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

FOOTNOTE TO AN EDITORIAl By James D. Finn Principle Investigator NEA Technological Development Project A AM pleased that the editor of Educational Screen had so many nice things to say about the work of the Technological Development Project. Further, I apIjreciate more than I can say his desire to somehow solve the problem of inadequate capital investment in tools for American education. The solution he proposes, that teachers buy some of their own tools, is as he suggested controversial. You have to admit it is a solution, and Paul Reed is to be commended for presenting it to the educational public. At this point 1 would hke to enter a demur. I happen to think that this is the wrong solution— or perhaps a last ditch solution which admits failure. There is no question in my mind that great segments of the American public and the educational profession are ready to make this capital investment." There is even less doubt as to our capacity to afford it. The American school teacher has already subsidized 150 years of progress in this country by accepting low salaries and questionable status. The Profession should not be asked further to subsidize the education of future generations of taxpayers who will in turn expect an educational something for nothing. Rather, the Profession tlirough the state education associations, the NEA, and other professional groups such as AASA, ASCD, etc. should provide the impetus for this capital investment by beginning to push for better professional facilities. Collective bargaining and sanctions are now becoming approved methods of action for professional groups. There is no reason why collective bargaining cannot be extended to include provision of the proper tools and materials for teachers. If the Profession would organize on this basis the American school teacher would not have to subsidize the education of American children by providing the necessary tools with her own sweat. ° Footnote to a footnote: There are many exceptions of course, including the editor of a newspaper in New York who is trying to get horses to replace locomotives on the Netv Haven Railroad and keep audiovisual equipment out of schools so that the three R's may properly he engraved on slates. •TAKING OFF ON TOOLING UP must be achieved. Now then, our solution: If those who are charged with the respon-^ sibility cannot or will not provide and pay for the essential tools of communication, then teachers themselves may have to buy their own communications tools. And why not? Doctors buy their own tools. So do dentists, and surveyors, and draftsmen. And so do automobile mechanics, carpenters, and plumbers. A teacher's primary task and skill and function is to communicate and it must be his business and concern, too, tomake sure he has the bcs^and most^ efficient tools {or^^g^gjjL^f^^ards of Education Trii^^will 2«i^ ^»4chers, then tea Dr. Finn refers to the editorial appearing in the November issue of Ed Screen. If the amount of controversy aroused is any measure of an editorial's success, then Paul C. Reed's piece "Tooling Up For Take-Off" deserves a medal. Based on information included in Dr. Finn's Occasional Paper No. 6, Mr. Reed proposed a radical solution to the tooling-up lag which confronts educators today — that teachers buy their own audiovisual equipment. It is a proposal designed to incite comment and criticism, and perhaps from the smoke of controversy and cross-fire touched off, a working solution will eventually emerge. Other comments follow. 718 Educational Screen and Audiovisual Guide — December, 1962