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

"It is not tvise or justified to assume that the American public cannot afford to provide audiovisual equipment and the inaterials to use with it." We Must Consider AV Equipment Part of the School Operation Editor; You have said something worth saying even if it ma\ ruffle the feathers of many of your readers. I tried the idea out on my evening A\' class of some 35-40 teachers— found some of them receptive others aghast, and the bulk of them at neither extreme. The most common reaction, of course, was that if teachers were paid on a somewhat commensurate scale with physicians in terms of the relative time and cost of their respective educations, the idea would perhaps not be too far afield. For my own part, I question the analogy as l>eing valid— not because I think this too much to e.xpect from teachers, but rather because it is inconsistent with the responsibility of American communities for their schools. If this equipment and the materials are legitimate parts of the educational process, then, like science equipment, maps and globes, and the enc\clopaedias in the library it is important that they be provided as integral parts of the school operation. To do less is to brand them as not essential. It is not wise or justified to assume that the American public cannot afford to provide audiovisual equipment and the materials to use with it. Developments in television and the 10,000 language laboratories installed in oiuschools in recent years attest to the fact that if people feel such things to be imiwrtant, they find ways of getting and paying for them. Compared to construction costs, current e.vpenses (including teachers' salaries ) , maintenance, operation, fixed charges, and other capital outlay— alread\ accepted parts of the school budget, the cost of necessary equipment for a good audiovisual program is a minuscule part of the school dollar. I think our problem is still one of convincing the decision makers. Charles F. SchuUer, Director Audiovisual Center Michigan State University A Cultural Lag, Maybe? Editor: It may be a valid judgment to state that as a rule Education generally lags behind Industry in its adoption of new tools and technology. However, is this always due only to monetary limits set by school boards, etc.? What percentage of the teachers will put out effort conceming the adoption of these new aids when it really gets past the point of lip service? The underlying assumption suggested in your editorial seems to be that most teachers want these tools and have been refused them. Could it be possible that many teachers, Kke the carpenter continuing to use his hand saw after power saws became available, are satisfied with their present available tools? Are they successfully communicating among themselves in a unified effort regarding the acquisition of these tools? If this step is first achieved, would there not be a more open door for this "tooling up" process? Paul J. Cain Graduate Student Indiana University One Way to Avoid The Bother of Borrowing Editor: My reaction to your echtorial is somewhat embarrassing. For myself, I agree with the point of view, but it is not good for the "cause" to espouse this point of view for everyone. Over the years, I have personally acquired and use regularly such communications tools as a camera, my own 2x2 slide projector, a photo copying device, and a tape recorder. The recorder turned out to be probably my most useful personal tool investment. Having to depend upon borrowed etjuipment, equipment which is used b\ just about everybody and which frequently is "out of kQter" is not too satisfactory. Worse yet, having to de EDUC.4TIONAL ScREEN AND AUDIOVISUAL GuiDE— DECEMBER, 1962 pend upon someone to bring it to you, and perhaps to hand around and operate it before you are ready (because he has another schedule to make down the hall!) causes .strains on one's teaching enthusiasms. I guess my reaction boils down to agreeing with the principle that teachers ought to be free to use equipment the\' need when they want to use it. If the onl\ way to achieve this is to buy it themselves, then maybe this should be promoted. James W. Brown San lose State College Let's Get Down To Business! Editor: You choose to compare teachers with doctors, dentists, caipenters, mechanics, plumbers, surveyors, and draftsmen in the matter of obligatory purchase of the tools of trade. You fail to consider that practically all these except the teacher are self-employed. The investment in equipment can be expected to yield a substantial return in increased earnings because of resiilting efficiency, improved competitive position, etc. What of value might the teacher realize from such capital investments? Self satisfaction? Knowledge of a job well done? Ridiculous! It is high time the public as well as school administrators Ijegan to consider the task of educating our children as a business— a very serious one. It is time for the public, school administrators, A-V persons, and teachers themselves to begin looking upon teachers as intelligent professionals rather than as soft-hearte<l altnii.sts who will sacrifice anytliing to see that Mrs. Smith's little Johnny gets the best possible education. It is time the school system, not the teacher, began providing the tools needed to get the job done. To believe otherwise is to put oneself in the position of urging the teacher to provide better text books, better laboratoiy equipment, more modern buildings— all from his own pocket. 719