Educational screen & audio-visual guide (c1956-1971])

In the development of audio-visual programs, as in all education, the teacher is acquiring a more dominant voice. In furthering the use of audiovisual materials as teaching tools, we know that there are proper relationships when the total acting, thinking, and feeling of the teachers are harmonious because they've been included, and because they've been permitted to participate in planning the work that they're going to be doing anyway. Yes, it's good for supervisors and directors of audio-visual programs to have the power to make decisions, and never have to use that power! The use of audio-visual materials in an enthusiastic manner will grow only as we build up on the good work already done — we can never progress by tearing down through censure and caustic criticism. The classroom teacher has a tremendously important job: the teacher is the foot soldier and the teacher is boss. The planning of the audio-visual work, from policy forming to the actual utilization of teaching tools in the classroom, should make provision for wide teacher participation. This might sometimes mean the closing of school for a half day to enable teachers to take part in system-wide planning. Many schools now have, and every school should have, an audio-visual coordinator. Actual work and need seem to indicate that a bare minimum for an audio-visual coordinator is one hour a day for every ten teachers. The teacher, too, needs time to plan for the use of teaching tools. A "swing teacher" to relieve instructors for such work is worthy of consideration. Thus the coordinator could give individual help where it is needed and wanted. Teachers could visit other teachers who are specially skilled in their use of audiovisual materials. With the great increase in student population and the demand for more and better teachers, education is plagued with complex problems. We cannot lose sight of the fact, however, that we are striving to teach all people to participate in democratic living to their utmost ability to receive and to give in return to society. As we expect teachers to include all of the students in their classes as participants, so must the administrative echelons include teachers in the active planning. We in the audio-visual field must do the same. An advisory and policy making group can well be formed out of the building coordinators and the supervisors. This committee, meeting at least once each semester, can give guidance and direction to audio-visual philosophy and utilization. Thus the teachers, through their coordinators, have "their say." 20 In the selection of films, equipment, etc., the teachers can and should be included. Text-film committees, representing the various grade levels and subject areas, can give real direction to building a film library which serves the needs of the curriculum. The directors and supervisors of the curriculum ran perform a helpful service by insisting upon text-film committees, which, through ballot, select and recommend the items for purchase. This is not fantastic — it works. In our work with classroom teachers' selection committees, we should strive to consider films with these criteria in mind: provide for critical thinking; help to form social skills: give a true picture of ideas which they present: have meaningful content; present proper age level; are simple and accurate with a suitable vocabulary. Film effectiveness is dependent on meeting the needs and interests of particular groups in terms of the curriculum. Film producers and educators should continue to collaborate in the production of aids to meet those needs as those needs are discovered in the classroom by teachers and students. Teachers know best what those needs are and how they can be met best. Yes, the classroom teacher is and should be boss. What Does an A-V Program Cost? by D. F. SCHUTTE It is almost certain that in recent years the amoimt of money spent to provide audio-visual services to our schools has been on the increase. Just how much of an increase in A-V spending is difficult to determine because of: (1) a lack of available reports on the subject, (2) a lack of uniformity in determining A-V costs. What factors should be included in determining per pupil or per teacher A-V cost? Is it possible to get any amount of standardization of these factors so as to make inter-school comparison valid and possible? Is there any value in having a detailed listing of expenditures for each item: for example, under the heading of equipment, should there be a breakdown showing type, quantity, etc.? Should films and filmstrips be classified as equipment? These are but a few of many questions that arise in determining A-V expenditures. Incidentally, the school can cut A-V costs some by lumping together purchases of equipment and supplies and buying them on a bid basis. The following analysis of the St. Louis Park Schools' A-V expenditures may be of interest to other schools wishing to make comparisons. St. Louis Park Schools consist of a junior-senior high and seven elementary schools. AUDIO-VISUAL EXPENDITURES St. Louis Park Schools, Minnesota, 1954-1955 Item Cost per pupil Cost per teacher % Item is of total Salaries: Director Secretary $ .860 .126 Student Asst. .052 Total 1.038 Film Rental: Elementary ___. .252 High School ._ .609 Total .359 A-V Equipment 359 Filmstrips 031 A-V Supplies .035 Photo Supplies _ .072 Repairs .020 Mileage and Postage... .049 Total A-V Cost : S1.963 33.59 11.60 10.22 1.00 1.12 2.34 .66 1.59 $62.12 54 9.2 9.5 16.4 1.6 1.8 3.6 1.0 2.5 100.0 Educational Screen