In San Francisco we have prided ourselves in equalizing educational opportunity, in keeping with the basic principle of public support of American education. Throughout the city schools class size is equal, teacher quality is equal, building facilities are equal, as is the distribution of equip ment, supplies, and supervisory help. We now realize that this is not enough to serve this basic principle. We are not equalizing. Its like this good teachers take in stride the necessity of individualizing instruction of helping those pupils in the class who need extra help. However, good teachers are frustrated in those schools of the city in which there are so many culturally handicapped children in a single class that the teacher cannot provide this extra help. This is the justification of a progam of special help that we might well call compensatory education. In this instance, a special appropriation of $100,000, known as the Superintendent's Compensatory Education Fund would enable us to attack this matter in approximately 15 of our schools. And so it began, and since then the program has been more than doubled. As it moves ahead the problem of identification of pupils deserving this extra service arises. In the discussion that follows the general characteristics of the culturally disadvantaged are described. But in the end there is one key test in the selection of schools to receive special compensatory education services,-namely, those in which there is such a mass. of culturally handicapped children the teachers cannot follow their usual practice of individualizing instruction. Extra help is called for.