to add an average of $2.50 to this per pupil outlay.

This meant, nevertheless, that relatively few of the districts met the 1960 national standard for school library resources and audiovisual materials plus desirable expenditures for textbooks (aggregating $25 per pupil). Only about 11 percent could be construed as being within reach of the suggested level. Even when all funding sources were totaled, about 85 percent of the districts failed to meet this standard.

Proportion of Funds From All Sources Used for Instructional Materials Of the 10,824 reporting school districts fewer than one-fourth of one percent spent more than 10 percent of their total budgets from all sources for instructional materials other than textbooks in either period under consideration-- 1964-1965 or 1967-1968. In the case of textbooks, fewer than 1.5 percent spent more than $10 in the earlier period; in the later period, it was fewer than 1 percent.

The greatest number of districts-- 10,126 in 1964-1965 and 9,853 in 1967-1968-- reported spending 2.5 percent or less of their total resources for textbooks; for other instructional materials, 10,616 spent up to $5 in the first period, and 10,646 went that high in the second period.

(There had been no standard recommended by anyone at that time for a desirable proportion of school budget to be spent for instructional materials.) It was not until 1969 that any valid comprehensive figure was attempted. In that year, the American Association of School Librarians

and the Department of Audiovisual Instruction (DAVI) of the National Education Association (NEA) in cooperation with 28 other organizations,

39

40

produced Standards for School Media Programs.— 1/ This suggested that "to

maintain an up-to-date collection of materials" in a school media center "not less than 6 percent of the national average for per pupil operational cost" should be spent per pupil per year. NEA's Estimates of School Statistics (published annually) reported that in 1967-1968 the national average per pupil expenditure was $612. For 1967-1968, then, the 6 percent suggested minimum outlay per pupil for instructional materials should have been nearly $37. (Only about one percent of the reporting school districts were in the 6-percent range.)

Estimates of Needs for Instructional Materials

To provide adequate quantities of school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials, a majority of school districts (65 percent) indicated needs ranging up to an additional $7.00 per pupil; the remaining districts noted needs from $7.01 to more than $30.00 per pupil. Nearly 61 percent of school districts reported need for additional textbook expenditures up to $3.00. (Fewer than 7 percent of school districts reported need for more textbook expenditures above $11.00 per pupil.) The very modest need reported for funds for "other instructional materials" may be accounted for by the growth in the number of centralized school media centers and the fact that this category is excluded from title II eligibility in 23 States.

17 American Association of School Librarians and the Department of Audiovisual Instruction of the National Education Association. Standards for School Media Programs. Chicago and Washington, American Library Association and National Education Association, 1969. P. 35.

CHAPTER VII

SELECTION OF MATERIALS PURCHASED WITH TITLE II FUNDS

Selection Practices

Criteria for the selection of materials eligible in the title II program are set forth in the State plans submitted to the U.S. Office of Education, and State or local public agencies have ultimate responsibility for selection. The criteria are designed to ensure that materials are of high quality, contribute substantially to instructional programs, and meet the varying needs of pupils and teachers. Policies that shape

the selection of materials purchased under ESEA title II have varied to some extent; however, more than 64 percent of the schools surveyed reported use of standard selection tools and/or reviewing media and professional bibliographies, with teacher and curriculum personnel involvement (table 39). More than half the schools reported that they were able to review materials before ordering; the small proportion of schools selecting materials exclusively from approved State or district lists reflects the decline of

this practice.

Fewer than 4 percent of schools reported following none of the common practices--use of approved State or district lists, standard selection tools and/or reviewing media, professional bibliographies, review of material before ordering, selection by teachers and other instructional personnel--in selecting textbooks and other instructional materials.

Selection Role of Media Personnel and Teachers

The involvement of school media personnel in selection of library

42

resources purchased with title II funds was substantial (table 40). In only about 3 percent of the secondary and 6 percent of the elementary schools did they have no role or play a minor role in the selection process. Media staff in 12,168 secondary schools helped develop a collection of materials for the school media center exclusively; they worked with their counterparts in school districts in developing a collection for the district as a whole in 5,904 schools. Comparable figures for elementary schools are 19,517 and 18,706. Six percent of the media staff in elementary and 3 percent in secondary schools still played a minor role or no role at all in selection. Methods of administering other instructional materials, which are usually classroom collections, varied from school to school; however, table 40 indicates that in a limited number of schools, media staff bore some responsibility for the selection of these materials.

Classroom teachers, too, had a substantial share in the selection of library resources for the local school media center in 34,645 elementary and 15,965 secondary schools, and suggestions for developing collections of materials for the district as a whole were made by teachers in 23,309 schools. In 34,404 schools--proportionally more in secondary than in elementary--teachers systematically reviewed and examined library resources in order to evaluate them before purchase (table 41). In comparison, however, few of the schools reported the teacher role in choosing printed and audiovisual materials not circulated from the media center. It is significant that in 1,748 schools, teachers had no role or only a minor role in choosing textbooks.

CHAPTER VIII

CHANGES IN MATERIALS INFLUENCED BY TITLE ÎI AND
PRIORITY NEEDS FOR MATERIALS

Types of Materials Provided for the First Time Under ESEA Title II

Various kinds of instructional materials which were not available

to many elementary and secondary school children and teachers before 1965 became accessible for the first time under the ESEA title II program. These included newer sorts of audiovisual aids such as transparencies and 8mm film, as well as more traditional items such as maps, globes, and periodicals. (While it is true that these materials were available in some schools before 1965, it is equally true that some elementary and secondary school children still do not have access to the variety of materials required for teaching and learning.)

Transparencies have become a popular tool for many classroom teachers because of their flexibility of use, ease and economy of production, and increasing commercial availability. Title II made transparencies available for the first time in 37 percent of the elementary and secondary schools surveyed (table 42).

Filmstrips have also found wide acceptance in teaching and learning. They are used in classrooms and media centers, especially in elementary schools, and are particularly well suited to individualized study. Twentytwo percent of the schools reported that filmstrips became available to them for the first time under title II. Picture sets, tape and disc

recordings, and to lesser extents paperback books, art prints, periodicals,

and globes and maps found their way into schools for the first time by

reason of title II.