer are enough. Communities have developed to where they are both alike and highly distinct. The children and adults in these areas have very real educational needs and learning styles, requiring community-oriented remedies. Part of this is due to the fact that the poor and nonwhites who were never really fully taken into account in setting up our educational system are becoming more and more a major element of its

student makeup. These same groups are becoming needed in the economy. The educational system has failed them. As a result, they become more dependent upon the system to support and care for them; they revolt against the system since they have fewer options and power over their life styles; their value to the system is less at a time when they are needed to run the machinery and buy the goods; the system is viewed with a critical eye for the first time by critics and gatekeeper mostly from without but also from within; the performance of that educational system with regard to the white middle-class child is examined and found wanting; varied plans for correcting the condition-from improving any and all factors within the existing system to establishing alternate educational systemshave been proposed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INTERMEDIATE INSTITUTION AS AN ANSWER

Something must be done for and with children in school during this period of searching, especially those children from the inner cities of this nation who are poor, nonwhite or both. Something must be done to prevent the once again growing pressures against the school systems across the country that appear to be heading towards potential boycotting and picketing, at best, and assaults upon educational personnel and rioting, at the worst. Finally, something must be done to prevent other generations from having to go through the same type of ordeal. But how does one educate for vigilance in a democracy-vigilance that prevents some other groups from being outside the pale of the educational, economic and social mainstream which gives us our sense of citizenship and group belonging?

At the outset, it was stated that all of our cities had not reached phase three, "thrust for school control." The adoption of an intermediate institution would be a suitable solution to the demands of both parties, those outside asking for entry and those inside afraid of being put out. The intent is not to simply meet demands related to relieving the pressure or tension. The solution presented is to accomplish all three of the problems discussed here: the educational system's inability to effectively teach the poor, nonwhite; the growing antagonism and perception of the education system being illegitimate; as well as development of citizen participation in place of citizen noninvolvement and apathy.

The supplementary institution has several primary goals. First and foremost, intermediate learning institutions would have as their major objective the catalytic effect of bringing those who have been relegated to less than full educational opportunities together with the formal educational establishment. They would be brought together in the setting of neutral territory with the objective to aid the formal educational system in establishing new lines of communication with the citizens of inner-city communities. These supplementary institutions. would be established by organizations that are respected by both contending forces (the school systems and community groups) and through them and the programs and activities that take place in these institutions, legitimacy would be achieved.

Two features of such an institution have been mentioned: (1) the creation of a working, cooperative relationship between the nonwhite and poor and the

formal educational structure and (2) bringing this about without violence and with greater speed than if left to the devices of either or both protagonists. There is another objective whose primacy is not as immediate but is surely more important to the nation's shibboleths of pluralism and democracy; that objective is citizen participation-participation on the part of all citizens to the full extent of the law and with equal protection under and equal ability to utilize the law. School systems across this nation have not taught and ingrained, in the same way that they have ingrained socialization features into students, the importance of participation on the part of all children-including the poor and nonwhite. In part, this results from the fact that the forms of education given to the poor and nonwhite were of such inferior calibre that these marginal members of our social system were never able to partake of the full fruits of the American socioeconomic table. Without such, a disparity had to develop between participation and fulfillment of ambitions. The marginal man had participated once, surely the Blackman had. Although never fully accepted as a full citizen he had voted in large numbers, fought in the Revolutionary War, voted thereafter, even been courted for his vote by the Southern politician. In time, however, this too changed, for participation meant increased desire to partake of all of those fruits and to be able to sit down to the table as well. The moment in history came (and in terms of history this can be such a long period of time for those experiencing the degradation) when he had to decide whether it was more important to give up his right to vote in order to survive, i.e., in order not to be killed. The decision was to reduce participation not out of desire but out of fear in the belief that this was but a battle in a long series of battles for not just freedom but equality; ultimately they would win that war.

In the intervening period, much happened and most of it has been destructive for the nonwhite and poor. One result was the inability to any longer look back and see a relationship between participation and becoming a part of the socioeconomic power structure. And on the few occasions where this seemed possible the question was whether one had to give up too much of self for this ability to participate.

The time appears to have arrived when the forces are not equal but when there are conflicting groups of considerable power. There are rational men in all camps, and there is still an underlying belief in the democratic and pluralistic ethic on the part of the majority of these camps. If the dreams of our past, which have often been nightmarish in our present, are to have any chance of becoming dreams of glory in the waking hours of our future then the marginal man must have equal access to all parts of the system. That access must be based upon ability and the rights of citizenship. But neither his ability nor his citizenship should be tampered with so that he finds himself ill equipped and incapable of participation. That is what has been done to him in the past. That is what the formal educational system appears to be doing to his children today. That is what must not be done to him tomorrow. This is what education for citizen participation can prevent. This must be a primary goal of supplementary learning

centers.

Programs would be developed in these institutions that would inform community adults and students on the working of the educational system. Programs

would be developed that would give these participants skills and information required for evaluating, testing and participating in the vital systems affecting their lives and those of their children. These programs would be for all citizens in the school district. Through such a mechanism it becomes more and more difficult if not impossible for future groups to be placed in the marginal position with regard to the educational system. They will know too much and, it is hoped, will have become enough a part of it and have acquired sufficient gatekeeping positions to prevent closure upon themselves. More important they will have had access to the curricula and thereby access to the minds of the nation. This access will come to all member groups of the community, new and old. The intent is that the effects of programs developed in these learning centers will be fed back into the formal school system in the district. Participation in the educational process should lead to educational change.

OTHER EXPECTED OUTCOMES

The changes that are believed to be possible through supplementary learning centers relate to giving access to the educational process to all Americans, that access being one in which tracking and shuttling systems do not relegate those in power to one section of the formal system with high socioeconomic outcomes and those who are "illegitimate" power-seekers (the poor and nonwhite) to lesser sections with comparable socioeconomic outcomes. Access does not merely mean opening the door to all, it means seeing to it that all have equal opportunity to take advantage of that open door. To miseducate and then to open doors to schools and industry and then reject applicants because they are miseducated or poorly educated is not to have opened doors.

None of what has been presented touches upon the need to better understand how the human learning process works. The introduction of supplementary institutions is not perceived as being directly related to the basic research needed in this area. But for whatever we learn about the learning process and about teaching, if that knowledge is not utilized to the advantage of all children then it will become a millstone around the neck of the democratic process. To unequally distribute scientific goods to all citizens is as destructive as to unequally distribute the social and economic goods of the nation. This has been the practice towards the poor and nonwhite of the nation. Our past indicates that this has been the practice of the formal educational system as well. The introduction of supplementary institutions would make the continuation of unequal distribution of educational skills, information and services exceedingly difficult and unlikely.

These institutions would help to establish a new framework for new lines of communication. They would help to create more egalitarian ways of interacting and interfacing within the educational structure. They would help to set a tone so that we could think in terms of one day being a technological social system that is democratic and pluralistic in practice as well as in theory. Then we would be able to use the many technological and scientific achievements and discoveries for the betterment of ourselves and posterity instead of continuing the degradation of the democratic dogma.