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

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

idea of the montli Would Windowless Schools Be Better? This article is reprinted from the editorial page of the Rochester, N. Y. "Democrat and Chronicle" for April 10, 1955. L. R. Blanchard is editor of the newspaper. "We are planning the most modern of schools to serve the needs of tomorrow's children as well as today's." Sound familiar? Of course it does. It's one of the most potent selling arguments in districts where additional school facilities are needed to house an ever-growing crop of youngsters. And The Democrat and Chronicle has supported the principle of good schools for children everywhere. But we wonder whether the schools coming off the drawing boards are adequate for today, much less for the future. Isn't it possible school boards and architects are paying lip service to the future, but gearing their thinking to the nice, safe, conservative past? This is the atomic age. Yet how many school boards have written to the Civil Defense Administration asking which type of construction will withstand an atomic blast best? Surely this is a factor to consider in any future construction. STATEMENT REQUIRED BY THE ACT OF AUGUST 24, 1912, AS AMENDED BY THE ACTS OF MARCH 3, 1933, AND JULY 2, 1946 (Title 39, United States Code, Section 233) SHOWING THE OWNERSHIP, MANAGEMENT, AND CIRCULATION OF Educational Screen — The Audio-Visual Magazine, published monthly except July and August at Harrington, Illinois, for October 1, 1955. 1. The names and addresses of the publisher, editor, managing editor, and business managers are: Publisher, Marie C. Greene, 5836 Stony Island Ave., Chicago, 111.; Editor, Paul C. Reed, 116 Crosman Terrace, Rochester, N. Y.; Managing Editor, June N. Sarlt, 229 S. Marion St., Oak Park, III.; Business Manager, Josephine Hoffman Knight, 424 N. Kenilworth, Oak Park, 111. 2. The owner is: The Educational Screen, Inc., 64 E. Lake St., Chicago, 111. Marie C. Greene, 5836 Stony Island Ave., Chicago, 111.; Paul C. Reed. 116 Crosman Terrace, Rochester, N. Y.; Josephine H. Knight, 424 N. Kenilworth Ave., Oak Park, 111.; Mrs. J. J. Weber, Bay City, Tex.; M. F. Sturdy, Swift 6? Co., Chicago, 111. 3. The known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages, or other securities are: None. 4. Paragraphs 2 and 3 include, in cases where the stockholder or security holder appears upon the books of the company as trustee or in any other fiduciary relation, the name of the person or corporation for whom such trustee is acting; also the statements in the two paragraphs show the affiant's full knowledge and belief as to the circumstances and conditions under which stockholders and security holders who do not appear upon the books of the company as trustees, hold stock and securities in a capacity other than that of a bona fide owner. .JOSEPHINE H. KNIGHT Business Manager Sworn to and subscribed before me this 22nd day of September, 1955. SUZANNE BURNS, Notary Public (My commission expires Sept. 10, 1956) Isn't it cjuite possible the glassed-in, greenhouse-type of school could turn into a death trap of flying glass shards even in a non-atomic explosion? But how many school boards would dare recommend a windowless .school? Sound fantastic? It isn't. State school building requirements permit windows as small as three feet because natural lighting no longer can compete with artificial lighting for reading and other classroom purposes. In fact the window, say state experts, serves only a psychological purpose. It keeps the youngster from feeling hemmed in. The arguments for a windowless school could be both plentiful and potent. Consider, if you will, the possibility of sending your child to a school where air conditioning would keep the temperature constant all year round; where washed and sterilized air would reduce expensive, time-consuming respiratory diseases to a minimum: and where youngsters clad in trunks or shorts and halters could get their daily quota of Vitamin D from controlled infra-red ray lamps right in class. Visualize a class where the teacher does not have to lose a youngster's attention because of a passing truck; where the endless chore of regulating windows and ventilation is gone forever; and where total darkness for audio-visual education is possible at the touch of a switch. Reflect on the almost limitless possibilities of a school where health and education are wrapped in a single package. Is your district planning the construction of a huge, little-used auditorium at a cost of thousands of dollars? Couldn't that money be spent better on a small forum equipped with closed circuit television so youngsters could attend assemblies without leaving their seats? In the last analysis, isn't that big auditorium just a place to hold graduations— which could be held better outdoors, anyway? Wouldn't a small forum seating about 250 people serve most community purposes? Couldn't a gym be used for those functions attended by more than that number? The Democrat and Chronicle holds no brief for any of these ideas. It is content if they jog enough curious minds to ask — "Are we really planning our schools for our future generations? Or, are we foregoing imagination and vision to wrap ourselves in what may be the false security of yesterday's thinking?" INDEX TO ADVERTISERS Albertsen Distributing Co. 398 Alsher Films . 396 Ampro Corp 369 Bailey Films— 388 Beckley-Cardy Co.. .. . 372 Bell & Howell Co... Brandon Films -382, 383 386 Brice, Arthur T.... 396 Broadmon Press 385 Burke & James. ... 398 Comera Equipment Co 397 Cathedral Films Church Screen Productions Colburn Lob., Geo. W. Compco Corp. _ 386 397 397 399 Contemporary Films 396 Coronet Films 389 Daggett Productions, Avolon.. Disney Productions, Walt. Dowling Pictures, Pot DuKane Corp. Eastman Kodak Co Electro-Chemical Products Corp.. Fiberbilt Case Co. Focus Films Co. 388 388 398 390 373 391 396 398 Heidenkamp Noture Pictures.. Heritage Filmstrips 398 399 Hoefler Productions, Paul 390 International Film Bureau.. 399 Jam Handy Organization . 393 McGraw-Hill Text-Film Dept. — 394 Methodist Publishing House 385 Museum Extension Service ... 398 Park Films 392 Peerless Film Processing Corp. Portofilms -, ... 387 ... 399 365 RCA, Educational Services Radiant Manufacturing Corp. -. 395 Radio-Mat Slide Co, . 386 Rapid Film Technique Roo's Films -.. 392 392 Simmel-Meservey . 399 Society for Visual Education.... Southeastern Films . 37 D, 371 .. 398 5t .. 386 .. 366 .. 392 Cover Cover ,. 399 Southern California-Arizona Method! Film Commission Sylvania Electric Products.. Vee Tee Products. -Back Viewlex Inside Front 400 Educational Screen